Talk:Spanish language Information & Talk:Spanish language Links at HealthHaven.com
advertise
add site
services
publishers
database
health videos
Bookmark and Share

search wiki for    ?
web dir firms image gallery news pdf wiki shop video 
about
toolbar
stats
live show
health store
more stuff
JOIN/LOGIN
Featured Results:
Spanish Talking Watch - Spanish Talking Products
Spanish Talking Watch - Spanish Talking Products
sightconnection.com		 
WikiProject Paraguay (Rated Stub-Class)
Coat of arms of Paraguay.svg This article is part of WikiProject Paraguay, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Paraguay. If you would like to participate, you can improve Spanish language, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Version 1.0 Editorial Team     (Rated B-Class)
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
ButtonGreen.svg This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Commons-logo-en.svg Sections and informations about the map, have to be collected into a separate talk page at the Wikimedia Commons – it can be viewed here.

Archives

For a list of the archives and threads contained inside, see the directory.

Contents

[edit] Colombia

I was wondering if I should mention that Colombians have the best Spanish in the region after Spaniards? Thanks Camilo Sanchez (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that should not be mentioned. That is completely a subjective opinion, and I doubt you'd find legitimate sources to back it up. Kman543210 (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you are right, i shouldn't mention it so not to start debate. However it has been a widely known fact. Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Camilo, Certainly, many people in Latin America, outside of Colombia, think highly of Colombian Spanish. But that doesn't make it a "fact". In my opinion, the Spanish spoken in other parts of the Andes, including Venezuela, is just as "good". Several Argentines believe that Buenos Aires is the epitome of the language, while I'm sure that some residents of Castille feel the same way. I'm glad you agree that any such judgment should not be included in the main article. However, I think it's also out of place here on the discussion page.

Marzolian (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

To be correct Colombia (esp, Rolo) speaks the most neutral Spanish, this is proven. It also represents the Spanish world be located in the center of it. Rolo is very clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.55.213 (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a citation that supports your contention, that people in Rolo speak the most "neutral" Spanish?

Marzolian (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That is the stupidest comment I have ever read in my life, how can Colombian Spanish, out of all the different countries that speak Spanish in the world be the “best”, the best Spanish is spoken by the most well educated people in any country, and Colombia is certainly not that country, other than Colombians who say it all the time just to make themselves feel better because they have nothing going for them, I have never seen any real evidence that Colombians speak the best Spanish, I’ve hear Colombians speak, and I find the accent rather flat, similar to how American English is kind of flat, which does not appeal to me in any way, Colombian Spanish is not that great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CF2008 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Though, I agree that to say that Colombian Spanish is the best-spoken Spanish is subjective. I would highly disagree with whomever wrote the paragraph above. Not only he/she is rude, but fairly confused. When people refer to Colombian Spanish (Specifically, that spoken in central Cundinamarca, aka “Rolo”) as the best-spoken Spanish, they refer to its neutral accent. The “rolo” accent merely facilitates clarity because it lacks issues in mispronunciation caused by thicker accents. Accents have very little to do with level of education across Spanish speaking nations. By no means, accents reflect achievement levels. You can find examples in other languages such as the case of the Canadian English accent that is often preferred in broadcasting. The only think that is obvious from the paragraph above is the ignorance and xenophobia of its writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.226.154.201 (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] USTEDES/VOSOTROS

In Andalusia "vosotros" is always used, except in formal contexts. I know a lot of peolple from almeria and i've been to sevilla more than once (part of my family works there) and they never say ustedes when addressing people they know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.232.73.213 (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to the article, there must be more native speakers of English (c. 450m) than Spanish in the world.


With the due respect, I ABSOLUTELY disagree. I am from Cadiz, and I always say USTEDES + the verb conjugated with the second person plural (ustedes tambien vais a venir? a mi me suena lo mas normal del mundo, picha). I have never, never said the word VOSOTROS when in my hometown. This is very useful for two main reasons: a) economy--you don't need any difference between formal and informal contexts anymore, and b) if you teach Spanish in the USA your students will not hate you for making them learn a pronoun only used by a small minority of speakers. German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.167.157 (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Here in my country (Dominican Republic), in schools we are taught about verbs conjugation using "Vosotros" as second plural person tense, however, outside of school, we never use it, how odd can that be? Does that happens in Argentina too? I wonder. --190.166.113.121 (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
It does for formal grammar training although nobody uses it in Latin America, (at least it was taught when I studied Spanish over 40 years ago, and it may not be taught anymore nowadays, outside of Spain). -- Alexf42 22:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish is not spoken by a significant part of the population of Morocco

According to the source provided over 20 000 people in Morocco are capable of speaking Spanish. I suggest you take a look at Morocco and look at how many people live there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.99.176.206 (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. Not all that is cited stays there. I've read the citation and it was spoken by 20,000, hardly what you consider as "major". --Howard the Duck 03:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would be a good idea to put the number of speakers in brackets instead of just using the word significant. For example instead of saying

Thanks. I don't understand why people use the word significant. They should just put the number of speakers next to the country or the percentage of speakers that speak the language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.99.176.206 (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

{{Infobox Language}}'s rules say that we should only add countries when it is a "major" language. Now of course everyone has differing conceptions with the word "major" but if the ratio is 20,000 ro 33 million and even the more laughable 2,700 to 80 million, we should just list all of the countries of the world, I bet every country has at least 1 Spanish speaker.
I suggest to use the 33% threshold for small to medium-sized countries, then using the 1 million minimum for really big countries whose populations are larger than 50 million. --Howard the Duck 02:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Popular foreign language in the anglosphere?

This article claims that Spanish is a popular foreign language in the anglosphere. To the contrary, Spanish is almost never learned as a second language outside of the United States.Alphador (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's growing in popularity in British schools and has surpassed German, after French.


That's true. In Australia Chinese and Japanese are more widespread —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.168.183.150 (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

US represents 80% of the Anglosphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.159.16.79 (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

But the article refers to non-US anglosphere countries.124.187.228.209 (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
And 80% is more than a bit of an exaggeration, according to List of countries by English-speaking population. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Vos" in Central America

  • Has Central America changed significantly in 10 years? I lived in El Salvador for a brief period of time in the early 90's and never heard "vos". Things change with time, of course, but it seems like an abrupt change to me if it's true. JuJube (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if this may be right, but my Grandmother, whom is from El Salvador told me that "vos" comes from the Natives that used to live there. This may be why you never really hear it from most of the modern spanish speakers today.

Lopez7.vii (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Actually after doing some research, "Vos" comes from Argentina, recently spreading to central america Lopez7.vii (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

In some countries vos is restricted to speech between close friends or relatives, therefore an outsider won't notice it. Recently spreading from Argentina to Central America??? That's extremely unlikely. --Jotamar (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Morocco. No.

The new hispanic map includes Morocco. Dumb. I don't think I need consensus to change it back. 121.223.136.161 (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The new map needs to be changed

Why has Morocco been coloured in? Morocco is not a country that has been heavily influenced by Spanish culture. The opposite is true. Large parts of Spain where influenced by arabic culture. Have you ever been to Cordoba or Granada????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Spain ruled over parts of morocco for a significant period of time, perhaps that is why. However I have no idea if any Moroccans speak Spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.51.254 (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In Spain there are 600.000 legal inmigrants actually, and there are more than 1 million inmigrants with illegals aproximately. Many of these inmigrants come back to Morocco and another new people from Morocco go to Spain, then there are a lot of people that they lived in Spain, and There are many people studing spanish (almost 60.000 according to Instituto Cervantes). In the other hand, The North of Spain and other territories of Morocco were a colony of Spain in the XX Century. According to Ammadi, 2002, there are between 4 and 7 million people who speak spanish [1], mainly in the North of Morocco.

[edit] similarity to English

I was just wondering how Spanish is similar to English in the sense of evolved languages. The English article says it's a Germanic language, while Spanish is an Italic language. But there is a substantial syntactic similarity between the two languages. For example, the sentence "The shirt is red" is "La camisa es roja" in Spanish. This sentence is a essentially a word for word translation. Overall sentences I think are also word for word, with some differences, like possession ("John's house" becomes "la casa de John" but can be rewritten in English as "the house of John") and the use of direct and indirect objects. I'm actually just a student speaker, so I probably forgot some stuff, so don't get mad at my ignorance. But my point is, for two languages that are similar like that, how can they be of two different langauge categories? Eridani (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

English is the most Latin of the Germanic languages. For this reason, you can see a lot of similarities between English and the Romanic Languages (Spanish, French, Italian, ...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.140.163.10 (talk) 08:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The classification has to do with historical origins. This is determined through cognate comparisons. While simple sentences are translated as you present (though es vs está is a distinction not made in English), it gets less so with more complicated utterances: te amaria sus consegros ('I would love the parents-in-law of your children'). — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 08:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
They have some similarities, as the one you mentioned, because Germanic languages and Romance languages are both part of the same linguistic family - the Indo-European languages. The Ogre (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The correct way is amaría a tus consuegros. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.85.206 (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I know both Spanish(my mothertongue) and English and I'd tell you that even though they may have some resemblances, they've evolved from diferent origins, so when you look at them more closely you see that they've many differences such as the verbs(I see/you see/.../they see vs. yo veo/tú ves/.../ellos ven)that in Spanish they do change depending the person while in English they don't, and there are many other differences between the two languages.--Jarna3 (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
See also Standard Average European. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
As languages go its pretty similar to English not in the way Portugues or even French is to Spanish but fairly similar all the same. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 00:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Could we change the map to reflect the fact that Spanish is the lingua franca in the Americas?

I noticed that the map does not reflect the status of Spanish in the world today. I think it would be a good idea to colour in countries where say more than 50% of the population is learning Spanish at school or where Spanish is the most taught foreign language a different colour say yellow. I know that for example Trinidad and Tobago wants to become a bilingual English/Spanish speaking nation within a generation and that Spanish is the most taught foreign language in the US. This would reflect the state of Spanish more accurately. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that it would take a lot more work to reflect that accurately. The United States is not one homogeneous group and the students learning Spanish in North Dakota is likely less than in California. The rate of learning Spanish in the US is partially in reaction to the presence of native Spanish monolinguals, so it becomes a bit tautological. Also, why 50%? Why not 25 or 40? There's nothing special about half. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The map, as other maps of these tips of articles, primarilys reflect native speakers, not eventual speakers due to learning processes. If that was the case you would have to paint the world as English speaking. Furthermore, since when learning a language in school is the same as spaeking it? The levels of proficiency vary immensely. So, no, the map should not be changed because Spanish is not a Lingua Franca in the Americas. Most people north of Mexico do not speak as first language and it is not spoken at all in relevant numbers in Brazil. The Ogre (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


Once you go over 50% you enter majority territory. If the majority of the population is learning a certain language then that's pretty significant. Also, I understand that there is a difference between native speakers and learners and that's why I'd use a different colour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

But it doesn't need to be a majority to be significant. I don't support this proposal as I think it has some serious problems with its assumptions and is impossible to do reliably. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 16:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would be that hard. All you have to do is look at how many people are learning Spanish in each country of the world. The US for example provides statistics that let you know how many people are studying a language. There's only one country in the world THE USA where Spanish is studied widely so I don't understand what's so difficult about colouring the US a different colour and then checking to see if there are other countries. Trinidad and Tobago is a good starting point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] It is estimated that the combined total of native and non-native Spanish speakers is approximately 500 million

This doesn't seem plausible. There aren't that many non-native Spanish speakers!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm.... The lead sentence of WP:V says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (emphasis in original) The cited source is verifiable, and reports 446,648,991 as the "2007 Estimated World Population for the Language".
The remaining question is whether or not the cited source, Internet WorldStats—Usageand population Statistics is a [[WP:RS|reliable source]. General criteria: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
If other sources of comparable reliability contradict the figure from this source, it is not the job of WP to decide which source is more correct — the lead section in that case should probably mention a range of estimates, and a later article section should detail the contradiction, citing sources of comparable reliability for each contradictory figure mentioned. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish in Philippines

I think that is needed to paint Philippines, because there are 1,816,389 speakers as a second lenguage and 689,000 chavacano speakers (spanish creole). Total: 2.450.000 speakers. Fuente: Instituto Cervantes, 1997. Some sources says that there are more than 1 million chavacano speakers. Another figure is 2,900,000 spanish speakers Sí, Sain.

As has been repeatedly stated in the past, those figures are not reliable. --Chris S. (talk) 06:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Since I've recently changed the article to mention them and cite sources, I guess I ought to point out the lead sentence in WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (emphasis in original) -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The source they use is an Italian almanac. I consulted an Italian wikipedian who happened to have the source that Instituto Cervantes cites and that almanac didn't cite its source either. So I do not believe it's a reliable source. I mean, where did it come from? The census in this case would be the most reliable source. --Chris S. (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
But the point is that WP is not in the business of judging which source is the most reliable and reporting only what that particular source says. WP should report what (perhaps conflicting) assertions are made by sources which meet WP:RS guidelines, and should attribute whatever each source asserts to that particular source. If there are conflicts, WP should comment on the conflicts, but should not take a position about which source might be right and which other source might be wrong. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
And,has been repeatedly stated, "verifiability, not truth". OK, I'm not familiar with any of the sources in question here and I don't speak spanish, but the first cited source is http://cvc.cervantes.es/, which appears to me to be not ruled out by WP:RS, and the second one is from http://cvc.cervantes.es/, which doesn't really look flakey to me. Presuming that these sources fall within WP:RS guidelines, there should be no problem with the article reporting that sources A,B, and C say X, Y, and Z. --Boracay Bill (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that there are only 2,658 native speakers according to census 1990, but this census also says that there are only 32,802 native speakers of english [2], and in the map of english language, Philippines is with colour. The same happens with another countries like India. There are only around 200,000 native speakers. Then, I think that it´s necesary to paint colour to Philippines in the spanish map. --Migang2g (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that WP does not discuss sources - in fact that is one of the main discussion we can find here. The Cervantes Institute source is not a primary source (is is not even a secondary source!!), as it just quotes an Italian almanac (Calendario Atlante de Agostini 1997, Novara, Instituto Geográfico de Agostino, 1996, p. 315, that gives, without sources, 3% of the population speaking Spanish). To this the Cervantes Institute adds 689.000 speakers of Chavacano (not Spanish proper, but a Spanish creole, spoken mostly in Zamboanga City and in the provinces of Zamboanga del Sur, Zamboanga Sibugay, Zamboanga del Norte, and Basilan. It is also spoken in some areas of Cavite, Davao, and Cotabato), according to data from A. Quilis (La lengua española en cuatro mundos, Madrid, Mapfre, 1992, p. 82), without specifying if in the first estimate these Chavacano speakers were already counted or not (thus raising the total figure to 2.450.000). The Cervantes site does state that these estimate contradict the Census. One should also notice that English is an official language in the Philippines (as it is in India), unlike Spanish (see The Official Website of the Republic of the Philippines). Therefore, I believe that the Philippines should NOT be included in the Hispanosphere in any way, since there are no relevant numbers of Spanish spkeakers there, given that the Cervantes Institute is not, in this specific matter, a reliable source! The Ogre (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Chavacano is not Spanish. It would be the same as saying that there are more than 800 million Latin speakers in the world today! Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese, Romanian are no longer considered Latin so you can't use them!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree! That is way the Philippines should not be coloured as speaking Spanish. The Ogre (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Italian, French, Portuguese, Romanian aren´t spanish creole languages. Chabacano is a spanish creole as there are english creole in Africa or Asia. Chabacano is a spanish word that means "not much elegant" or "rude". This is because it was considered that chabacano was a spanish bad spoken, with mistakes, but spanish. --85.54.160.54 (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

How about the Filipinos who are working and living in Spain right now? approximately 60,000 filipinos OFW works in Spain. We should consider them as Spanish speakers. I live in Madrid and Ive seen filipinos speaks spanis better than english. we need to change the facts and the map, please colour the philippines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.209.156.28 (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Chabacano is a language! It is not bad Spanish. Just like Spanish is not Latin bad spoken, with mistakes, but latin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This WP-link might help: Chabacano language --Floridianed (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Change the bias racist map please

The Guaraní language is spoken by up to 90% of the population of Paraguay while Spanish is spoken by around 75% making Guarani more widespread. Why is Paraguay coloured in the same colour as every other Spanish speaking country when Spanish is not the dominant language. YOU CAN'T IGNORE GUARANI! You insist on colouring in US states but refuse to acknowledge that Guarani has survived. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk • contribs)

My friend... relax! The map is not biased or racist regarding this issue. The map merely states that Paraguay is a country were a majority of the population (not the majority) speaks Spanish and that Spanish is an official language of the country. It does not say anything about Guarani because it is not a map about the Guarani language! The present map does not deny the bigger importance of Guarani over Spanish in Paraguay, it just does not adress the fact because it is not about that, but a world map of the Spanish language. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that's what's wrong with map. Have a look at the English language map. It uses two colours to distinguish between countries such as England where English is a native language and Nigeria where it is official but not spoken by the majority. This shows the status of English more clearly. The Spanish map on the other just colours countries where Spanish is an official language in the same colour regardless of the language's actual status. Sounds a bit bias to me. All language maps should follow the same criteria.

I can't believe you're still on about this! You honestly need to reexamine your perspective. You recently suggested that we color in nearly the entire world to reflect English as a lingua franca here. But on all the other maps you want to either remove certain shadings or map them lighter. I personally love the English language, and have no problem admitting it's the lingua franca. But I see no point in this continued attempt to promote it to the detriment of all the other languages in the world. You've been doing this on nearly every language page for almost a year! We understand you love English, brother, but you've got to give it up. There are bigger and better things to be doing in this world. SpiderMMB (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me. I had a look at the link you provided and can't find the part where I am supposed to suggest we colour in the entire world. Only parts where it is spoken should be coloured. If this means that large parts of the world may need to be coloured you can't refuse to consider the idea just because it doesn't fit your POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at this map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map-Hispano.png it's what the map should be like! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Morocco again!

Even if only 20,000 Moroccan speaks Spanish as their first language, but millions of people in north Morocco use it as a second language, and understand it very well, so I would say Morocco should be included, and by the way, Spanish has no official status in nether Morocco or Western Sahara. I'm sure people who says North Morocco should not be included in the map has never been there. Moroccan culture is really influenced by Spain, especially, in the north. I used to go there ever summer, and i stayed for months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koumed (talk • contribs) 05:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What the???? The fact the English is spoken by millions of people in China doesn't mean were gonna colour it in as English speaking. Please stop exaggerating the importance of Spanish.

I agree, I live in Sweden and everyone (except children) speaks English here. However, Sweden is not listed as an English speaking country, and shouldn't be listed as one either. Aaker (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maps and the inclusion of certain areas/countries

Hello everyone. There are discussions going on at the Commons that may interest you all. They pertain to the following maps:

I have added the following comments about the map made by Migang2g: I persist in considering this map as a biased attempt to enhance the areas that supposedly speak Spanish or were a significante proportion of the population speaks Spanish. There are several errors:

  • Brazil - Portuñol is not a Spanish creole or dialect, it is mixed contact language between Portuguese and Spanish (generally spoken as a second language when in contact between Spanish and Portuguese speakers), and, as such, it should not be included in either a map of the Spanish language in the world, either a map of the Portuguese language in the world. Furthermore, in this map the supposed area of Portuñol wrongly includes:
    • all of the border of Brazil with Spanish speaking countries - without any source whatsoever, never mentioned anywhere, and a pure invention by user Migang2g;
    • the States of Rio Grande do Sul and, at least, parts of Santa Catarina - another pure invention by Migang2g, since Portuñol, even if it was to be included, is not sopken in such wide areas, but only in very specific localities, such as the border between Uruguay and Brazil, notably in the region of the twin cities of Rivera and Santana do Livramento, where the border is open and a street is the only line dividing the two countries. Notice that the entry for the minority languages in Rio Grande to Sul do not even mention Portuñol;
  • Aruba (according to Ethnologue Spanish is only spoken by less then 10,000 in a population of 103,484; and Papiamento is describe byt the Government of Aruba (Languages of Aruba - Government of Aruba (official site) - 2005) as an Afro-Portuguese Creole, not a Spanish one).
  • Netherlands Antilles, since Ethnologue does not even list Spanish as a language spoken there and Papiamento is describe as an Afro-Portuguese Creole, not a Spanish one; even if the Government does say, in Population and Housing Census 2001, that 6.1% do speak Spanish (10,699 speakers of Spanish out of 183,000), that is hardly a significative number ans is ranked 4th after Papiamento, English and Dutch.
  • Falklands - a pure Hispanophone invention, since no Spanish is basically spoken there, and English is universal in a population basically of British descent;
  • Philippines - verifiable data for the Philippines give a number of less than 3000 speakers! And the The Cervantes Institute source is not a primary source (is is not even a secondary source!!), as it just quotes an Italian almanac (Calendario Atlante de Agostini 1997, Novara, Instituto Geográfico de Agostino, 1996, p. 315, that gives, without sources, 3% of the population speaking Spanish). To this the Cervantes Institute adds 689.000 speakers of Chavacano (not Spanish proper, but a Spanish creole, spoken mostly in Zamboanga City and in the provinces of Zamboanga del Sur, Zamboanga Sibugay, Zamboanga del Norte, and Basilan. It is also spoken in some areas of Cavite, Davao, and Cotabato), according to data from A. Quilis (La lengua española en cuatro mundos, Madrid, Mapfre, 1992, p. 82), without specifying if in the first estimate these Chavacano speakers were already counted or not (thus raising the total figure to 2.450.000). The Cervantes site does state that these estimate contradict the Census. One should also notice that English is an official language in the Philippines (as it is in India), unlike Spanish (see The Official Website of the Republic of the Philippines). Therefore, I believe that the Philippines should NOT be included in the Hispanosphere in any way, since there are no relevant numbers of Spanish spkeakers there, given that the Cervantes Institute is not, in this specific matter, a reliable source;
  • USA - the source for this map is in fact better than the first source of the map, because in fact the old source (2000 Census) is about Hispanic population, and the present source (2006 Census) is about Spanish speakers over 5 years old who speak it at home. HOWEVER, the graphical representation in the map is somewhat biased since it colours states with about 3% of speakers in a shade of blue that gives the impression of a significate portion of the population being Hispanophone - the question here is one of graphical representation (compare with Image:Spanish USC2000 PHS.svg, dne with he 2000 Census data);
  • Canada - the source presented is not a direct one to the Canadian PMB Print Measurement Bureau, but a reference in an online Hispanic-Canadian magazine (Factor Hispano Online). Even if the numbers presented are true (909,000 Spanish-speaking people in a total universe of more than 30 millions, for 2000), Canada should not be ALL coloured and in such a strong shade of blue, which clearly aims to give the impression that Spanish is more spoken there then in fact it is. One should must, for a country where Spanish is clearly a minority language of migrants, acertain the exact geographical distribution of speakers, and not colour the whole country as being, in a way, Spanish speaking;
  • Morocco - Spanish is not soken in significant levels at all in any part of the country, and no source states that - even if Spanish is known to some degree (and what degree is that?) by a minority people as a second language, that should not be included since this is not a map about Spanish knowledge as a foreign language, but a map of speakers of Spanish as first language. The source presented, by the way, is not a primary source, but just quotes others sources without giving the specific methodologies that were used to obtain any tye of numbers;
  • Western Sahara (RASD and Tinduf) -I just quote what Migang2g say "There aren´t official sources because saharauis don´t have an official country" And, in fact, all that is said about the situation in that territory does make one believe that Spanish is not spoken at all in any significante level (see Western Sahara and Sahrawi - note that for these the English language article states that their languages are "Hassaniya, Modern Standard Arabic; a northern minority also speak Tachelhit (a Berber dialect)", not Spanish), even if some sources just state that Spanish is spoken (never giving numbers; and the numbers of the overall population are not relevant because they say nothing about the numbers of Spanish speakers), that seems more a political position than a description of actual reality.

Please particpate in the discussions, either here, or at Image talk:Map-Hispanophone World.png and Image talk:Map-Hispanophone World.PNG. Thank you! The Ogre (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Morocco

In north Morocco and western sahara, spanish is not spoken as a fist language as i said before, but it is understood by people who went to school, also Spanish channels are very popular in north Morocco , that means people there understand spanish very well, plus many schools, universities and administration use spanish, you can't just ignore all theses facts, and if you think north Morocco should not be included in Hispanophone world, then it shouldn't be included in francophone world also. I personnally think Migang2g map makes more sens about spanish in Morocco. Morocco's national portal inlude spanish too, http://www.maroc.ma/ it means even if its not official by Moroccan government, it recognized at some point. Koumed (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Spanish doesn t get you very far in Tangiers whereas French is clearly the second language there, understood in all the banks etc. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Even if ALL inhabitants of Morocco spoke Spanish as a second language (and notice that contrary to delirious numbers of millions capable of doing it, the Morocco article says that only 20,000, out og more than 30 million, speak as 2nd language...), still Morocco SHOULD NOT be included in the map, since this is a map on native speakers and not knowledge of Spanish as a foreign language (if you went this way for a different map, sourced, of course, you would have to define exact proficiency in the language, either in written or oral form). This is not a map about people who are able to somehow understand Spanish (you would have to include all of the Portuguese , then, since basically everyone in Portugal understands Spanish, but not the reverse, though)! The Ogre (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Government and State portal and site often have version in other languages (the Moroccan one also has French and English, I supposed that is not enough to include Morocco in the Anglosphere...), that means nothing. The Ogre (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right, if it is a map of native speakers, then Morocco should not be included! At least you can add an other color or a lighter one for regions that used it in schools and business as second language like north Morocco. And of couses i have some sources, like popular Moroccan magazines.. [3] I just think you shouldn't ignore places where spanish is an important language. Koumed (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to ignore it, I'm just saying that that is an issue for another map, as the ones you can see at Proficiency of English, French, Spanish and German in EU. The Ogre (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I dont think it's the same case here. It's not just a matter of knowlege of Spanish, thoses people use spanish in their jobs and studies. I think you should do like the map of Francophonie, Anglophone world, and other languages. Or you can show the two versions of hispanophone map. One with native speakers and the other where spanish have influence. I just think people should know about north Morocco, you can do it in anyway you want, i can provide sources. About the 20,000 who use it as a second langauge, This is wrong, only Spaniards who lives in Morocco are more then that, and there's no sources that prove that, I think the number actually represent the number of native speakers not people who used it as a second language. Koumed (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Falklands

And to claim Spanish is spoken in the Falklands is about as far from the truth as you can get, there was a war over this very issue and this looks like pure POV pushing and thus unacceptable. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! The Ogre (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Should be spoken, because they are part of Argentina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.139.109.162 (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

On October 8, 2006 a population census was held in the islands (sources La Nación (in Spanish)
Without counting military personnel on duty, there are 2995 inhabitants; 227 are Spanish speakers (7.5%). Spanish ranks as the 2nd language spoken down there.

User:Ejrrjs says What? 11:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

From the cited source:
"Hay una gran desproporción entre el número de los que viven en la única ciudad de la isla y los que no viven en ella. Del total de 2995 habitan en Puerto Argentino 2115; en el resto de la isla Soledad 194; en la Gran Malvina 127; en otras islas 42, y civiles en la base de Monte Agradable, 477, como antes se ha dicho. Los nacimientos, en los cinco años que comprende el actual censo, fueron 148 y los decesos, 87." (There is a great disproportion between the number of those living in the only city on the island and those who do not live in it. Of the total 2995 live in Puerto Argentino 2115, in the rest of the island Soledad 194; in the Great Malvina 127; other 42 islands, and civilians at the base of Mount pleasant, 477, as noted above. Births in the five years that includes the current census, and were 148 deaths, 87.)
and
"El español es la segunda lengua de las Malvinas, ya que lo hablan 227 personas." (The Spanish is the second language of the Malvinas, as it is spoken by 227 people.) -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] North America

The new map should most certainly not be included in the article. As I mentioned above that I love English but see no need to promote it unnecessarily, the same is true of Spanish -- love it, no need for unnecessary promotion. I think a big plaque upon the language pages has been "language wars" to attempt to make one language appear more important than others. It's pure nonsense.

As for factual accuracy, I have never before heard the claim that Canada is Spanish-speaking. If there are enclaves they should be cited and shaded separately, but for certain not the entire country. As for the USA, I thought Chris S. had fixed this problem on the map not too long ago? The general agreement was that Spanish was obviously the most important second language in the United States, but that it was disproportionately important in certain states and almost unimportant in others. Thus, we agreed to reflect in the map only those states where 10-30% of the population spoke Spanish, as per an MLA census included as a citation, which I believe meant New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Florida, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California. I think this is fair, and showcases the realistic importance of Spanish in certain American states. SpiderMMB (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly again! The Ogre (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Have a look at this map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map-Hispano.png it's what the map should be like! At the moment you seem to be happy with the fact that English is underpromoted while Spanish is overpromoted. All I want is for the two languages to follow the same criteria! If you want the Spanish map to only use one colour outside of the US fine as long as the English language map only uses one colour. Your obsessed with colouring in US states to show the percentage of Spanish speakers good for you. However, you have to be prepared to colour areas of the world were English is spoken by large immigrant communities too. It's about equality! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important to be fair, and showcases the realistic importance of Spanish and English in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 11:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's perfectly acceptable to want one standard for all of the maps. In fact, I even support your idea to color Paraguay differently because it's official but not predominant (like Nigeria for English). But can't you see that accusing people of being "racist" and "biased" is not the best way to achieve that result? Also, you've been going to pages like German, Italian, French, and Spanish and talking about how certain places shouldn't be colored in, but at English you only ask that places should be colored in. That's not equality either. SpiderMMB (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Have a look at this map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map-Hispano.png it's what the map should be like!

Could someone please add the map to the article. By showing people were Spanish is the sole official language and where it shares this status with another language you will be able to really reflect the importance of the language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


O.K. I added it myself. I think the article is much better know as it reflects the realistic importance of Spanish now. One map shows where the language is actually official and the other shows it's use around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The new map is OK, but we still don't have one standard for all the map pages. For instance, English is actually co-official in New Brunswick, and is not official at all in Quebec (where it is co-official at the federal level, but French is the only official provincial language and the predominant language as well). Yet both are colored dark blue. Will you ask on English for that to be changed? I think that would go a long way in proving you are actually making a good faith effort towards "equality" and not just promoting English. SpiderMMB (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not think much of ther new mnap at all, peru, Bolivia and Paraguay should eb in blue too and I opose adding this map to the article for this reason, everyone knows they speak Spanish as much in Peru as in Guatemala etc and the officialness of other languages is utterly irrelevant to a map like this. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with use of the map per reasons stated by Squeakbox.--Jersey Devil (talk) 05:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That's why I propose keeping both maps. One map that shows where Spanish has official status and another showing it's use around the world. If a language has official status in a country it is in a totally different position. Are you O.K, with keeping both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

For me personally it doesn't matter, but would you also insist they change Quebec on English if your interest is really in equality? SpiderMMB (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes Quebec should be a different colour as French is the language spoken by the majority. That's why two maps would be a good idea for the English page two. One that shows that English is not the sole official language of Canada and another that actually shows where English is used and where it isn't.

OK, that's fine then. What I'd recommend you do is go to all the language pages (including English) and recommend that they do a three-tier coloring system something like this:
  • Dark blue -- countries where it is official (either de jure or de facto) and predominant (i.e. UK for English, Mexico for Spanish).
  • Light blue -- countries where it is official but not predominant (Quebec for English, Paraguay for Spanish).
  • Lightest blue -- countries where it is unofficial but spoken by some sizeable population or has some administrative status (i.e. Netherlands for English, U.S. states for Spanish)
The trickest one will be the last category, but I don't think it should have too much difficulty. Most people know the only country where Spanish is unofficial and widely spoken is the US. English might get more complicated because it's so widely spoken, but as long as it's citable (like the Netherlands, 87%) then there shouldn't be a major problem. SpiderMMB (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it could work. I'd only make one change though. I probably wouldn't colour in entire countries. For example, all of Canada shouldn't be dark blue as Quebec is French speaking so I'd colour in Quebec light blue. Same with Spanish. There are parts of Paraguay that are predemonantly Spanish speaking like the capital Asuncion so you'd probably have it dark blue while having the rest of Paraguay light blue. I'm not sure if this would work though. What do you think?

It could work. Quebec used to be a different color, and different US states are still different colors. For Asunción, a dark blue dot could be placed over it indicating that it is predominantly Spanish speaking. SpiderMMB (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Spanish speakers too high?

I only mention this because a number of users have pointed out that there are many countries where Spanish is not spoken by the entire population. One user mentioned Guatemala where only 60% of the population speaks Spanish. Other countries include, Paraguay, Peru and Bolivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The numbers not speaking Spanish are decreasing all the time but it is true there are still many. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish has been described as the third most influential language in the world (after English and French).

I find this sentence extremely subjective and unhelpful. What does "influential" mean anyway? I would like to remove the sentence from the article, but thought I'd better seek opinions here first. SteveRwanda (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right that it is subjective, but if there is a reputable source/sources for this, then it can stay. Saying that English is the most influential language in the world is subjective in a way, but many people would agree. Personally, I think the only way it would add something to the article is if there were specific examples of how it's been influential. I don't think there's any argument that it's been influential in the U.S., but it needs to be expanded if it claims "in the world". Kman543210 (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Not only is there a source but there are several criteria used by "the source". For instance, Spanish literature has been very influential since the 17th century. "How many copies of Don Quixote have been sold? How many languages has the book been translated to INCLUDING ENGLISH?" That's the kind of questions they make. By the way, apparently only current languages are included. Otherwise... (Ancient Greek, Latin, etc. probably remain among the most influential) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinceps (talk • contribs) 05:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish introduced in Equatorial Guinea

In the article it says that Spanish was introduced to Equatorial Guinea in the 20th century, but that's not true, Equatorial Guinea had been a Spanish colony for much more time, since 1774, I think. Now, it's true that it was introduced in Marroco and Western Sahara in the 20th century, but not in Equatorial Guinea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.58.56.122 (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish is the language of La República Árabe Saharaui

This former Spain's colony has territorial problems with Marruecos, some history is in República Árabe Saharaui Democrática. In that page says that the official language is Arab, but visitors of the Frente Polisario, searching support for their independence of Moroco say their language is Spanish.

More information is needed, but it seems to me that all the former spanish colonies with large populations speaking Spanish should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elias (talk • contribs) 06:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] nous autres

Nous autres n'est pas réservé au français du Québec. Cette expression existe aussi bien sûr en français "standard" (si tant est qu'il y a encore des gens qui le parlent à Paris). Il est plus logique de comparer l'espagnol nosotros (un mot composé) avec le français nous-autres qu'avec le mot "nous" tout court. stephane.jourdan gmail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.113.129 (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can anyone help to insert the consonant v (as an allophone) on the Spanish consonant chart?

You might be surprised, but this sound does exist in Spanish. Most Spanish speakers tend to voice unvoiced consonants before voiced consonants. For instance; mismo ("same") is pronounced ['mizmo̞] (speakers who do not aspirate "s"), juzgar ("to judge") is pronounced [xuð'ɣaɾ] (speakers who use the sound "θ", Castilian Spanish). Following the same pattern, it happens exactly the same when an "f" is followed by a voiced consonant (although this combination is not common in Spanish), it voices the "f" turning it into a v. For example; Dafne ("Daphne") is pronounced ['davne̞], rosbif de ternera ("veal roast beef") is pronounced [ro̞z'β̞iv ð̞e̞ t̪e̞ɾ'ne̞ɾa]. It is remarkable the popularity in Spain to pronounce the last "b" in the English loanword pub as f, [paf]. In contact with a voiced consonant will turn the "f" into a v, el pub de Marta ("Marta's pub") would be pronounced [e̞l pav ð̞e̞ 'maɾt̪a]. Would anyone who knows how to type that on wikipedia help to put that on the Spanish consonant chart to show the reality of the Spanish language?

Yes, it can be added if there is a source for it. Kman543210 (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
On the following document; Unit 3 (Tema 3), page 3.

http://www.uclm.es/profesorado/nmoreno/compren/material/2006apuntes_fonetica.pdf

Exercise of transcription /f/ turns into [v]:

http://plaza.ufl.edu/lmassery/Consonantes%20oclusivasreviewlaurie.doc The information is in Spanish. Afgano pronounced [av'ɣ̞ ano]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.120.161.94 (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone help to add it on the Spanish consonant chart, as I do not know how to add it?
I've linked to the source regarding /f/ at Spanish phonology but I don't know what the source is. Who is the author? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 05:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Catalan and Valencian

There has been several attempts to add Valencian in the list of language on this article and the Spanish People article to try and make it seem as if it's a completely different and independent language from Catalan. Virtually all sources say that they're the same language. The article already stated that it's called Valencian in Valencia officially. It can be confusing if it's listed as a completely separate language when the Spanish courts, linguists, and authoritative sources state it's a variety (vareties) of the same language spoken in Andorra, Catalonia, and the Belear Islands. Please stop with the edit warring in trying to insert a nationalistic point of view. Jabez2000 (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have several linguistic books, including some specifically on Romance languages, and they all list Valencian as one of the Catalan Varieties. I know that this is only anecdotal information, but I have a friend in Valencia who has told me too that it's the same language and that some try to separate themselves for political reasons or nationalism. But let's get back to facts and not opinions. The Spanish Supreme Court has basically ruled that Catalan and Valencian are varieties of the same language (just as Portuguese in Portugal and Brazil are both called Portuguese even though the pronunciation and orthography differ some). I agree that it's misleading to list them separately, and the text already acknowledges that the language is officially known in Valencia as Valencian. Kman543210 (talk) 05:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commonality with Portuguese

"Spanish and Portuguese share similar grammars and a majority of vocabulary as well as a common history of Arabic influence while a great part of the peninsula was under Islamic rule (both languages expanded over Islamic territories)."

Grammar aside (possibly pleonastic use of "share"; "majority" used with an uncountable noun) is it really the case that the larger part of Spanish vocabulary is identical to Portuguese vocabulary? — Paul G (talk) 11:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

They are very close in their written form, although the pronunciation can be very different. Many Portuguese speakers can actually understand a lot of spoken Spanish. I used to think this was a myth until I tested a Brazilian friend of mine, and she understood almost everything I said in Spanish to her. According to Ethnologue, they are 89% lexically similar which is probably why the word "majority" was used. See article Differences between Spanish and Portuguese. Kman543210 (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
While it's true that (some) Brazilian's understand Spanish up to a certain level it doesn't work as good the other way around. That is my personal experience made (living) in Spain and Brazil. --Floridianed (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and I should've included that disclaimer that Spanish speakers can not easily understand Portuguese like Portuguese speakers can understand Spanish. I'm not sure if it's true intelligibility based on similarity or because of exposure of Spanish to Portuguese speakers since Brazil and Portugal are right next to Spanish-speaking countries (probably both). As a Spanish speaker, I cannot fully understand Portuguese but can understand written Portuguese pretty well for someone who doesn't speak it. Kman543210 (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the cause is that Portuguese (for Spaniards´ears) has a kind of blurry pronunciation, while Spanish tends to have more definite sounds. Taking the word Portugal as an example, we Spaniards pronounce it as it´s written whereas when pronounced by some Portuguese people it sounds like Purchugl (with a kind of schwa between the g and the l). Phonetically, Spanish is rather poorer than Portuguese is.--Xareu bs (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It’s not that Portuguese has better phonetic should, it’s just different; after all they are two different languages. I really find it silly that people are always comparing these two languages as if there were dialects of each other, they are both great languages and there is no need to compare one to the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.180.169 (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cooficiality in Spain

Hispanic World

This wikipedia image on this article must be modifyed in order of correction. In Spain, spanish is the oficial language and is cooficial in some regions (such Galicia, Basque Country and Catalonia). You can verify it from the spanish constitution of 1978 (art. 3.1 and 3.2). You can discuss it on ca:Usuari:Bestiasonica (in english (medium/poor) and catalan). Thank u! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.78.185.65 (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Spanish Language on CNN

The Spanish Language on CNN By Chris Crommet, Vice-President of CNN en Español. Atlanta The cyber community on Wikipedia tells us that in the case of "neutral Spanish," the linguistic forms employed generally coincide with academic rules regarding the language and with the forms used in the Spanish language literary tradition.

With all due respect to our academic colleagues, the traditional academic rules on language rarely apply to TV reports. They are not clear or concise enough. And they aren’t encompassing enough, given that TV reports are to be heard, not to be read. Our reports are written to be read out loud and to be understood by viewers as they hear them. In a journalistic context, it would also be problematic to employ the forms used in the Spanish literary tradition, as stipulated by the Wikipedia definition.

The fundamental issue is that we are after a simple and expressive Spanish, one that projects our idea as precisely as possible. At the same time, we would like it to be understood by our public across the world, at all the latitudes we reach. But we are not after flat accents or washed-out words, nor do we want grammatical constructions that are not agreeable to the ear, even if they are correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.55.213 (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This page is so one sided it makes the leaning tower of Pisa look upright

Spanish is so important, so widely spoken, so influential, so great, by the way did you know that Portuguese and Spanish are the same language?... Please, please, please!!!!!!!!! The rest of the world is not the United States. The United States might be experiencing mass immigration from Latin America and becoming more Spanish speaking but the rest of the world isn't. You don't even have to look very far to see that the rest of the world is not in the same position as the US. Just look a little north. How important is Spanish in Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh and if you are an American living in Latin America. Yes, Spanish is important in the countries where it is an official language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a specific suggestion to improve the article, or is this just a soapbox rant that should be deleted? Where did you get the idea that Spanish and Portuguese are the same language? They just happened to develop in the Iberian peninsula simultaneously. Kman543210 (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Kman here. Please don't use talk pages as a soapbox if you have anything to say about improving the article just say it. Also Portuguese and Spanish are by no means "the same language".--Jersey Devil (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

O.K. for example, Spanish and Italian do not differ very much in grammar. Excuse me? Spanish and Italian do in fact differ significantly. Let's take a simple sentence: Sono arrivata solo ieri (I only arrived yesterday as stated by a female) Sounds like saying they don't differ very much is a bit POV.

Another example, Spanish is the most popular studied foreign language in U.S. schools and universities. What about other countries? For example, how many people study Spanish in Hungary, Mongolia, the rest of the world?

Lastly, my all time favorite, Spanish has been described as the third most influential language in the world (after English and French). By whom? Where? Is Spanish the third most influential language in Central Europe? I don't think so. German, French and English occupy the three top positions in that region. Is it the third most influential language in Vietnam? Once again no. I think that English, French and Chinese would occupy the top three positions there.

Spanish is one of the official languages of the U.N. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
There's just one little word you forgot. Spanish is one of the SIX official languages of the U.N. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, out of thousands of languages in the world. I think it's more POV to remove mention of Spanish's influence in the US. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 01:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I did not say that we should remove mention of Spanish's influence in the US. I said that we should include other countries as well to make it less US centric!
Thank you for expanding on your concerns about the article. I'll give my thoughts on each one of your points:
  • Comparison to Italian: I think it's fair to compare Spanish to other Romance languages such as Italian and Portuguese. It's also true that the vowel sounds are more similar to Italian than to any other major Romance language, hence the statement of them sharing similar phonological systems. As far as grammar, there are many different aspects to grammar, but there is a source provided that they have a lexical similarity of 82%. The source provided states an 85% lexical similarity with Catalan, so this could also be mentioned.
  • Most popular studied foreign language in the U.S.: I thinking finding statistics for every country might be difficult, but the U.S. has around the 3rd largest population in the world, so I think it's worth mentioning. Is this U.S.-centric? Maybe, but I think it's still notable.
  • Third most influential language: Is this subjective? Yes, but it is sourced. I'll leave it up to other editors whether it should remain, as I don't have a strong feeling on it. It does state "has been described" instead of "it is." It does state "behind English and French," but as for Mandarin, that's debatable. Mandarin has the most speakers of any other language, but has it been influential around the world? Did China colonize all the continents and spread their language that way?
Kman543210 (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


Did you even read what I wrote? I did not mention that Spanish should not be compared to other Romance languages nor did I talk about the phonological systems of the two languages. Please read my comment again and then comment on whether saying that the two languages do not differ very much in their grammars is POV or not. The US may have the world's third largest population but 300 million is not very significant when you compare it with China ( 1.3 billion) and India ( over 1 billion ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 07:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well if Spanish is popular in India and China we should mention that too. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 07:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
If you have articles that support that yeah sure.

I give up. If people prefer this article be written as though it's for a magazine for Spanish aficionados ignoring any serious effort to make it more fitting for an encyclopedia then you can have your bias article. However, just know that by distorting the truth to make Spanish look more important all you are doing is ruining Wikipedia's reputation. I know that the US will soon be a Spanish speaking country and become like Latin America but like I said before the US is not the world.

It's really odd that you're saying that mentioning Spanish usage in the United States is making it look more important than it is but then that it's okay to also mention it in other countries. But hey, if you give up then you give up. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to mention that references to the US are relevant because this is the English Wikipedia, and the US is the largest English-speaking country, in terms of native speakers. --Jotamar (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that's endorsing an English-centric POV. It's approprite to mention the US because the US is a big country period. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 23:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

ONLY mentioning the US makes Spanish look more important than it is because it is not as important in the rest of the world! And yes I know that I said that I had given up but your comment makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

So what do you recommend? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 01:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, only mentioning the U.S. as Spanish being a popular foreign langauge wouldn't make Spanish look more important; it would actually make it look less important because the U.S. is only one country. If we can find sources for other countries, then they should be included. Kman543210 (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need etymology assistance

Can we get some help regarding an etymology question at Talk:Andrés Quintana Roo? Thank you, Badagnani (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish alphabet

The Spanish alphabet has 29 letters! The letter "w" is INCLUDED and this is a FACT! --Floridianed (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that you added this to the talk page. I added the source for the Diccionario panhispánico de dudas about a month ago as well as changed the text to state that there are 29 letters without a disclaimer in the parentheses; I'm not sure when it was changed back. The Real Academia Española is the recognized governing body for the Spanish language and specifically states the following: El abecedario español está hoy formado por las veintinueve letras siguientes: a, b, c, ch, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, ll, m, n, ñ, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z, which translates basically into The Spanish alphabet is formed today by the following 29 letters:... Because the words that use "w" are accepted in the Spanish language, so is the letter "w" now as well. Here is the exact link (in Spanish): http://buscon.rae.es/dpdI/SrvltConsulta?lema=abecedario Kman543210 (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the "flowers". I'm just "sick" of those wrong edits and sought a comment on the talk page could make is easier when reverting to the facts since I'm sure it'll be never settled for good. Now you/I or anybody else can just reverse with a simple "see talk" in the edit summary. --Floridianed (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


As I understand it, the 26 basic letters including "w" —as well as ch, ll, ñ, and rr— are now recognized by Spain's language academy as letters, for a total of 30.

For purposes of collation, however, the academy does not treat rr as a separate letter. That is, ch follows cz in the dictionary, ll follows lz, and ñ follows "nz"; but rr comes between rqu and rs.Pine (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Averting an edit war

Could someone who knows Spanish help avoid an edit war involving this edit and the ones immediately preceding it? Perhaps an erudite clarification at talk:Nena would help. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Michael Hardy, but "nena" [male:"nene"] is a correct Spanish word. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I am a mexican native speaker, nena is perfect spanish. See the Royal Spanish Academy of Language dictionary:nene,nena. In English you may say baby or babe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elias (talk • contribs) 05:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Co-oficiality in Mexico

Hispanic World

Hey, I need to say that in México Spanish language is not the unique official language, it's Co-oficial, the same with Spain and others in LatinAmerica.

--EmilioPin (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

From my understanding, Mexico doesn't have an official language at the national level, but Spanish is the de facto or national language. I believe the other countries that have co-official languages on the map, the other languages besides Spanish are co-official at the federal level, not just in certain regions/states. Spain only has one official language at the federal level; it's co-official languages are only co-official in their respective regions/communities. Kman543210 (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


I'm Mexican, I know that at the constitutional level is said that all the 62 and other Spoken languages in México are as official as Spanish.

See the México's article at .es wikipedia, or look it up in the constitution.

I want to be friendly, please, look it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilioPin (talk • contribs) 06:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Just looked it up, and it states "No existe declaratoria constitucional de lengua oficial. La Ley General de Derechos Lingüísticos de los Pueblos Indígenas señala que todas las lenguas indígenas que se hablen son lenguas nacionales e igualmente válidas en todo el territorio nacional" which basically says that there is no constitutional declaration of an official language and that the general language rights law gives equal status to indigenous languages. This is not the same as co-official languages. It basically gives protection to the indigenous languages, but Spanish is the language that is spoken by the most people and the most in government in Mexico, so that's why it's said "de facto" official. This is just like English in the U.S. which has no federal official status but is considered "de facto". Kman543210 (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish is not the official language in México.

Please, read this article:

es:Idioma_español

It says (in the right side)

México no tiene formalmente lengua oficial. El español, lengua mayoritaria y oficial de facto, es definido junto con las lenguas autóctonas como «lengua nacional».

Translation:

México hasn't got a sore language. The Spanish, is the majority spoken language, it's deffined, as other languages as <<national languages>>.

That's also said at the Mexican Constitution.

-- If there's a document in Náhuatl, that would be right for example or in any other spoken language... --

Thank you.

--EmilioPin (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

And what are Mexicans mute now. Spanish is the language spoken by all or most of all Mexicans and the only one used by the government. So please stop overreacting.DanishWolf (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That what you say is true for Peru and Bolivia too, but only México appears as having just one official languaje.200.1.20.227 (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hispanic Population of the United States 2006 Census Update

According to the U.S. Census Bureau and the Percent Change Variation in Hispanic Population between years 2000 to 2006 [4] and if we use the 2000 Census as initial reference [5] we can update the following figures by State: (Arkansas: 5.1 %, Georgia: 8.4 %, South Carolina: 3.8 %, Tennessee: 3.4 %, North Carolina: 7.3 %, South Carolina: 2.1 %, Nevada: 30 %, Alabama: 2.5 %, Maryland: 6.3 %, Alaska: 5.9 %, Virginia: 6.7 %, New Hampshire: 2.4 %, Maine: 1 %, Delaware: 6.8 %, Kentucky: 2.1 %, Utah: 12.6 %, Indiana: 4.8 %, Iowa: 3.8%, Arizona: 34.7 %, Missouri: 2.9 %, Nebraska: 7.5 %, Oklahoma: 7.1 %, Oregon: 10.9 %, North Dakota: 1.6 %, Minnesota: 3.9 %, Idaho: 10.7 %, West Virginia: 0.9 %, Florida: 22.6 %, Mississippi: 1.9 %, Wisconsin: 4.8 %, Pennsylvania: 4.2 %, Montana: 2.6 %, Washington: 9.8 %, Rhode Island: 11.1 %, Vermont: 1.1 %, Colorado: 21.4 %, Kansas: 8.7 %, Texas: 39.8 %, Ohio: 2.3 %, Illinois: 15 %, Connecticut: 11.4 %, New Jersey: 16 %, Michigan 4 %, California: 38.3 %, Massachusetts: 8.0 %, Louisiana: 2.7 %, Hawaii: 8.1 %, Wyoming: 7.1 %, New Mexico: 47 %, New York: 16.4 %, District of Columbia: 8.3 %).

So the hispanophone map in the world should be updated in order to reflect this new facts. Ascosphaera (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sole language in Mexico?

As far as I know Mexico's Constitution has in the same level the Spanish and the indigenous dialects and languages present in its territory, and therefore in the "Hispanosphere" they placed the Spanish as a sole speaked recognized language, although more than the 80% of the population in Mexico speaks Spanish.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.216.36.38 (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


[edit] G

The article is not clear on the phonetics of the letter G (ga, ge, gue, gi, gui, go, gu, güe, güi). I'm not able fix this myself, because I bearly speak english. Please someone else do it.200.1.20.227 (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Hard Edge Politics

The hard edge shown along the Brazilian border in the maps is utterly ridiculous and false. Not only was much of what is now the Brazilian Amazon basin claimed by Spain, but it was visited by Spanish explorers and missionaries. Many people close to Brazils western borders with Spanish speaking countries have long standing contacts and business with the Spanish speaking countries that go back centuries. In places like the Peruvian-Brazilian border a dialect of Spanish, known as Amazoniac Spanish - which has absorbed many words from the indigenous languages of the Amazon - actually exists on both sides of the border. The hard edge of these maps is but a fantasy of the bureaucrats of distant Brasilia and middle classes of Sao Paulo, Rio de Jeneiro, etc, who want to deny the reality of western Brazil they find so discomfiting. By the way - Brazil would be a better run country if their officials stopped wasting time manipulating articles in the English, Portuguese and Spanish wikipedias Provocateur (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish language in Australia

Is Spanish also spoken in Australia? --Master of the Aztecs (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It is, but should not be on the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BubbleDude22 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Spanish is a minority language in Australia, however, at a level which would not deem it worthwhile for inclusion. Of the 21,000,000 inhabitants, ABS 2001 statistics (see ABS statistical release) identifies less that 100,000 speakers of the language (I believe the wiki article concurs with this). There is also a tendency for the language not to be passed down generations, ie whilst children of Spanish speaking migrants may understand spoken Spanish, their ability to speak the language deteriorates with each generation (see University of Melbourne: Australian Migration and Language study 2007). This probably doesn't satisfy the wikipedia 'sourcing' requirements, but it is worth taking into account as to why Spanish should not be included as a language in Australia.

On the other hand, Spanish is occasionally included as one of the "Help in other Languages" languages when announcements or information is issued to the public (such as Public Health or Council information). However, languages such as Greek, Italian, Vietnamese, Croatian, Mandarin, Cantonese, Indonesia, and Somali are also included, with the first four the most common, and the remainder sometimes omitted. I have included a link to the Melbourne City Council website which shows details at the footer of the documents as an example: [6].

With the exception of the above, Spanish has no application in the public eye. I would probably then suggest that it should not be included as a language spoken in Australia, no more so than any other language. While it is true that there are speakers of Spanish in Australia, I think that Wikipedia articles as a whole should reflect 'substance over form'. Is Spanish spoken in Australia? Technically, yes - but is it an Australian language? Probably, no. The Red Threat (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish to english /Enlish to spanish

I have bought a Mitsubishi Pajero and someone told me that pajero means wanker in Spanish. Does wanker in spanish mean the same as it does in english. Murray

See http://www.cyclingforums.com/showthread.php?t=263788
Also see WP:NOTBLOG and WP:NOTDICDEF. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


I didn´t know what wanker meant; according to Cambridge Dictionary:
wank Show phonetics
verb [I] UK OFFENSIVE
to masturbate (= excite your own or someone else's sex organs by hand)
So in this sense, yes, pajero means wanker. That´s why Mitsubishi changed the name of the car in Spain to Montero. Who would buy a wanker?--Xareu bs (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
See the RAE (Royal Spanish Academy of Language) dictionary, the first meaning is maybe what the name of the car means, I do not know it, but it seems it is a kind of truck to carry straw. The second meaning in some countries means someone who masturbates him self, it is offensive. In many countries like Mexico it is not used with that sense, this may explain the controversy in that cycling page. I am a Spanish native speaker! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elias (talk • contribs) 07:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


Officially, "pajero" means "person who carries straw", but at least in Spain the slang meaning wanker is widely used. And yes, that's why Mitsubishi decided to commercialise this vehicle as "Mitsubishi Montero", after realising that the poor sales figures could respond to this. I wouldn't buy a Wanker, afterall...

[edit] Voiced vs. voiceless

I think the table could be improved to reflect this information; however, I am reluctant to touch it as I am certain that I would muck it up. If someone could set up the table to allow for it, I would be happy to enter the information. Murray F. White (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I did the easy thing and just said above the table that symbols to the right are voiced. Since that's how it's always laid out anyway, explicitely including that the table as such would probably be unnecessarily redundant. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 05:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have looked more closely. The table jumped out at me and I focused on it. Thnaks for clearing it up. I have a question for you, so I will go to your talkpage if you will indulge me. Murray F. White (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Stress

The article says that words ending in "s" or a vowel are stressed on the next-to-last syllable, and all others are stressed on the last syllable. But words that end in "n" are also stressed on the next-to-last syllable. For example, bailan (you all [formal]/they dance) is pronounced BAI-lan, gustan (you all [formal]/they are pleasing) is pronounced GUS-tan, and comienzan (you all [formal]/they begin) is pronounced co-MIEN-zan. Danielaustinhall12 (Go Wolverines!) 22:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You are indeed correct. Although it looks like somebody fixed it already. The section on accent placement is reading pretty nicely right now. – Novem Lingvae (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Somebody deleted again the "n". Well, let me tell you that RAE's rules for placing the accent mark are based on statistical frequency of the accentuation of different kinds of words. If most words ending in "-n" were stressed on their last syllabe, the rule would prescribe not to put an accent mark on these words. So I put the /n/ back. --El Mexicano (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The short answer is that we're going by what the source says. If you'd like to see a longer answer, you can check out the source or you can look at here. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 13:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of source is that, but first, it is unverifiable, and second, there is no any official Spanish Academy statement that would say that. That statement has no sense this way, because contradicts to the official accentuation rules established by the Royal Spanish Academy. --El Mexicano (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What you're talking about is orthographic rules and what that section in the article is talking about is phonological rules. Despite what you may think, there is a difference and the statement is, indeed verifiable. I recommend that you take a look at the source. Luckily enough, it's available online. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 17:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but the orthographic rules are based on the statistical occurence of the different kinds of word stress. When Royal Spanish Academy established those rules, they didn't do it randomly just as they wanted, but they did know what and why. Anyway, I looked at the source, and it seems to me too superficial. It doesn't take in consideration that the -n marks the plural third person of verbs in any tense, except the futuro simple with stressed endings. You can just take a longer text and count how many words end in -an, -en, -on and -án, -én, -ín, -ón. --El Mexicano (talk) 10:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is the case that the statistical pattern has changed since the orthographic rules were set in place. Either way, we shouldn't be inferring from the decrees of a prescriptivist organization for what is better handled by studies from objective and descriptivist linguists. You say that the orthographic rules are based on statistical occurrences of word stress, but the cited source is a study of just that. I see what you're saying about the potential problems in methodology; perhaps we can get a greater understanding or alternate voices regarding Spanish stress by looking at some of the other studies that the source points to.
What we shouldn't do is change the information in the article to something the citation doesn't say while keeping the citation. That's academically dishonest. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 17:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Listen, I've just made some statistics with NOTEPAD++, based on the full text of Don Quijote. The following data is just for informing purposes, I know that own research is not allowed in Wikipedia, but the results of my analysis are really interesting:

  • Last-but-one syllabe stressed words ending in -n:
    • words ending in -on (without prepositions "con"): 4,284
    • words ending in -an: 4,296
    • words ending in -en (without prepositions "en"): 2,974
    • Total of last-but-one syllabe stressed words ending in -n: 11,554
  • Last syllabe stressed words ending -n:
    • words ending in -ón: 1,476
    • words enging in -án: 455
    • words ending in -én: 500
    • words ending in -ín: 80
    • words ending in -ún: 566
    • Total of last syllabe stressed words ending in -n: 3,077

So just compare the two results. That's evident and trivial. Regards, --El Mexicano (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Just one more thing I forgot to comment. You've said: Perhaps it is the case that the statistical pattern has changed since the orthographic rules were set in place. — Well, it would be only possible if accentuation of Spanish words had changed since the rules had been established. The accentuation of Spanish words has not changed for at least 8 centuries, or, if it did, the tendency is just the opposite: from last syllabe to last but one, and from last but one, to antepenult. Cf. Old Spanish avié, guardarién, reína > Modern Spanish había, guardarían, réina. From the other hand, the rules on when and where to put the accent mark, are relatively new, not older than from the 19th or 20th century. --El Mexicano (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
If you know that we can't make any OR generalizations, why did you bother? You can reason until you're blue in the face but we've got to work with sources. Period. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you will believe an evident stupidness in an unreliable source written by anybody of who we can't even know who is and where he worked from, without any primary sources or references, then let's go, I can say just sorry. --El Mexicano (talk) 06:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I gave you the source. here is the guy's webpage where he's put his publication list. He's no Chompsky, but he's a reliable enough linguist. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 07:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict

There's a tag at the top of this article that says this article conflicts with Spanish in the United States. What's the conflict? Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's in the talk page there. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 18:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sole official language in Peru and Bolivia at the national level

In the map Spanish appears as being coofficial at the national level, and I think that's not true. Quechua, Aymara and others are indeed official, but only in the areas where they are predominant. According to the Constitution of Peru: "Artículo 48°. Son idiomas oficiales el castellano y, en las zonas donde predominen, también lo son el quechua, el aimara y las demás lenguas aborígenes, según la ley." I would appreciate if someone fixed the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.43.96.15 (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, for Bolivia, I also think Spanish is the sole official language at the national level, according to the current constitution (since february 2009). It clearly states Spanish and other 36 languages are ALL official, yes, but also that each department MUST HAVE at least two official languages, ONE OF WICH must necessarily be Spanish. Here's the article: "Artículo 5: I. Son idiomas oficiales del Estado el castellano y todos los idiomas de las naciones y pueblos indígena originario campesinos, que son el aymara, araona, baure, bésiro, canichana, cavineño, cayubaba, chácobo, chimán, ese ejja, guaraní, guarasu’we, guarayu, itonama, leco, machajuyai-kallawaya, machineri, maropa, mojeño-trinitario, mojeño-ignaciano, moré, mosetén, movina, pacawara, puquina, quechua, sirionó, tacana, tapiete, toromona, uru-chipaya, weenhayek, yaminawa, yuki, yuracaré y zamuco. II. El Gobierno plurinacional y los gobiernos departamentales deben utilizar al menos dos idiomas oficiales. Uno de ellos debe ser el castellano, y el otro se decidirá tomando en cuenta el uso, la conveniencia, las circunstancias, las necesidades y preferencias de la población en su totalidad o del territorio en cuestión. Los demás gobiernos autónomos deben utilizar los idiomas propios de su territorio, y uno de ellos debe ser el castellano." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.43.96.15 (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The map is correct for Paraguay, where both Spanish and Guarani are treated equally in the constitution, being both official nationwide. But this is the only case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.43.96.15 (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] English Spanish Translator Org (External Links)

English Spanish Translator Org is the biggest Spanish community in English with more than 25.000 users. I am one of them, I was going to add it to this page, but I saw that it was better to publish it here first: http://www.english-spanish-translator.org/ Please see at the bottom of the page: Threads: 5,325, Posts: 28,003, Members: 28,257, Active Members: 6,300 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.33.60 (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mobile Spanish to English Language Translator

Viman007 (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC) I would like to submit a mobile spanish to english language translator under useful links. The website address is www.spanish.mobi. What is the best way to get this link included on wikipedia? Any help or guidance would be mcuh appreciated.

[edit] "Lingua Franca" versus "Official Language"

I've noticed quite a bit of conflict on this talk page apropos Spanish as "officially recognized" in certain countries/areas.

A number of countries —for instance, Mexico— have no official language at all. And while Quechua and Aymara —along with Spanish— are official languages in Peru and Bolivia (and native Aymara speakers outnumber native Spanish speakers in Bolivia), no reasonable man would dispute that Spanish is the lingua franca of said countries. When 2 or more Bolivian, Peruvian, or Mexican strangers communicate, they usually do so in Spanish.

Perhaps this article ought to be cleaned up so as to list countries/areas where Spanish is the lingua franca (regardless of whether there are other official languages —or none whatsoever) vis-a-vis other areas —such as the southwestern USA— where Spanish is widely spoken, but is clearly not the lingua franca.

This would probably clarify its content a great deal. Pine (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Is Spanish being revived in the Philippines?

I have heard that Spanish is being taught in Filipino schools.Would be better to include "Spanish is being revived in the Philippines after it was phased out by the Americans. LeUrsidae96 (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably not unless some more info is provided and a supporting source is cited re the alleged "revival". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Question: Why aren't there audio samples of languages on language pages

Pretty much asked it in the headline. I know that on band pages there is often a short sample of their music, and that there are usualy samples of famous speeches given by a person if appropriate on their page, but no audio samples on language pages. This is a pretty obvious idea, so I imagine that it was debated at some earlier time and decided against. Just curious as to why; something having to do with agreeing on what accent to include? 83.31.102.40 (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hispanophone world map

This user-created image is just short of overtly polemical, and of dubious reliability, yet it's used in this very high-profile article. Only certain states in the United States are designated as areas where "Spanish is spoken without official recognition." There are no cited sources; for all we know, the creator (apparently a banned sockpuppeteer) made it up out of thin air. Besides the purportedly demographic shading in the states, the creator merely colored Spanish-speaking countries blue, as if, in all these countries, the percentage of Spanish speakers were 100%, and everywhere else it were 0%, except for in the aforementioned states. This image is misleading and without scholarly value, and should not be used.
What might work instead? 1) A map showing countries in which Spanish is recognized as an official language - but then the United States would not be included, which seems to be the underlying point of this point-y map. 2) A map showing regions in which Spanish is spoken as a primary and/or second language - this would be extremely useful, but would take an awful lot of work, and would probably violate WP:NOR if we created it ourselves (although I might be willing to overlook that if the research were solid.)24.22.141.252 (talk) 08:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

The introduction of this article seems to contradict List of languages by number of native speakers (this article claims Spanish is second, the linked article claims fourth). Am I not understanding something? Thanks. 121.217.128.6 (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the factual accuracy of that article is disputed as you can see when you go the article at the of the page. So there's bound to information that's wrong there. Also, according to Ethnologue, one of the primary sources of List of languages by number of native speakers is Ethnologue, it references Spanish as being the second most spoken language in terms of native speakers but not in the article. Let me try to update that article so that there won't be a contradiction. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 01:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Philippines

The Philippines is not a country where Spanish is spoken by a significant amount of people. So there is no reason to keep adding it to "a significant number of the populations" section. Even though it was a former Spanish colony, it doesn't mean that Spanish is spoken today by a significant amount of people. Yes Spanish impacted the languages in the Philippines but we don't say things such as: Latin is spoken by a significant part of the U.S. or the U.K. because English borrowed words a whole bunch of words from Latin. Britain after all was controlled by Rome in the past, in the same sense that the Philippines was controlled by Spain. Spanish in the Philippines is already discussed in the article, adding it to the regions with significant populations is misleading and untrue. If you also check CIA World Factbook, Spanish is not identified as a major spoken language. Also please refer to Spanish in the Philippines. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 01:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

But Pilita Corrales speaks Spanish, among other (old) young people. While it may not be spoken by a particular community, individual speakers are still out there, probably in the millions, so please stop removing the Philippines from the list.--23prootie (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I read the source you added and I have to say it is dubious. First of all, the Philippines did not conduct a "1988 census" which the book implies. Secondly, it combines Chabacano as a form of Spanish, but it is Spanish-based and not entirely Spanish. It's like Spanish is to Latin. It's a separate language. Also this source, Ethnologue, (specializes in language studies and is used for a considerable amount of other language pages including this one and List of languages by native speakers) which actually used data from a census year, only puts Spanish as 2660 for the 1990 census. Even combining it Chabacano with Spanish using Ethnologue figures does not even put it at a million. I'm going to put dubious tags in the meanwhile. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 14:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I also have to say that I don't know where you were getting your figures from. Under page 65, which you stated that that's where the information was retrieved, did not reference anything about 2.8 million as a total amount of speakers and the other figures you were putting. I changed them based on the information given from the source you provided. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 14:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I found another source that places the number of speakers as 2,900,000, close to the number I suggested. There are sources out there that places the Spanish community in the islands a 1-3 million. And while most of them are old people and are slowly dying out, most of them are still alive so I would give you some caution before counting them out.--23prootie (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure that the new source you added is the correct section? Pg. 120 by Michael Clyne is all about the German language and doesn't mention anything about Spanish. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 12:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Also if you look above, Talk:Spanish language#Spanish in Philippines, those figures that you have been adding have been seen as unreliable by other editors and what it seems like, multiple times in the past. Furthermore, I'm not the only person who disagrees in combining Spanish and Chabacano if you look at the thread above again. Chabacano is a different language and as such should be excluded from the figure. The 2.9 million seems to have included Chabacano. True that there are sources out there but that doesn't mean that they are at all reliable. Just take a look at the first source you added, it was already completely wrong about the census year and I easily refuted those numbers along with the census year with a more verifiable source (Ethnologue) that I'm sure other editors would agree with. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 12:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Saying that Spanish is spoken at any relevant level in the Phillipines is a delirium. Spanish language in the Philippines states (my bolds):

According to the 1990 Philippine census, there are 2,660 native Spanish speakers in the Philippines.[7] An additional 607,200 speak Chabacano, a Spanish-based creole. However, the Instituto Cervantes in Manila puts the number of Spanish-speakers in the Philippines in the area of two to three million.[8] (failed verification on January 2009) which includes non-native speakers as well, meaning Filipinos who speak Spanish as second, or third language. Some estimates range the number of speakers at 2.9 million with about 1.9 native speakers.(source not available online) The 2,450,000 figure is based on census figures from 1988, and includes 689,000 Chabacano speakers in addition to 1,761,690 Spanish speakers, per [9] (unreliable source that mentions a non-existent census).

The verifiable data for the Philippines give a number of less than 3000 speakers! And the The Cervantes Institute source, now unavailable (!!) is not a primary source (it's not even a secondary source!!), as it just quotes an Italian almanac (Calendario Atlante de Agostini 1997, Novara, Instituto Geográfico de Agostino, 1996, p. 315, that gives, without sources, 3% of the population speaking Spanish). To this the Cervantes Institute adds 689.000 speakers of Chavacano (not Spanish proper, but a Spanish creole, spoken mostly in Zamboanga City and in the provinces of Zamboanga del Sur, Zamboanga Sibugay, Zamboanga del Norte, and Basilan. It is also spoken in some areas of Cavite, Davao, and Cotabato), according to data from A. Quilis (La lengua española en cuatro mundos, Madrid, Mapfre, 1992, p. 82), without specifying if in the first estimate these Chavacano speakers were already counted or not (thus raising the total figure to 2.450.000). The Cervantes site does state that these estimate contradict the Census. One should also notice that English is an official language in the Philippines, unlike Spanish (see The Official Website of the Republic of the Philippines). Therefore, I believe that the Philippines should NOT be included in the Hispanosphere in any way, since there are no relevant numbers of Spanish spkeakers there, given that the Cervantes Institute is not, in this specific matter, a reliable source! And the other sources present neither, since they present gross errors. The Philippines should be removed from this article. The Ogre (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The source for the 2.9 million figure is available online. Just search the title and it should come up as an electronic book. But I did not find anything there based on the listed page number or section. Also, I think that those figures (2.8-2.9 million) represents people who have knowledge of the Spanish language and not necessarily speak it during everyday conversation. There's a difference between people who know the language and people who speak it. I took Spanish as a fourth language but I don't think in any way I was or will be included in the any censuses for people who speak Spanish. This distinction between actual speakers and people who possess knowledge seems to have been reflected upon the Philippine census numbers where there was less than 3000 people counted. I do agree with removing the Philippines per the reasons cited above. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 14:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ¿Filipinas?

I'm adding the Philippines back to the list in the infobox since it does not specify whether or not only first language speakers should be counted or should other speakers be counted as well. I also believe that caution should be used when using the 1990 census or any census for that matter in the country since it does not specify how it counted the mother language of a person and whether or not it counted a natively multilingual people at multiple times. It also should be noted that the use of a language within a community is irrelevant to the number of speakers and that native speakers may continue to exist even though they may do not necessarily use the language to communicate with others.--23prootie (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The first part of the infobox references "Spanish speaking" countries/territories or countries/territories that speak Spanish as main language. The second part of the infobox references countries with "and significant populations of" which seems to be a continuation of the first statement which referenced Spanish as a main language. So addition of the Philippines would not fit this criteria because Spanish is not a main language in the Philippines. Out of the sources we have, the 1990 census is the most reliable so that's what we have to work with for now. Plus, in terms of reliability, credibility and verifiability, census numbers usually go to the top of the list so I really don't agree with your caution to the 1990 census. I also haven't seen any recent textbook (not including history textbooks) referencing Spanish today in the Philippines or the country as a Spanish speaking country. So again, referencing the country in the infobox does not seem to fit what should be included in the infobox. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 20:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Also 2 mil, 3 mil, you keep changing the estimates so it's really hard to believe if what your saying is true, does not seem like a "significant amount" of people speak the language. 2 to 3 percent of population is something I wouldn't call a language where a significant amount of people speak the language. Also, please refer to my thread below. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 21:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

A "Criticism" section appeared recently in this article. It doesn't link to any sources and makes some incomplete points. (E.g., I'm not sure what is meant by "a sister isn't a female brother." Perhaps someone can clarify? I've never read any publications declaring "se" to be only a reflexive pronoun, but "third-person indirect-object pronoun changes to a third-person reflexive pronoun" suggests that it is. Also, I wasn't aware of any "propaganda" campaign claiming that needed debunking.) I could mark the section as unsourced, but the whole section should probably just be removed. Or can it be salvaged? Rod (A. Smith) 17:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it can not be. This is just politically correct "crap"! Completely unsourced, OR and POV. All languages are somehow discriminatory... Removed the section. The Ogre (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Total speakers vs. actual speakers.

The addition of countries in the infobox seems to be a matter of dispute. But to make things clearer, there is little significance in the total number of speakers of Spanish because it's all about actual usage or how many people use/speak the language. The reason countries like the U.S. is included in the infobox because there is a significant amount of people WHO ACTUALLY SPEAK the language during everyday conversation. There is no need to include countries that speak Spanish as a second language (or higher) in the infobox such as Canada, Brazil or the Philippines because the actual usage of the language is NOT spoken by a significant population but rather known by a certain amount of people. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 19:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The definition of the term "speakers"

I would have to apologize to Elockid. I am in no mood to read your walls of text so could you please keep it simple. The term "speakers" refers to people who are able to understand and possibly speak a language. They do not, however, necessarily mean people who use a language all the time. Therefore, anyone who can understand and possibly speak a language may be treated as a "speaker" even if they rarely use that language.--23prootie (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the walls of text. I'll try to keep it simpler for others. I think deleting the countries in the infobox was the best move to keep disputes, not only the Philippines but some countries like Morocco and Brazil from having issues about why wasn't it on the list.
But in terms of "speakers", I don't think it necessarily mean that. For example, for English, I'm sure that there are many countries that are in the same boat as Spanish where there are regions with significant populations that know the language but don't necessarily speak it. If the English language page had a country list, countries such as Bangladesh or China would be included (per your definition below). I don't think that those countries would necessarily be added or thought of a country where English is spoken by a significant population because more than 1 million people have the ability to speak English. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 22:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Significant population

The criteria I used to define the "significant population" is either a percentage of over 5% or a speaking population of over a million.--23prootie (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Naming and origin" section

It just presents the point of view in Spain, not in the other Spanish-speaking countries. I mean, it doesn't say how the Spanish language is called in other countries (español or castellano), as the article in Spanish does. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idioma_español#Pol.C3.A9mica_sobre_espa.C3.B1ol_o_castellano --L Lawliet (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As a native speaker of Spanish from Spain, I was surprised to hear that it is "rare" to use the term "español" to refer to the Spanish language, particularly when it says: "even when contrasting it with languages such as French and English".

The prescriptive opinion of the Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas, quoted in the wikipedia gives preference to "español", particularly in an international context and reserves "castellano" to scientific usage or in contrast with other languages.

I don't have the statistics (are there any?); but this seems to me a very plausible description of actual usage.

Perhaps, the "rare" label comes from agraph in that Spanish wikipedia article that claims to show the preferred use of both "español" and "castellano" in Spanish-speaking countries. However, there is no source for it, nor does it correspond well with the written content of the article; which doesn't give a clear geographical distribution of either name or explains their usage beyond some ideologically-based preferences.

I can't find any more information now, but I would be for rewriting that introduction.

MiG-25 (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree on re-writing the intro and the "naming" section. My impression is that "Castellano" is used within Spain for political reasons, and that common usage of the word "Spanish", especially in an international context, significantly outweighs the PC-assertion that "Castillian" somehow has equal status as the name "Spanish". Colipon+(Talk) 15:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] HAITI. Numbers are wrong

Those numbers doesn´t add...and I doubt that 2 million Haitians have Spanish as their first language.--79.146.210.181 (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Odd-sounding wording

From the lead section:

"Latin, which comprises about 95% of Spanish, ..."

Seems an odd thing to say. Is it trying to say that 95% of Spanish words derive from Latin? 81.152.168.210 (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC).

It appears to be that way, yes. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 15:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How about this website?

Jjperkins (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Hi, read the article with interest, some varied viewpoints here. How about considering this simplified verb conjugating site for inclusion in this articles footnotes? http://spanishverbconjugator.org Regards.

[edit] ¿Cómo como como? / ¡Como como como!

The meaning of the first sentence is wrong. It (that should be written as "¿Cómo cómo cómo?") just means "what what what?", of course it can be understood as "what do you mean?" but never as "how do I eat" that is "¿Cómo como?". The correct translation of "What do you mean?" is "¿Qué quieres decir?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.218.25.150 (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spanish_language"



Product Results (view all...)

search wiki for    ?
web dir firms image gallery news pdf wiki shop video 



↑ top of page ↑about thumbshots