Talk:Spanish language

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Numerals seem to be missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by PastafarianMonk (talkcontribs) 16:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The numerals are part of the page for Spanish orthography, which focuses on how the language is written. Ravenclawjedi42 (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Native to"[edit]

Since there's a small disagreement about whether or not the US should be included in the "native to" section of the infobox, I thought I'd give my thoughts. First, I think it's inappropriate to place "United States" as a whole alongside "Hispanic America" and Spain. Secondly, there are varieties of Spanish native to the US, albeit they're all endangered at best and are in regions which were once part of Spain's American colonies (ie, Hispanic America). It would be inaccurate not to mention Spanish being native to parts of the US. Maybe the infobox could say "parts of the US" (and maybe also "much of Belize"?), but I think it would be better for this article to just not have a "native to" tag in its infobox (like English language), or for the "native to" tag to include a link to Hispanophone, like what French language and Chinese language do. Erinius (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kwamikagami @Jotamar: thoughts? Erinius (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Something like 'see Hispanophones' would be fine by me. I only added the US because it is excluded from Hispanic America according to our article. — kwami (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine by me too. It is somewhat circular since Hispanophone means Spanish-speaking (so we'd be saying Spanish is native to Spain, to Hispanic America, and to the other places it's native to), but it's an accepted convention and it works for the reader. Erinius (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Erinius@ you might also want to comment on the next thread. — kwami (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Instead of Hispanic America, it would be more exact former Spanish colonies in the Americas, which includes the SW US and (I think) Belize. --Jotamar (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know much about Belizean history. Like half of its population are native Spanish speakers, but I'm not sure if Belize used to be a Spanish colony and they're descended from colonial settlers, or if part of Belize was colonized by Spain, or if they're mainly descended from immigrants from neighboring countries. I think determining where exactly Spanish (or other world languages) is natively spoken can be a tricky question in some edge cases, so I think it's best to either not have that tag or to have some kind of cop-out like "see Hispanophone" or "see geographical distribution section" after "Spain, Hispanic America/former Spanish colonies in the Americas". Erinius (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I'll accept whatever gets consensus, I just think that the current list (Spain, Hispanic America, United States) is quite misleading. --Jotamar (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"but I think it would be better for this article to just not have a "native to" tag in its infobox" I wholeheartedly agree with Erinius' suggestion of not filling the native parametre in the infobox.--Asqueladd (talk) 09:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Just drop the Native to label in the infobox. It's open to interpretation and speculation as to what it means, who it includes and who it doesn't. It's not meaningless, but unless and until a precise definition is presented (which may be overkill for this article) the meaning is so elastic that it can turn out to be either not informative or, at the very least, misleading. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, I take it we do have consensus to at least replace "United States" with "see Hispanophones" or "see geographic distribution", right? Do we have consensus to go further and remove the "native to" tag entirely? Erinius (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, myself, Barefoot, and Asqueladd have said they'd prefer to remove the "native to" tag (although I'd also be fine with "see Hispanophone" or "see Geographical distribution"), and Jotamar has said he'll go along with whatever reaches consensus, @Kwamikagami, what do you think? Erinius (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no problem with either of those suggestions. "Native to" is really intended for small languages spoken in a limited area, that people may not have heard of and can't identify. It's not meant to be a list of countries, and IMO (and in the opinions of others who have discussed this for e.g. English and French) it is not necessary or even beneficial for major languages. On the other hand, if it's not there, people may try putting it back in, so s.t. "see Hisponophonie" would be reasonable to head that off. Really, though, I think leaving it out is the easiest option. We still have the map, after all, to show where it's spoken. — kwami (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Native to" is really intended for small languages spoken in a limited area Exactly, most languages are not world languages and the infobox parameters that work for most languages don't always make sense for world languages. This discussion reminded me of the ethnicity parameter discussion on the Infobox language talk page, which I'd read a while back - your pointing out that that param was meant for smaller languages and not very widely spoken ones really informed my thinking on this. I'll go ahead and remove the param. Erinius (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spanish language map of the world mistake[edit]

In the map of the world, the color codes are incorrectly assigned as to where Spanish is spoken since they mention Peru, Bolivia an Paraguay speak the language as an "Coofficial language" which is incorrect. I am from Peru, and I know the Article 48 of the Political Constitution of Peru states: The official languages are Spanish and, in areas where they predominate, Quechua, Aymara and other aboriginal languages, according to the law. Map is not correct, and this is not the first time someone reports this mistake. I tried to make the edition but there is another user which for some reason disagrees, despite it is a fact, Spanish is official in those South American countries. LordEdurod97 (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Official alongside other languages is what "co-official" means. — kwami (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Official vs co-official[edit]

Should the map in the infobox be changed? Specifically, should Spanish count as the sole official language of Peru, or as co-official with Quechua? The same question may apply to other countries (e.g. Spain with Catalan) where Spanish is regionally co-official. — kwami (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The map should reflect reality -- co-official when co-official. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mexico's another country where Spanish is regionally co-official, and its indigenous languages alongside Spanish are all considered "national languages". The map also says Spanish is also co-official in New Mexico, but I don't think that's true. And while we're talking about fixing that map, the "official" and "co-official" shades of blue are just so similar they're hard to tell apart sometimes. Erinius (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm unclear on whether a "national language" is equivalent to an "official language". My impression from Mexico is that it's not, at least there, but I don't really know. I know that years ago Quechua was supposed to be co-official in Peru, and the Mayan languages in Guatemala, but that was rejected. The heightened position of Quechua since then might not be what was originally envisioned, so it might be closer to the situation in Mexico. AFAIK, though, Quechua and Aymara are much more important in Bolivia, as is Guarani in Paraguay. In NM, my understanding is that the constitution does not declare any language as official (just as the fed constitution doesn't declare English to be official), but the laws give special place to both English and Spanish. — kwami (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: An alternative here—just for the sake of brain-storming—is that we might expand the categories in the map. In Paraguay & Puerto Rico, Spanish is co-official for the whole region. In Perú, the Constitution makes Spanish official for the country as a whole & indigenous languages official for regions in which they are relevant. In Bolivia, Spanish & all indigenous languages are official, but everything needs to be published in at least two languages, one of which must be Spanish & one of which should be an indigenous language determined by circumstances of use. In Perú, Spanish is the official language for the state as a whole, but indigenous languages are co-official in areas where they predominate. We could group Paraguay & Puerto Rico together & distinct from Bolivia & Perú. One additional note: I don't think that Spanish has official status in Western Sahara. This should probably be the lighter shade of blue. Am I missing something there? Pathawi (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah something like that could work Erinius (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For compatibility, I think the categories should be equivalent to those of File:Detailed SVG map of the Anglophone world.svg and File:Detailed SVG map of the Francophone world.svg. If we don't show regional official languages on those maps, then IMO we shouldn't here either. For Bolivia, all languages may be locally official, but IMO the fact that all docs must be published in Spanish + something else qualifies it as co-official nationwide. So maybe color Bolivia, Paraguay and PR the same (perhaps a lighter shade than we have now, but then we should do the same to the other maps), and change Peru to dark blue like Mexico.
I don't know about NM or W.Sahara. I think the latter is for the UN-recognized govt, but don't know the facts. And indeed, I don't even know if it would qualify for light blue: does 20% of the population still speak Spanish, and which population are we taking a percentage of, the Sahrawis or the total including Moroccan immigrants? — kwami (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see the appeal of consistency, but three partially connected thoughts:
  1. These maps aren't quite the same as it stands: That for the Anglophone world is a superset of that for the Francophone world (tho the Francophone map clearly doesn't apply the 20% criterion used in the Anglophone map for the lightest shade of blue—fewer than 10% of people in Maine & Louisiana speak French at home). In an ideal situation, that means that the category 'Co-official and majority native language' is one that doesn't apply for Francophonie, but I haven't checked.
  2. But… perhaps it should only be consistent if the categories make sense. The history of Spanish colonialism is not the history of French or British colonialism. Political tendencies in South America aren't those in Africa.
  3. Finally, we use sub-national regions for the US & Canada in these maps, but nowhere else.
So a couple more developed possibility (again, just possibilities, not proposals I'm trying to advance): If we wanted to treat Spanish like English & French, Bolivia might group with Puerto Rico and Paraguay. Someone might do a little digging into the policies for the regions of Peru to determine where in the country Spanish is the sole official language (like Quebec), and where it's co-official (like New Brunswick). If we wanted to expand categories (& didn't want to do a deep dive in Peruvian regional language policy), we might say that there's a fourth category for something like 'contextually co-official' (I'm sure someone could think of a better term), which would apply to Bolivia & Peru.
I'll warrant that there isn't good data on home language for Western Sahara. The Constitution, however, clearly states in the third article that the official language is Arabic. Spanish isn't mentioned. Pathawi (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And per the Cervantes Institute,Table 2, p. 12 there are only 22k speakers with "competencia limitada", so if it's not official then there's no reason to show it at all. — kwami (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I believe Spanish should be shown as the sole official language if it's more important to the country than any other languages. If Quechua was of the same importance as or more important than Spanish to Peru, I would oppose, but Spanish is spoken natively by about 6x as many people than Quechua, so it's vastly more important that Quechua. interstatefive  00:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The legal category official applies to languages that are just that legally, regardless of relative importance (assuming importance can be defined). Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: We can also use the category of "an official language". This would serve as a superset covering the status of either the sole official language or one of several co-official languages. Senorangel (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, how would you handle Mexico and Peru? — kwami (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is an official language in Peru, no? As for Mexico, we already have comments above asking what difference there is between official versus national language. Do we also want a separate map for regional in additional to national language? Senorangel (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, Peru and Spain then. Should they be dark blue or medium blue? — kwami (talk) 03:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, you're thinking of deleting the co-official label altogether. No, this series of maps shows sole-official and co-official status, so we should do the same here. The question is how to treat countries where Spanish (or French or English etc.) are regionally co-official. — kwami (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe just keep it simple, send readers elsewhere for specifics. Something like Sole official language (Official language is obviously not sufficient in that case) and Co-official nationally or regionally. If co-official nationally doesn't actually apply anywhere, then even easier, just Co-official regionally. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm a passing RFC respondent and not particularly familiar with the considerations here, but I'm not sure if it's really necessary to distinguish official vs co-offical on the map. The fact that another language may also have official status seems incidental.
Also I'm pretty sure the colors badly fail our WP:ACCESSIBILITY standards. The visibility is notably better when I load the full size image in another browser tab, but viewing it in the infobox takes uncomfortable effort even with excellent eyesight. The official vs co-official are rather close shades of dark blue, and cultural vs grey has approximately zero luminosity contrast and quite low color distinction. Alsee (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent point about the colors -- greater contrast needed. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To my mind, the map as current is correct. Spanish is co-official in those countries, what's the problem with showing this? Boynamedsue (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding the Philippines to isoglosses of Spanish[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, folks. I'm requesting for input from editors on the English Wikipedia about the inclusion of the Philippines on Spanish linguistic maps (isoglosses), and whether or not the country should be included. --Sky Harbor (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Context follows)

Hi, folks. I'm requesting for input from editors on the English Wikipedia on a discussion I've also opened on the Spanish Wikipedia (disponible aquí para los que les gustarían participar) about the inclusion of the Philippines on Spanish linguistic maps (isoglosses).

Over the last few weeks I've been working on the Philippine Spanish article, spurred in part due to disputes both here and on Commons (available here) over whether or not the Philippines should be included on Spanish language maps. This is because although the Philippines has a recognized Spanish dialect, as attested to even by linguists who specialize in Spanish, the country does not appear on a number of maps that we use. These include the following:

I don't know what the consensus is on the English Wikipedia regarding the Philippines on Spanish language maps, but I've been told (specifically by Moalli, who I'm tagging here so they're aware that this conversation is happening) that there's an "informal consensus" somewhere that countries where there are officially recognized Spanish dialects but don't have legal status (mostly the Philippines and Western Sahara) are to be excluded from these maps. I've yet to find any evidence of this discussion here nor on the Spanish Wikipedia nor on Commons, and at any rate I would think any such consensus was made without the input of Spanish speakers from either country.

The reason why I'm opening this discussion is precisely for one reason: while I understand that Spanish no longer has official status in the Philippines, isoglosses are supposed to be representative of the language as it is used in countries where it is spoken, not carrying any political or legal connotation. Spanish in the Philippines, contrary to what people may think, is still spoken as an indigenous language (as in it's as deeply rooted as Tagalog/Filipino and English despite the current small speaker base), and our maps propagate this false idea that the language is dead in spite of what the academic record says and despite clear evidence of people still speaking it. Spanish speakers in the Philippines don't necessarily speak Castilian Spanish, and so while the article on voseo, for example, may say that Philippine Spanish doesn't have it (which is true) the map doesn't show that, producing a disconnect with the text. I think it would be more than appropriate to find ways of including the country in these maps given the distinct nature of the dialect, and I look forward to seeing how this discussion goes. --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know next to nothing about this topic area, but based on what I’ve read here I’m inclined to include, for the following reasons:
  • Languages are defined by the people who speak them, and legal recognition is something that exists for legal and bureaucratic purposes, not to be authoritative on who speaks what languages.
  • Not sure about eswiki, but on enwiki, we don’t really cite maps. The linguists are the reliable sources here, and they say the Philippines speak Spanish.
Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 23:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know anything about how prevalent or how Spanish the Spanish language is in the Philippines, but I can at least contribute this: I don't believe status as an official language should have any bearing. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Giraffedata: To add helpful context for you: Spanish is spoken nationwide but by a small minority relative to the total population (the minority is spread out, but the biggest center is in Manila) and is definitely standard Spanish. Some will confuse Philippine Spanish with Chavacano (a Spanish creole which has more "visible" speakers as it's the language of Zamboanga City, where there are also speakers of standard Spanish), but that's a completely different language. --Sky Harbor (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say include. A number of old Supreme Court cases whose decisions still take effect in the Philippines are still in Spanish. -Object404 (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Don’t include or, at least, not uncoditionally. There are undisputable clear-cut cases of Spanish-speaking countries where Spanish is the native language of the majority, and then there are border cases where Spanish has some status or is spoken without being the most used language, including the Philippines, but also parts of the U.S. I think it is important not to mix the two categories. Otherwise, we promulgate a wrong impression about the extent of Spanish. What we should do instead is something as in the following map: Obviously, when it comes to maps about linguistics features, you cannot use the colors in this way because they are already being used for the linguistic features. I think there are two solutions: Either only include the countries where Spanish is the native language of the majority, or use stripes instead of solid colors for the regions where Spanish is not the most used language (similar to the stripes that are already being used in File:Voseo-extension-real.PNG). --mach 🙈🙉🙊 09:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi, J. 'mach' wust, and thank you for your inputs.
    First, I categorically disagree with any option that excludes countries that have Spanish dialects but where it lacks official status or it is not spoken "widely" by the population. That is basically the status quo, and the very reason why we're having this discussion in the first place. The closest argument that I got to this is on the Spanish Wikipedia, where El Mono Español said that "the group of Spanish-speaking countries is relatively well-defined", never mind that these other dialects exist and the definition does, in fact, change depending on who you ask. (Case and point: last year, the Philippines was included in last year's celebrations for the Día de la Hispanidad in Madrid, alongside Equatorial Guinea which was also included for the first time.)
    Anyway, moving on. I see there being three types of maps coming out of this discussion:
    • The first type is the map that you describe above, which outlines countries where Spanish is either spoken by most people, some proportion of the population, or has some cultural or social significance. On this type of map, where the presumption is the number of people who speak the language, I would totally agree with separating countries based on the prevalence of the language as, of course, we don't want to mislead people on how many people actually speak it.
    • The second type would be maps that are supposed to be in the spirit of Variedades principales del español.png, which outlines all the Spanish dialects and varieties. Linguistic maps like the map for voseo that you cited earlier should be based on this type of map since, as I mentioned earlier, they're supposed to document the language as it is spoken in that country and as noted by linguists, regardless of how many people speak it. The U.S. doesn't have a recognized nationwide Spanish dialect, or at least not yet save for New Mexican and Isleño Spanish, but the Philippines does have a single recognized, national-level dialect that is relatively uniform. I would get the use of stripes for areas where there is divergence from the national standard (for example, in the case of Chavacano, which exhibits voseo whereas standard Philippine Spanish does not), but when we're discussing linguistic features I would think it prudent to disassociate from population figures.
    • The third type technically doesn't apply to the English Wikipedia, but it does on the Spanish Wikipedia. These would be maps which document popular use of the language, similar to El Mono Español's map of countries based on how they call a watermelon in Spanish. For this type of map, I would wholeheartedly agree with using stripes or, in this case, dot patterns to denote that the language isn't widely spoken, but should you encounter people who speak the language this is normally how they say it. (Caveat in case people misread me: I'm seeking a separate consensus there for these types of maps, so whatever we decide here will not apply there and vice-versa.)
    That said, I'm open to whatever solution we can get out of this discussion. If, let's say, we find a way to incorporate the Philippines on linguistic maps that doesn't mislead people and at least looks pretty, then I'd be all for it. The only solution I will categorically be opposed to is, as I said earlier, a total exclusion of the country from these maps. --Sky Harbor (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it should be taken on a case-by-case basis. In the three examples that you provide, I think it's perfectly valid to include the Philippines as long as it's Philippine Spanish being referenced and not the Philippine languages, including the Spanish-based creoles spoken there; as you may have likely noticed, on the internet people seem to conflate Spanish and Chavacano within the Philippine context.
For the castellano/español isogloss map, a part of me wonders if it would be useful/relevant if the usage of Tagalog kastila and Cebuano katsila were represented in spite of español being used in Philippine Spanish. But then again, those are different languages and would more than likely be more appropriate on a different isogloss map for languages across the world. --Chris S. (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Christopher Sundita: I have noticed that and this is actually addressed in the article. Lipski in particular has noted how other linguists have conflated the two as if a dialect of actual Spanish doesn't exist, so I too would want to exercise caution and not treat these maps as if we're talking about Tagalog/Filipino, Cebuano, Chavacano, etc.
As for the map of names, I do occasionally still hear people call the language castellano; I'll check Quilis and Casado-Fresnillo again to see if they asked this question in the course of their research into Philippine Spanish. Constitutionally speaking, the language is still called castellano so I do bear that in mind, but from what I've seen español seems to be more common? That said, you're the linguist, not me, so I trust your expertise on the matter. --Sky Harbor (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my experience, when speaking Spanish, Filipinos usually have preferred español. I only ever hear castellano from South Americans. But take my anecdote with a grain of salt as my experience with Spanish is mainly outside of the Philippines and don't have much expertise on this subject. --Chris S. (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I managed to check the online preview of Quilis and Casado-Fresnillo and according to them, 85% of the speakers they studied used español to refer to the language , while 15% used castellano to do so. Will add this to the relevant pages. --Sky Harbor (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tagging other users who were involved in "rescuing" the Philippine Spanish article to keep this discussion moving along: Jotamar, MarkH21, Austronesier and Makisig Chua. --Sky Harbor (talk) 09:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.