Diskusyón:Orijin de los biervos en djudeo-espanyol

Contenido de la página no disponible en otros idiomas.
Un artíkolo de la Vikipedya, la ansiklopedya líbera

Attribution[trocar el manadero]

Substantially copied and adapted from corresponding article in Spanish Wikipedia (es:Special:PermaLink/119300641).

Discussion[trocar el manadero]

@Katxis, Maor X, and Universal Life: I think there are some things I would suggest to move this along:

  1. Introduction also needs to point out that many words are borrowed directly from Hebrew and Aramaic, especially where religious concepts are concerned. I wouldn't necessarily start making a list of those any more than I'd make a list of Spanish words, but you should say that up front.
    • In the introduction, "Espanyol" and "Ivrit" will surely need links. So will "JS".
  2. Farther down the body, I think I'd organize it in this way. Mostly, sections should be alphabetical, though I understand leading with Portuguese:
    • Languages of the Iberian Peninsula
      • Gayego/Portugez
      • Aragones
      • Asturiano
      • etc.
    • Other Romance Languages
      • Fransez
      • Italiano
      • etc.
    • Other languages
      • Arabo (must certainly be added)
      • Turko
      • etc.
  3. I'd make each of those headers into links.
  4. This also needs to be linked to from Lingua djudeo-espanyola in an appropriate way. (Don't duplicate material more than absolutely necessary.)

I added that this needs sources.[1] In particular, when you're considering "Gayego/Portugez", make sure you are correctly categorizing words as coming from

  • Medieval Galician-Portuguese
  • (more or less) modern Portuguese
  • (more or less) modern Galician
  • Judeo-Portuguese!
  • something else

I appreciate that there is much interintelligibility between Galician and Portuguese, but we should try to get this right. StevenJ81 (discusión) • 26 Elul 5779 • 19:10 25 sep 2019 (UTC)[responder]

Dear Steven, I read the article. There are some mistakes. Some of them need to be verified. But overall, it has some good info and potential to turn into a much better article. That's why I don't think we should delete it, just to improve. And else, I second everything you said above :) --Universal Life (discusión) 21:33 24 okt 2019 (UTC)[responder]
  1. This is true even though the Spanish article you borrowed it from doesn't have any.