Talk:Maltese language

	WikiProject Malta      (Rated Start-Class)
	Malta portal Maltese language is within the scope of WikiProject Malta, a collaborative effort to write and enhance articles related to Malta. You can participate by visiting the Project page, getting involved, and helping to get the project started. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

	WikiProject Languages      (Rated Start-Class)
	Language portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Archives

April 2005-May 2008

[edit] Message board

• Hi! Please consider visiting the Wikipedia:Malta-related topics notice board. (should this be in a little box or something?) Srl 05:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Romance and English "grammar" sections

Pluralization of borrowed nouns is not a part of "grammar". It is lexicology. These two sections should not be called "grammar", but "Romance lexical patterns" and "English lexical patterns". Now, if there are verb paradigms that have been borrowed from English or Italian, or syntactic patterns, that is grammar, or if the English/Romance plural markers are used on words of Arabic origin, that would qualify as grammar. As is, there is no grammar discussed in these two sections. Borrowed verbs use Arabic morphology, no surprise here since borrowed French verbs use English morphology in English. It is also not uncommon in languages for borrowed words to carry their old plural markers with them, compare English cactus-cacti, cherub-cherubim, datum-data, etc. But this is not English grammar, it is English lexicology. (Taivo (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

Question: Should we split the Lexicology section from the Grammer?

(Refer to Other Comments for further description)

Gian (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support (5)

• Support - Automatic support by suggester: User:Taivo
• Support - agree --Gian (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - for reasons below. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - sounds good. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support Comment - Lexicology is somewhat of an unusual name for a section. Why not make a subsection for either Nouns or Pluralization under grammar? I realize that there is not much of a grammar in the article besides the pluralization patterns, so I can also appreciate the rationale behind renaming it to something else. — Zerida ☥ 23:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose (1)

• I disagree. Taking the Wikipedia articles on Morphology and Lexicology as a convenient reference, morphology is the study of the internal structure of words, while lexicology is the study of words as units of the lexicon. Grammar is not always historically monolithic -- it can have layers. So just because some of the plural morphology found in Maltese was borrowed from English or Romance along with the nouns themselves, that doesn't mean it's not morphology. (Some languages do have suppletive plural forms, and those would sensibly be handled lexicologically.) Morphology is clearly part of grammar, so I believe that all non-suppletive pluralization schemes in the language should be handled together in the grammar section. --Mpline (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other Comments

Now you mention it, yes, I believe you're right. I think the lexicology section should be split off from the grammar section: possibly to give us an order in the article of:

• Vocabulary
• Grammar
• Lexicology

What do people think? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Lexicology is a different thing to grammar, so I would think yes. What order should the three points appear in? I propose the suggested way above, since vocabulary is quite possibly the most apparent feature of a language, followed by grammar, and then, lexicology.MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, lexicology is part of vocabulary. Just as in an English dictionary exceptional pluralization patterns are marked in the dictionary entry, so too the two should not be separated here. The "Vocabulary" section should be renamed "Lexicon" (a good technical term) and then the two subsections, "English lexical patterns" and "Romance lexical patterns" inserted after the discussion of borrowed vocabulary. (Taivo (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

I think this makes more sense. — Zerida ☥ 01:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I will just add a couple other comments just so everything is clear. "Grammar" consists of those rules of language which are pretty much automatically applied. So the "grammar" of English pluralization is "Add -s to the end of the noun". The "lexical" part of English pluralization is "Many borrowed Latin words keep their Latin plurals--datum/data, cactus/cacti. Some other borrowed words also keep their plurals, although these can also be pluralized by -s--cherub/cherubim or cherubs." Under grammar here, you would write the native Maltese plural method (whatever the inherited plural marker is for nearly all common nouns). Then you write under "Lexicon" something like "Words borrowed from English often retain the English plural marking of -s. Words borrowed from Italian retain an Italian plural marker of -i" (of course, that is just a sample and overly simplified, but you get the picture). You separate what is predictable (put it under "Grammar") from what is not predictable (put it under "Lexicon"). In this way, you don't even have to mention that Romance verbs take Arabic morphology because ALL verbs take the same morphology, whether borrowed from Romance or not. I know it's a technical distinction, but it is an important distinction within the science of Linguistics. (Taivo (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

Could you give us a preview of what your ideas on structuring it are, Taivo? :) MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Occam's Razor = "Do not needlessly multiply entities". I shortened the whole discussion of plurals and made one paragraph on plural marking within the grammar section including lexicological information. Same goes for incorporating a note about Romance verbs in the verb paragraph. Another note, it is NOT "Romantic", but "Romance" when referring to the language group. (Taivo (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Media

According to this section it says that us maltese have a large coverage of italian radio. I'm wondering what frequencies they are on cause i only hear maltese and english on the radio. I think you got mixed up with italian tv. Besides most shows are in maltese.

Personally I think we need to re-write the whole section and wikify it and by all means try to avoid percentages since they are not encyclopedic material.

Gian (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The reference given appears to back up what the text says, so I don't think the content should be removed. I agree that perhaps a rewrite of the section is needed, but the percentages are useful statistics, and if written in, in the right way, could contribute a useful part to the section. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the reference is certainly wrong and not a reliable source. I only get these Radio Stations here in Attard. Most of them are all Maltese and English especially the political ones. 92.7 and 101.0. (Since we Maltese switch a lot back and forth from English to Maltese]] . A few are 24 hrs English like Malta's Magic (91.7). The percentages you have there are certainly are wrong. Fair enough if you want to have percentages but let me remind you that it is the same thing like saying 40% of Maltese is semitic. In an encyclopedia you only have accurate facts. Percentages change from time to time and are inaccurate. So i don't think that percentages are encyclopedic material. Besides that said how could 25.6% listen to Italian radio if we don't get it here? (we only get Italian TV):S:S. --Gian (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can only go on what our sources tell us - otherwise it becomes OR. Perhaps you could find some references? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to look for some references later. However until then Assume Good Faith in my remark. I have an advantage over you because i reside in Malta and can confirm things for you. Now, if you don't want to listen to me. I can't do anything ey. However i guess you should listen to me and look for a better source.--Gian (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Gian, this doesn't involve AGF. I am assuming good faith, in the sense that I acknowledge you are not doing it to vandalize. However, policy is that if something is stated, it must be referenced - meaning my view on whether or not it is true is irrelevant. Let me put it this way:

• Wikipedia cannot say the sky is blue, unless it has a reference.

but at the same time

• If wikipedia finds a reliable reference saying the sky can be considered green, then it is true.

It may sound strange, but that's the way it works. Also, since there is one source which says that Italian radio stations are picked up by Malta, there will still be some mention of this in the article, even if you find a reference which does not mention it, as in order to achieve a NPOV, all views from all the relevant reliable sources must be included. See? :) MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for intruding and possibly throwing a firecracker on the fire, but who cares if Italian radio stations are received in Malta? Mexican radio stations are received in South Texas and French Canadian radio stations are received in Maine. So what? This article is NOT about Italian or English, it is about MALTESE. Let's take everything out of here about how Maltese people are multilingual and put it in the article about Maltese people. This article is about the Maltese LANGUAGE, not the Italian or English languages or the use of Italian and English on Malta, that material belongs in the article on MALTA, NOT in the article on the Maltese language. (Taivo (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

I would say just move it accross to Languages of Malta. However, I think the information is still useful in this article because since the article is about the Maltese language, the section comments on how much of the media uses Maltese language, and a simple explanation of how the rest that is not in Maltese, is in English and Italian, is entirely relevant. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

But your comment above mine says nothing about the media in Malta, but about "Italian radio stations...picked up [in] Malta". That's not really relevant any more than an article on American English need mention that Spanish radio stations are picked up in South Texas. The airwaves respect no border. Now, if you want to talk about radio stations IN Malta that broadcast in Italian, then I would see the relevance, but the Poles can pick up Ukrainian radio stations, too. If you want to focus on media in Malta, then do so, but keep Italian radio stations broadcasting from Italy out of it--it's not relevant. (Taivo (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

Nothing that isn't about the Maltese language is relevant in the article on the Maltese language. I understand the nature of the reasoning in the other direction, but it's like saying, well, B isn't A but it's next to A so it's relevant in an article on B; and, well, C is similarly relevant since it's next to B; and so on until the article mentions every letter up to and including Z. The fact that some Maltese listen to Italian radio stations, whether the stations are in Italy or in Malta, is information about Maltese people and, if they are in Malta, about Malta, but not about the Maltese language. The contrary argument, if reproduced for other languages, would lead to the article on the English language mentioning every language listened to on broadcast radio by people in the UK, the US, Canada, South Africa, Australia, India, etc. I understand that for narrowly spoken languages from small countries there's a tendency to conflate the country, the people, and the language, but they are still not all the same thing, and the very fact that there IS a separate article for the Maltese language is consistent with that distinction and begs for it to be maintained. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you're saying; in my oppinion, I would still say that since the percentages are so large, it warrents some mention, don't you agree? But anyway, is there a re-write anyone would care to suggest? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't agree, since percentages have nothing to do with it. 100% of the people in Malta eat, but there isn't any reason in an article about the Maltese language to comment on the eating habits of the Maltese people. I don't understand why you're so keen on having material that isn't about the Maltese language in the article on the Maltese language, especially when it's perfectly clear that there are articles where it is on-topic. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My goodness, you've got some odd analogies Largo Plazo. How about this:

Media

Main article: languages of Malta

With Malta being a multilingual country, the usage of Maltese in the mass media is shared with other European languages, namely English and Italian. The majority of television stations broadcast in English or Maltese. Similarly, there are more Maltese-language radio programs than English ones broadcast from Malta (television and radio broadcasts from Italy can be picked up as well). There are an equal number of newspaper periodicals published in English and Maltese.^[18]

We can expand the "media" section into a fuller "sociolinguistic situation" one. The percentages can go to languages of Malta as they have more to do with "preference" rather than usage. The internet section should also be reworded, though I'd have to give more thought as to how. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of an analogy is to illustrate a point that evidently isn't clear to someone else by posing a situation that is comparable (in ways pertinent to the discussion) where the point is more obvious. Excuse me if that makes my analogies "strange", but sometimes I think the only analogy that people stuck to their stance in a discussion will accept is the useless one, A is to B as A is to B, being prepared to find the slightest disparity between A and C or between B and D in an analogy of the form A is to B as C is to D and to pick it apart—disregarding the irrelevance of that disparity to the point the analogy was produced to illustrate. Besides, in the case of my analogy, can you tell me what so strange about comparing "eating habits" to "radio stations listened to"? —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The A to B to Z is a classic example of slippery slope fallacy and a binary yes/no statistic on eating habits is absurd and non-notable because everybody eats. I hope you don't feel like I'm picking on you. I've come up with some pretty awful analogies myself; I once compared inexperienced writers to polar bears. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I chose the A, B, C analogy for that reason. The article about Maltese language is about a language. Italian is a language; one place where language is used is the radio; some people who are Maltese listen to Italian on the radio. I explicitly chose that analogy to illustrate how much of a stretch is involved in deeming Maltese people listening to Italian on the radio relevant to an article on the Maltese language: it's relevant only in the same way that Z is relevant to A. As for notability: notability wasn't under discussion here, relevance was. If you prefer notability, substitute any notable passion shared by some large percentage of Maltese for eating. "95% of Maltese fly kites on May Day," for example: even if it were true, it still wouldn't belong in this article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither the eating, nor the kite analogies, have anything to do with language, so in effect, are not an accurate portrayal. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither does radio. Oh, yeah, one hears language on the radio. People also converse over dinner. And in this case the language is Italian—so it has nothing to do with Maltese. Simply stated, "Maltese people listen Italian on the radio" is not information about the Maltese language. It can't be put any plainer than that. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a well-written rewrite. I think the current section in its current state should be moved over to Languages of Malta (at least, the sections that are not already there). Also, the rewrite includes one part in parenthesis; my views on the parenthisization itself are unclear, but I do not agree with the contexted placing of the content within it, as it gives the connotation it is assimilated with the radio programs section, although it bares reference to the television one too. What do people think of this slight rewrite of your modfication?:

Media

Main article: languages of Malta

With Malta being a multilingual country, the usage of Maltese in the mass media is shared with other European languages, namely English and Italian. The majority of television stations broadcasted from Malta are in English or Maltese, although emissions from Italy in Italian are also received on the islands. Similarly, there are more Maltese language radio programs than English ones broadcast from Malta, but again, as with television, Italian broadcasts are also picked up. Maltese generally receives equal usage in newspaper periodicals to English.^[18]

MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That looks good, though I think instead of "emissions" we might want to say "broadcasts." — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ordinary section-name followed by Main article: article-title implies that article-title is an expanded treatment of section-name. In this case, "Language of Malta" isn't an expanded treatment of Maltese media. It may contain such a treatment in a section of its own, but the "Main article" treatment is misleading. Is there a template for "Treated more fully in [[article-name]]"? —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes that did pass through my mind, but what I am presuming is that when the current section is moved across to form another section in Languages of Malta, the "main article" section here, will link to the sub-heading of the "media" section (that we will make there, from the current one here) in the languages of malta page, so it will be something like

Main article: Languages of Malta#Media

, if that makes sense? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sort of, except that "main article" still implies the article itself is the expansion, not a section of the article, even if the link leads to the section. That's why I'd really prefer a "fuller discussion" link of some kind. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could use a sub section "see also" to link to the Languages of Malta#Media, which would be more relevant than the "Main" template. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, of course. Perfect. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, look at what happens to the discussion after I go to bed ;) I think the rewrite is good. While the article is "Maltese language", as with all languages with few speakers some sociolinguistic information is appropriate. The rewrite is concise and clear--perfect encyclopedic content. Well done. (Taivo (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

Shall it be done? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You're serious??? i don't get what the proposal is about let alone voting. Regarding Languages of Malta if you're going to edit something over there.. comment on the appropriate talk page not over here.. its already difficult for me to follow the discussion.. :S:S Besides why are there two subsections titled the same.. media etc.. ?? Man this page got out of hand. --Gian (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Why are we voting on everything? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The votes are not a "final decision", since wikipedia does not use polls to make decisions; it uses consensus. However, the votes help us get a summary of whether or not there is a consensus. Hope that helps. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is commonly formed by editing pages on the wiki. The process goes through repeated iterations. The sum of edits by successive editors leads to improvements to the page.

What's wrong with the standard method of determining consensus? (see flowchart to the right). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Because we tend to disscuss major changes first, without actually doing them, until consensus is reached. That other method involves actually modifying the project page first, and then other people reverting if they disagree, etc, etc, etc, until we end up with various edit wars. The best thing, I think, for a situation like this, is to disscuss it, and count up whether there appears to be consensus for the suggested changes. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I suppose I can't argue against measures to ensure clear consensus. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

So what are people's views on the rewrite? Should it go in or not? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I would like to add that a vote being won does not necessarily mean "consensus". If, for example, 6 vote for something, and 5 against, the fact that there is one more vote for, does not make a difference, as there is not clear "consensus" either way, and as forth, a discussion should then ensue as to what conclusions can keep both sides happy. When wikipedia discourages voting, what it means is that votes should not be taken as "consensus", and should only be used alongside discussion - not in place of it. However, wikipedia fully encourages the voting system (see page) to get a summary of what the current views are on the discussion - which is exactly what we are doing. Just thought I'd clear some things up for people. ;) Basically, to summarize, votes are fine, as long as the answer is not considered "final", but just an "indication". MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, but even one disagreement may show a lack of consensus. Take a look at WP:SILENCE. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry i wasn't here to comment but i was quite busy.. just got back from my Maltese A-Level.. was easy :P Aeusoes1 wants to go by the book on everything. I don't see why...Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. I think you're wasting your time.. and ours trying to pinpoint all the policies of wikipedia.. From my perspective i find this page very misinforming. Some things are totally the opposite to what I've learned but i can't do anything since to prove myself i have to cite sources and that's very difficult..--Gian (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we delete this section now.. i really don't know what it has to do with the maltese language discussion and i'm rather confused with this mess.. --Gian (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The section titled "media" was in need of alteration. It's already been changed and we were just making sure nobody opposed. WP:IAR is only appropriate when the rules are getting in the way of the project's goals. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraph

[edit] Proposal

Where it says this:

"Maltese is generally accepted to be descended from Siculo-Arabic, the Arabic dialects that developed in Sicily and the rest of Southern Italy, but a few sources also claim it was from Tunisian or Maghrebi Arabic[3][4][5], with substantial borrowing from other languages such as Sicilian and Italian; a connection to the ancient Punic language has been discredited.[6]"

I don't think this is such a great passage to be honest. It seems to be suggesting that the very first foundations of the Maltese language are from Siculo-Arabic. This is not true. The very first linguistic base of the language was the Indo-European language brought over by the Sicani tribe. Siculo-Arabic was then superimposed on top of it, (it did not wipe out the already existing language and start afresh, as the current article would appear to suggest). Basically, the text needs to summarise how the language exists from the superimposition of Siculo-Arabic on the already existing Indo-European language spoken by the natives, and then (as the article already says) how Romance influences were later installed. What are people's views on this? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Isn't the origin of Maltese a disputed topic amongst scholars? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Some dispute that Maltese was influenced by Tunisian Arabic rather than Siculo-Arabic, althought those stating that are in the minority. But that's off the point, as it's not what I am arguing. I think it is safe to say that basically all groups accept that the language was not formed from just the Arabic dialect (whatever dialect you state that to be) without keeping any of its earlier influence - the language brought over by the Sicani people was originally an Indo-European language, and the Arabic dialect was superimposed on it - it did not wipe it out and start completely again. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that Maltese is not descended from Classical/ninth century Arabic? My understanding is that it is, that it is not wildly more different from it than other nonstandard varieties of Arabic, and that it isn't considered a dialect of Arabic mostly for cultural and historical reasons. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

One can say the same about many other languages, including other varieties of Arabic. English was "superimposed" on Irish resulting in noticeable Irish influences on Hiberno-English; Arabic's contact with Berber in Morocco resulted in Moroccan Arabic; Gaulish and Latin into French, etc. This is not a unique property of Maltese. It simply suggests that Maltese, like most Arabic varieties, has substratal influences from the indigenous languages of those regions. — Zerida ☥ 23:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Gaulish is a substrate of French, but the opening section of the French language page does mention both Gaulish, Latin, and even Germanic influences; I see no reason why the original substrate of Maltese should be left out on this article.

In response to Aeusoes, no I'm not saying that - but that the current wording seems to suggest that the language started off with only Arabic - which is not true. The text, like other language pages, needs to show that the foundations of the language were not just "Arabic", but consist of an Arabic Dialect (Siculo-Arabic) superimposed onto an already pre-existing Indo-European language brought over by the Sicani tribe. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see what you're saying, but I don't know if that's correct either. Aren't most of the features attributable to Indo-European influence thought to have occurred after Arab rule ended? History of Malta seems to see it that way. What does scholarship say? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 09:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This reference is frequently used to indicate about the Sicani tribe. The final result of Maltese gave us a situation in which, yes, the majority of the Indo-European influence was the post-Arabic influx of romance, but that does not mean that because it is the majority, that the earlier instance of the Indo-European influence should not be mentioned. Unless someone is suggesting that the original people who came over to the island did not have any language? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You must be very careful about talking about "substrates". This term has a technical usage in linguistics that does not apply here. There is no more "Sicanii" linguistic influence on Maltese than there is Celtic influence on English, that is, virtually none. There is more Gaulish and Frankish influence on French than there is either Celtic or Sicanii influence on either English or Maltese, respectively. (Taivo (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC))

The language spoken by the natives was not "wiped out" during the Arab rule. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So when did it go extinct? (Taivo (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC))

There wasn't a "point" where it stopped existing. It simply became mixed into the Maltese language as the Arabic was laid on top of it. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to clarify that I don't know myself whether Maltese contains a substrate or not, though I'd be surprised if it didn't. Essentially all the spoken varieties of Arabic do with the obvious exception of the Saudi/Bedouin dialects. If Maltese is part of the Maghreb Arabic continuum, then already we know that it has indirect Berber influences. — Zerida ☥ 18:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Maltese is NOT a "mixed language"--it is a variety of Arabic. There WAS a point when the previous inhabitants of Malta stopped speaking their earlier language and switched to Arabic. They surely did speak Arabic with "a Maltese accent" meaning that they carried over some small amount of phonological and lexical residue, but the previous language CEASED TO EXIST. It was NOT mixed into Arabic to form Maltese. Arabic was not "laid on top of it", Arabic REPLACED it. (Taivo (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC))

Sorry to disagree, but no, it was superimposed on it; it did not wipe it out and start again - otherwise, after the Arabs left, Malta would have spoken "pure" Arabic, which as we know, they did not. That is not to say that Maltese is not classifiably Arabic - it is - but the small foundations that it used first of all need to be mentioned. And yup, you're right Zerida, many varieties of Arabic do, but that does not mean this one should not be mentioned. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Taivo can you tell me from where you got this data regarding maltese is not a mixed language.. hahaha.. its exactly my essay question that i got for the my A-Level.. Il-Malti Lsien Imħallat which means Maltese a mixed language. I know what you're talking about. You're talking about Al Himyari report. Look i'm going to quote something from my Linguistics book that i studied. I'm going to translate everything in english so you can understand.. The essay that i took these two paragraphs from is written by Ġorġ Farrugia, a Maltese scholar.

In the year 870 our islands were conquered by the Arabs. Politically and socially speaking we don't know much about this period, we don't know exactly what type of relations these people established with the Maltese. However, linguistically the Arabs were the conquerers that influenced our language. The biggest evidence of this is our language. Today Arabic is seen as the pillar of our language. These new conquerers from the tribe of "Aglabiti" (not sure what this translates to in English :S) from North Africa used to talk a variety of arabic that was already mixed in itself. This means that their language wasn't classical Arab however an arab that resembles the arab spoken in the maghrebi countries like Tunisia. This type of arabic had already started to differ from its mother language from the forms of the verbs and many more. However a few years ago it was found in an old arab document written by Al-Himyari that according to him the "Aglabiti" Arabs (again i don't know what this word translates to) from Sicily invaded Malta in the year 868/869 and wiped out the whole population of Malta. According to this document in 1048/49 the Muslims came back to Malta and in habitat the island. If this is true, it looks like that the islands weren't in habitat for around one hundred and eighty years and that's why when the Arabs of Sicily came back to Malta, the new language they got back with them was Sicilian-Arabic, a language that was different from the arabic spoken in the maghrebi countries (the language that the arabs used that invaded Malta in the 19th Language). If this document is trustworthy we can say that the Semitic element in Maltese that as we already said is the pillar of our language is in fact a variety of arabic mixed with the romance (sicilian) already .

This is only a small quote .. but as you may see the author is quite skeptical of the report. That said its a matter of faith.. We have no prove whatsoever that this document is genuine or not.. and is disputed amongst scholars. I hope this helps you lot.. :)--Gian (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Aglabiti means Tunisian.. i found it in my notes. cheers --Gian (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quotes there Gian. :) Yup, the Arabic brought over was Siculo-Arabic, a dialect of Arabic that developed on the Kingdom of Sicily. But the native Maltese population wasn't wiped out in any sense; in fact, in 1224, the Arabs were all expelled from Malta, but if it was true that the natives were wiped out and only Arabs lived there, then there wouldn't have been anyone living there, which we know not to be true. Thanks lots Gian. :P MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at the source you linked to, Magde, and I see nothing about language. What you're proposing is basically OR speculation. We need sources for it, even if it seems obvious to you. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

We do not need a source that says "they brought over an indo-european language", because there are sources which show they spoke an indo-european language, and there are sources which show they were the first settlers on Malta - and combining the sources, one gets the combined sourced information. Unless, as I said before, you are perhaps suggesting the people who came over did not bring their language? and that the first settlers on Malta used grunts?? ;) MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I can't break the list of claims down:

1. Malta was inhabited before the Arab conquest
2. These inhabitants spoke a language
3. Arabs brought their language with them when they took over Malta
4. The population did not learn Arabic but instead spoke a mixed language with an Indo-European substrate and an Arabic superstrate
5. The Maltese language is different from the variety of Arabic that came to the island

Sourcing for 1, 3, and 5 is present. 2 is obvious and certainly doesn't need a source. 4 is unsourced. You cannot assume that because of 2, 3, and 5 that 4 must be true (is also likely to be incorrect and would constitute OR by synthesis). 5 could be because of natural language evolution or skewed learning of Arabic by the native population, neither of which would justify calling Maltese a language of mixed origin. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should be calling it "mixed". I am saying the article should mention how it is not just "siculo-arabic", but is more complex than that, with siculo-arabic imposed over an already pre-existing Indo-European structure that was largely displaced by the Siculo-Arabic, but was not "removed", meaning the resulting language, although Arabic, had other roots too. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What you're describing is a language of mixed origin. You're presuming a notable substrate language without any evidence. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As said before by another, the long quote says NOTHING about language. I never said that the previous inhabitants were wiped out by the Arabs. I said that they LEARNED Arabic and STOPPED speaking their previous language. Their genetic material survives in Malta to this day, but their LANGUAGE is completely gone. Look at North Africa. The inhabitants of North Africa are genetically Berber, Punic, and Arabic, but linguistically Arabic. People learn to speak the language of their conquerors. This is the way language works. Look at Ireland. They are genetically Celtic, but linguistically Germanic (excluding the small Irish-speaking regions). You don't have to kill people in order to kill their language. In the U.S. there are millions of Native Americans, but only a few thousand of them still speak their native tongue. Maltese is NOT a mixed language. "Mixed language" has a VERY specific linguistic definition which Maltese does not even come close to meeting. (Taivo (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

Maltese is not a mixed language and no linguist even briefly suggests that it is. Read the article on Mixed language and you will clearly see that Maltese does not fit this definition. When the Arabs took control of the island, the original inhabitants learned to speak Arabic (doesn't matter for my point whether it was Siculo-Arabic or Maghrebi Arabic). A few features of their previous language crept into the variety of Arabic spoken on Malta, but, by and large, the Sicanii language became EXTINCT--children no longer learned it as a first language. When the Arabs left, no one remembered the "old language". The language of Malta from then on was a variety of Arabic with little or no trace of the previous language. You cannot use the word "substrate" because it has a technical linguistic usage which Sicanii fails to meet. The situation between Sicanii and Arabic is nearly identical to the situation between British Celtic and Anglo-Saxon--virtually zero influence. (Taivo (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Punic

This is kind of a continuation of the last section, but at the same time, I would like to address something slightly different. I find many sources that say Siculo-Arabic was imprinted over the original Punic of the island. However, the text seems to imply that the "Punic theory" has been completely discredited. I don't think we can honestly say that in the text, since different sources say different things about it. So I invite discussion into this.

Additionally, if Punic existed before Siculo-Arabic was imprinted over it, was this the language spoken by the original inhabitants of the island? Surely it couldn't have been, since the Sicani tribe who first inhabited Malta were from Iberia, unless they brought a language with them that was influenced by Phonecian-based Spanish? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Phoenician-based Spanish". Spanish did not exist at the time that Phoenician was spoken in Iberia. Indeed, the evidence is strong that the Phoenician language in Iberia did not extend inland much beyond the coastal enclaves where it was spoken. The same is true for the Greek that was spoken in Iberia--coastal enclaves only. Iberia before the Roman conquest was inhabited by a variety of Celtiberian as well as by non-Indo-European languages such as Basque and "Iberian" (non-Indo-European, non-Basque). Unless there is epigraphic evidence for the language of the Sicanii (which I don't know if there is or isn't), there is no way to even tell if it was Indo-European. With the Roman conquest of Iberia came a fairly rapid replacement of these languages with Latin, which later evolved into Spanish. While there were leftover pockets of pre-Roman languages (such as Basque and Lusitanian), by and large the earlier languages were replaced by Latin before or soon after the beginning of the Common Era. (Taivo (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC))

So when did the Punic enter into Maltese (according to the sources)? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the history of Malta, but it would have been during a period of time during which the Cathaginians controlled Malta. Transfer from Punic colonists in Spain is highly unlikely. (Taivo (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC))

Given the size of Malta, I'd say that the language of conquerors would be adopted by the population very quickly. The Sicanii (who, if they were Iberians, as has been claimed, would have been non-Indo-European) would have been long gone before the arrival of the Arabs, who probably assimilated a population speaking Latin or Greek. It's hard to tell which one, due to the lack of an identifiable substrate in Maltese.--Yolgnu (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Are there no scholars of Maltese (here)? But everyone has an opinion?? This is why there's such a mess..... it's kinda sad really. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia and it is considered to be bad manners to write on the talk pages in a language other than English. (Taivo (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC))

To rephrase my original comment, in English; Are there any scholars in Maltese interested in contributing to the page?

I think a more authoritative approach may resolve some of the key issues that have plagued this article for some time.. specifically accurate footnoting and verification of factual accuracy. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tuscan v. Standard

Tuscan Italian is being used to help accurately distinguish the variety of Italian from Sicilian. Yolgnu and myself have (so far) agreed to this distinction; one anonymous editor disagrees. Further opinions are, as always, welcome (read 'actively encouraged') (..please say something..) golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As Yolgnu already stated, Sicilian is not a type of "Italian". Standard Italian is more appropriate since the usage of "Tuscan" makes it appear dialectial and is therefore misleading to the reader. 78.151.145.217 (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please ref. where Yolgnu states that? Also, I don't really think an accurate assessment 'makes it appear dialectical'. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the ref. 78.151.145.217 (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok.. you are aware that the link you posted has Yolgnu supporting the inclusion of Tuscan (rather than Standard) Italian, right? golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Yolgnu's reason for reverting that time was (as listed in the edit summary) a revert of replacing "Sicilian" with "Sicilian Italian". Yolgnu did not comment in the edit summary on the "Standard Italian" bit. 78.151.145.217 (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The edit clearly shows the change includes a shift from 'Standard' to 'Tuscan' italian! I'm all for sophistry, but only if it's clever. Perhaps a change back to Standard, rather than Tuscan, is due. I don't think it is. Hopefully other editors will comment asap. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, you refuse point blank to accept anything don't you. Yolgnu was reverting the edit as a whole, so as to rid "Sicilian Italian" of the "Italian" part, and the edit summary explains this. Reverting the whole edit meant adding "Standard" to "Italian" was also reverted, but this was not mentioned in the summary, and therefore was not part of the aim of the revert. You have so far given no valid reason as to why Tuscan should be used over Standard. 78.151.145.217 (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to accept change! And my valid reasons are listed above :) golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me for being a cretin here, but if Standard Italian is Tuscan, what's the contention? Also, what's the source that states it's specifically Tuscan and not any other variety of Italian? I'm thinking it won't harm anything if we just say "Italian" — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You're not being cretinous ;p I'm beginning to wonder what all the fuss is about myself... what I've been saying is that 'Tuscan' makes a clear distinction, since Maltese has been most influenced by (specifically) Sicilian (re Siculo-Arabic). But all this faffing about is making me wonder whether or not the point is worth making. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Aeusoes, good old "Italian" is the best way to go; after all, that's the name of the Wikipedia article for the language.--Yolgnu (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I had to go to the article on Tuscan in order to find out that Tuscan is not an strange italian dialect but in fact the official Italian standard. It would have been more informative for me if the description simply had said that. Also I don't understand how people can keep on reverting eachothers edits without ever beginning to present sources. Obviously if a source about romance influence in maltese said Tuscan instead of Italian and there was given some reason for this choice then that might influence how other people see the matter - how ever no sources have been presented and the revertwar has been waged as pure contradiction. I think the editors involved with this page should think hard about how to improve the article along the guidelines of wikipedia (for example the article is very underreferenced) instead of squabbling over details.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

My guess as to why people want to say "Tuscan Italian" rather than "Standard Italian" is a concern that people might presume to think that Standard Italian in this context means "Standard Sicilian Italian." I just don't know if it's accurate to specifically state that the influence of Italian onto Maltese was from the Standard dialect and not some other nonstandard one. Until we find out, simply saying "Italian" is best. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 08:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

A random suggestion. Why not go with (Tuscan) Italian? It would sort of cover both bases. The Jade Knight (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The majority of linguists draw a very clear distinction between (Standard) Italian and Sicilian. There is no need to specify that Italian is "Tuscan" since this is part of the definition of the term (Standard) Italian. Linguists would find absolutely no reason to think that a borrowing from Standard Italian into Maltese was mediated by Sicilian. (Taivo (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

I looked in the article on Tuscan, and as I expected, and as is the case for almost all standard languages that have a regional origin, Standard Italian is based on but not exactly the same thing as the Tuscan dialect. It is based on the literary form of Tuscan, which differs somewhat from the colloquial forms of Tuscan. In other words, Standard Italian is a form of Tuscan, making the term Standard Italian a more precise term. Bostoner (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maltese vocabulary - Wording

At present, the section on Maltese vocabulary begins with "Although originally a Semitic dialect...", presumably a direct quotation from the source. But this is incorrect; Maltese still is classified as a Semitic language, though its vocabulary is no longer predominantly Semitic. Perhaps we should find another source; I'm sure that this is not the only one to state that contact with English and Romance languages has given Maltese a mixed vocabulary.--Yolgnu (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

True, I was using the source as a justification for using "semitic" in this context. The actual wording is

"When Maltese, an originally Semitic dialect gradually developed into a highly expressive language on its own through direct contacts with non-Arabic sources of influence (mainly Sicilian, Italian, French, and English), started to be written in the 17th century and then on a much wider scale in the 18th and 19th centuries, Italian had already established itself as the only and unquestionable cultural language of the island and had a respectable literary tradition of its own."

I think the best phrasing would be "Originally, the vocabulary of Maltese was predominantly Semitic; long term contact with non-Arabic sources of influence, especially English and several Romance languages, have since altered the language to be one of mixed vocabulary." I don't think we can use just this source as a justification for that wording. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the current wording makes it sound as if maltese is no longer a semitic language, when in fact it is just saying that it has integrated a lot of foreign vocabulary into it. It also would sound unfair to say that english "although originally a germanic language". I would propose simply striking the word "originally".·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I condone User:Taivo's changes to the section. They give a much more accurate understanding of the situation, and does not seem to misrepresent the sources' statements.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Good job, Taivo. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mixed language

We need to use better sources, preferably printed peerreviewed sources written by experts in language contact that state that maltese is a mixed language. Some of the current sources are not written by linguists (Michael Rosner who has written two of them does not seem to be a linguist). And one says the opposite of what it is quoted for namely that :"A first attempt of analysis of Maltese within the framework of Creole studies was put forward by Stolz (2003); according to him, Maltese – as well as Chamorro – doesn’t belong neither to the category of ‘mixed languages’ nor it may be interpreted as an example of ‘massive borrowing’ (cfr. Bakker/Mous, 1994). Maltese is marked by quite a mixed vocabulary but it doesn’t reach the degree of lexical admixture as in the case of ‘massive borrowing’ (90%): 57% of its vocabulary is of non-Semitic origin (Sicilian, Italian, English) and only about 38% of its words are derived from Arabic, functional words not being considered (cfr. Brincat, 2000: 194-197)." This is insufficient support for claiming that "many linguists say" ·Maunus·ƛ· 07:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The section was in an awful mess. I have restructured it, and in doing so, hope that I have been successful in accurately transcribing what was said in the sources, unlike how they were when I found them. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have seen not one single linguistic source that classified Maltese as a mixed language. It does not fit the definition. (Taivo (talk) 08:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

The sources on the page did the trick the last time I checked. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that we need better sources - those sources are not of sufficiently high quality for making such sweeping statements.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus above. Some editors seem to be under the false impression that finding any odd Internet page backing up their claims equals sourcing the claims. That's not the case. In this case, the overwhelming linguistic consensus is that Maltese is a Semitic language and the "sources" presented this far does not change that. JdeJ (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Good job Magdalenadiarco! Lacrystallililcry (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of POV pushing from both sides here. Let me explain this. The anon that originally placed the sources on the page provided reliable sources, but pushed a POV with them. Other editors then (rightfully) highlighted that not all the sources backed up what the text said. I altered the text so that they give an honest reflection of the sources. Since the sources are reliable, it is POV and OR to discredit them, and yes, while it may be benefitial for us to find some more, I think there are certainly more than enough for the moment. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No. I contest that those sources are reliable - and it seems that other editors do the same. Most of them are just internet pages purporting third or second hand theories of maltese linguistic history. These claims needs to be based on scholarly peereviewed sources and as far as I can see none of them support any ideas of maltese beng a "mixed language" or classifiable as "semiromance".·Maunus·ƛ· 09:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please have a read of Wikipedia:Reliable Sources - they fit all the criteria, unless you have something else to bring to the table? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

We are not in a position to pick and choose sources, as long as they are reliable third party ones. If they are, (which they are) then it wouldn't be a neutral point of view to include sources on one view and not another, if they are both reliable. Lacrystallililcry (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have gone through and labelled and dated all the sources, and during doing so, came to realize that the claim above of none of the sources being written by linguists is completely false. Michael Rosner, Albert Gatt, Duncan Attard, Ray Fabri, and J Caruana are just a handful of those involved, and all of them are qualified linguists from the University of Malta. Oh, and then there's Ignasi Badia i Capdevila, who has already been sourced in the article elsewhere - hardly a non-authoritative figure. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Being a linguist is not a guarantee for being correct even on linguistic issues. In Turkey, some linguists suggested that all languages of the world derive from Turkish while a professor in linguistics in Finland suggested that most of Europe used to be Finnish-speaking. Within linguistics, or any other science for that matter, a good source is usually published in peer-reviewed journal. The sources presented here by Mr Rosner keep a dismissal academic quality, not to say no academic quality at all. In the university in which I work, and in any other respected university I know of, not even a student would get away with writing of such a low quality as here. I have read the sources provided here, and while it is true that some of the claim that Maltese is a mixed language, not one of them manages to back up that claim with any evidence. The fact that 21(!) references are now inserted after that sentence is rather telling, and I would much prefer seeing two or three reliable sources than many non-reliable ones. JdeJ (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I should add to the above that J. Aquilina was indeed a great expert on Maltese linguistics but it has been 60 years since he conducted his research. I too have old sources at home that make claims about language origins (including, but in no way limited to, Maltese) that modern linguistics has shown to be wrong. Likewise, some of what we now believe will most probably turn out to be wrong, but we can do no better than the present research of our time. Just as we would not use old claims of the Earth being flat today, we should not use outdated hypotheses here either. JdeJ (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Completely disagree. The point in hand was whether or not there were any linguists behind the sources, and low and behold, there are, satisfying Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Removal would be considered POV pushing. I however agree that there may now be too many sources listed, on a purely visual basis, and as such we should select the best of the sources and use only those. On another note, in the Finnish example you listed, that POV would still have to be listed in the article, as long as it is well referenced. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid we don't agreee on Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. When there is one generally accepted theory and a fringe theory, and there are many fields where there are, the normal tendency on Wikipedia is to give prominence to the accepted theory. Such is the case here, all we have are very old sources and some claims made on the Internet but without any evidence for the claims. And no offence intended, but I guess you're not familiar with linguistics and have not worked in academia? There is no such thing as an absolute truth, you can always find a number of strange hypotheses on every topic. The task is then to provide proof for those hypotheses, establising them as theories. That's the version that enters into any encyclopedia. To take the English language as an example, we don't include paragraphs on the English language being the language of long-lost Atlantis. We don't state that English is the language of the lost tribes of Israel. We don't claim that English is a Latin language. We don't claim that English is a mix of Finnish and Celtic. All of those claims have their supporters, in a few cases even linguists, but not one of them have yet been able to offer any support for their claims. Such is the case with the writings of Roser et al., they make unsupported suggestions and ask us to believe them without the slightest evidence. That does not satisfy reliable sources in academia nor in Encyclopedia Britannica, nor should it at Wikipedia. JdeJ (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not familiar with linguistics? I have a major in Indo-European languages, and a minor in Psychology, not that it is particularly any of your business. I consider your attempt to discredit me based on qualifications (incorrectly I might add) as nothing more than an immature personal attack. Let me explain how thngs work on Wikipedia - if you can find a reliable source which says the sky is pink, then Wikipedia must say the sky is pink, but at the same time, if you cannot find a reliable source which says the sky is blue, then Wikipedia cannot say the sky is blue. Since the sources so far found are classified as reliable by Wikipedia, then Wikipedia must reflect this. Wikipedia has no place for POV pushing one way or the other, and both sides must be described. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, in that case you should be able to evaluate the quality of sources. We clearly disagree on this one. JdeJ (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(undindent) The source and what they say:

• ([1] Louis Werner (writing for the online journal SaudiAramcoWorld) writes:

"Modern Maltese (or Malti, as the Maltese people themselves call their language) is described by some linguists as a “mixed language” of Semitic, Romance and English elements, while others simply call it an Arabic dialect. Maltese nationalists a hundred years ago portrayed Malti as related to ancient Punic; purists today fault the younger generation for adopting undigested loan words from English and Italian."

Problems with this source: It is a piece of journalism. It states that "some linguists consider Maltese mixed" without saying whom or whether this claim is tenable.

• ([2]) Alain Dèsouliéres expert in Urdu language writing in the journal Urdu studies writes:

...This new definition (of the concept "mixed language" red.) may apply to such languages as Maltese, Osmanli or Ottoman Turkish (as different from modern Turkish), Yiddish, etc.

Problems with this source: It is not dealing specifically with Maltese. It uses a new definition of the concept of mixed language which is different from that used by all other linguists and vaguely states that Maltese might be classified as mixed under this definition.

• ([3]) Ignasi Badia i Capdevila writing specifically about Maltese writes:

"it is Europe's only Semitic language, and at the same time an authentic example of a mixed language owing to deep Sicilian and Italian influence." and "Malta’s secular inclusion in the Western European world was aided by the fact that Maltese is always written in the Latin alphabet4 and not in Arabic script, and by the transformation of Maltese into a mixed language. The latter, caused in the main by massive Romance relexification, is comparable to the changes undergone by medieval English when it was invaded by Norman French words."

Problems with this source: The usual definition of a "mixed language" used by Muysken and Bakker and others working with creolization is a language that cannot be said to belong to one language family but which has a double set of linguistic roots. This means that under this definition it is contradictory to call a language a semitic language AND a mixed language. Capdevila must be using a different definition and we need to know why he thinks Maltese is an authentic example of a mixed language. In the second paragraph he writes why he considers Maltese to be mixed: because of massive relexification. He compares the situation to norman influence in english. Again this is contradicting the normal definition of "mixed language" under which English has only jokingly been called a mixed language - he also cotradicts what he said about Maltese being the only Mixed language in europe, if he also believes English to be one.

• (1014.pdf) Paul Micallef a computer scientist writing about the construction of a Maltese lexical database writes:

"The paper describes a rule based system, taking into account the mixed origins of Maltese (semitic and romance) to categorise function and verb words"

Problems with this source: Micallef writes specifically about lexicography so when he says that Maltese has mixed origins he is talking only about vocabulary - having a vocabulary of mixed origin (something all languages have) is not enough to classify a language as a mixed language under the standard definition.

• ([4])Laura Mori writing specifically about the analysis of Maltese as a mixed language writes that

"A first attempt of analysis of Maltese within the framework of Creole studies was put forward by Stolz (2003); according to him, Maltese – as well as Chamorro – doesn’t belong neither to the category of ‘mixed languages’ nor it may be interpreted as an example of ‘massive borrowing’ (cfr. Bakker/Mous, 1994). Maltese is marked by quite a mixed vocabulary but it doesn’t reach the degree of lexical admixture as in the case of ‘massive borrowing’ (90%): 57% of its vocabulary is of non-Semitic origin (Sicilian, Italian, English) and only about 38% of its words are derived from Arabic, functional words not being considered (cfr. Brincat, 2000: 194-197). With such a high degree of lexical borrowing, Maltese cannot be considered neither as a ‘mixed language’ and it has to be placed in an intermediate category between the two; according to Stolz, language contact typology has to be rather interpreted in terms of an ideal continuum ." and later "Both the socio-linguistic situation Malta underwent along the centuries and the actual features of the Maltese system allow us to propose its typological classification as a creoloid belonging to the group of Araboid languages (Owens, 2001)."

Problems with this source: The source acknowledges that Maltese does not fall under that normal category of Mixed languages. Trying to find out what then to call it it uses the term "creoloid" which can only be understood as meaning something that is like a mixed language but isn't.

• ([5]) Encyclopedia.com writing about romance languaes writes that:

"For at least two centuries thereafter, a Romance language dominated social, political, and cultural life in much of the British Isles and had such an impact on the vocabulary and writing of English that, like Albanian and Maltese, English has been called a semi-Romance language;"

Problems with this source: The article doesnt treat Maltese specifically. It doesn't propose any definition of maltese as either mixed or semi-romance, it says that it has been called so. It doesn't say by whom. It also again compares the situation in maltese with that of english which again is only jokingly said to be a mixed or semi-romance language, but alway counted as a genuine Germanic language.

([6]) Michael Rosner, computational linguist writing about the construction of a Maltese lexical database writes:

"It is a mixed language with underlying semitic and romance substrata which permeate its morphosyntactic structure."

Problems with this source: Rosner is a computational linguist and not an expert in either language contact, linguistic genetic classification or language history. There is no reason to believe that he is applying the standard definition of Mixed language, which is also clear by his somewhat weird use of the word substratum which is also not normally used in that sense by historical linguists or linguists working with contact phenomena.

In short I don't think these sources provide sufficient grounds for claiming that "Mixed language" is used as a definition of Maltese by any notable group of linguists. On the contrary it seems to me that the linguists state the opposite namely that the Maltese situation is like the one in English (which is never in serious called a "Mixed language") and that the studies conducted specifically within a creolization framework unequivocally conclude that it is not a mixed language. It might be relevant to say that its vocabulary is of largely mixed origins but that still doesn't make it a mixed language in a linguistic sense. ·Maunus·ƛ· 10:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully with Maunus above. Although MagdelenaDiArco might disagree, I still haven't found any evidence presented here in support of Maltese being a mixed language. JdeJ (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The reasons you gave do not counter WP:Reliable Sources. Most of what you wrote was also original research. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Maunus, all the things you are saying are original research, and until you can back them up with sources, your speech is invalid. I mean, this: "It states that "some linguists consider Maltese mixed" without saying whom or whether this claim is tenable." is completely irrelevant. The source states linguists - it does not have to mention who. 210.19.71.60 (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

sigh. How terribly original. Maunus presented a scholarly overview of the so-called sources presented here, and we are lucky that some users are able to tell the difference between a valid source and any random Internet-page. The fact of the matter is that no evidence has been presented for Maltese being a mixed language. JdeJ (talk) 10:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"we are lucky that some users are able to tell the difference between a valid source and any random Internet-page." - Yes, we are.

"The fact of the matter is that no evidence has been presented for Maltese being a mixed language" - Not even going to comment. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody forces you to comment, but then stop changing the article and reap up on WP:FRINGE. JdeJ (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a clear difference between a fringe theory and representing a neutral point of view. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No evidence presented for Maltese being a mixed language? 21 sources is evidence enough in my book! Lacrystallililcry (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

May I remind people not to feed the trolls. Wikipedia has its policy clearly stated with regards to reliable sources, by which Maltese is classifiable as a mixed language. If JdeJ continues to POV push, it may be time for more drastic action. 210.19.71.60 (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And what POV am I pushing and how? Put your money where your mouth is then, go ahead and report my "POV-pushing", I'm looking forward to it. JdeJ (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Only if he edits on the article itself. If he just continues to repeat his arguments here, then we have the option of ignoring him. Unless he edit wars on the article, he is safe from action at the moment. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 11:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

How graceful of you. The difference might be that I have some arguments, but I've realised that your strategy is to "ignore" people when you don't have anything to say. JdeJ (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, we havn't given any arguments at all have we. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, no. I don't know how many times I've asked you to provide any evidence (as opposite to claims) that Maltese is mixed language. All you've done is posted many 60-70 year old sources presenting an old theory that no longer is accepted and then a few modern claims by Rosner, who in turn has not been able to present a single piece of evidence. Given all your bragging about your degrees, surely you must know the difference between a claim and a proof?JdeJ (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggested reading WP:Reliable Sources. If anyone wants to argue that it supports Rosner's claims, they are welcome to present where in the text they find that. It says quite clearly that peer-reviewed publications are preferable. There is no big difference between one bad source and 21 bad sources. JdeJ (