Talk:Maltese language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Maltese language article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Maltese language is within the scope of WikiProject Malta, a collaborative effort to write and enhance articles related to Malta. You can participate by visiting the Project page, getting involved, and helping to get the project started.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
language Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Message board

[edit] Romance and English "grammar" sections

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

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

(Refer to Other Comments for further description)

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

[edit] Support (5)

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

[edit] Oppose (1)

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

[edit] Other Comments

Now you mention it, yes, I believe you're right. I think the lexicology section should be split off from the grammar section: possibly to give us an order in the article of:
  • Vocabulary
  • Grammar
  • Lexicology
What do people think? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Lexicology is a different thing to grammar, so I would think yes. What order should the three points appear in? I propose the suggested way above, since vocabulary is quite possibly the most apparent feature of a language, followed by grammar, and then, lexicology.MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, lexicology is part of vocabulary. Just as in an English dictionary exceptional pluralization patterns are marked in the dictionary entry, so too the two should not be separated here. The "Vocabulary" section should be renamed "Lexicon" (a good technical term) and then the two subsections, "English lexical patterns" and "Romance lexical patterns" inserted after the discussion of borrowed vocabulary. (Taivo (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC))
I think this makes more sense. — Zerida ☥ 01:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Could you give us a preview of what your ideas on structuring it are, Taivo? :) MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Well? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Occam's Razor = "Do not needlessly multiply entities". I shortened the whole discussion of plurals and made one paragraph on plural marking within the grammar section including lexicological information. Same goes for incorporating a note about Romance verbs in the verb paragraph. Another note, it is NOT "Romantic", but "Romance" when referring to the language group. (Taivo (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Media

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gian, this doesn't involve AGF. I am assuming good faith, in the sense that I acknowledge you are not doing it to vandalize. However, policy is that if something is stated, it must be referenced - meaning my view on whether or not it is true is irrelevant. Let me put it this way:
  • Wikipedia cannot say the sky is blue, unless it has a reference.
but at the same time
  • If wikipedia finds a reliable reference saying the sky can be considered green, then it is true.
It may sound strange, but that's the way it works. Also, since there is one source which says that Italian radio stations are picked up by Malta, there will still be some mention of this in the article, even if you find a reference which does not mention it, as in order to achieve a NPOV, all views from all the relevant reliable sources must be included. See? :) MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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

I would say just move it accross to Languages of Malta. However, I think the information is still useful in this article because since the article is about the Maltese language, the section comments on how much of the media uses Maltese language, and a simple explanation of how the rest that is not in Maltese, is in English and Italian, is entirely relevant. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
But your comment above mine says nothing about the media in Malta, but about "Italian radio stations...picked up [in] Malta". That's not really relevant any more than an article on American English need mention that Spanish radio stations are picked up in South Texas. The airwaves respect no border. Now, if you want to talk about radio stations IN Malta that broadcast in Italian, then I would see the relevance, but the Poles can pick up Ukrainian radio stations, too. If you want to focus on media in Malta, then do so, but keep Italian radio stations broadcasting from Italy out of it--it's not relevant. (Taivo (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC))
Nothing that isn't about the Maltese language is relevant in the article on the Maltese language. I understand the nature of the reasoning in the other direction, but it's like saying, well, B isn't A but it's next to A so it's relevant in an article on B; and, well, C is similarly relevant since it's next to B; and so on until the article mentions every letter up to and including Z. The fact that some Maltese listen to Italian radio stations, whether the stations are in Italy or in Malta, is information about Maltese people and, if they are in Malta, about Malta, but not about the Maltese language. The contrary argument, if reproduced for other languages, would lead to the article on the English language mentioning every language listened to on broadcast radio by people in the UK, the US, Canada, South Africa, Australia, India, etc. I understand that for narrowly spoken languages from small countries there's a tendency to conflate the country, the people, and the language, but they are still not all the same thing, and the very fact that there IS a separate article for the Maltese language is consistent with that distinction and begs for it to be maintained. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you're saying; in my oppinion, I would still say that since the percentages are so large, it warrents some mention, don't you agree? But anyway, is there a re-write anyone would care to suggest? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't agree, since percentages have nothing to do with it. 100% of the people in Malta eat, but there isn't any reason in an article about the Maltese language to comment on the eating habits of the Maltese people. I don't understand why you're so keen on having material that isn't about the Maltese language in the article on the Maltese language, especially when it's perfectly clear that there are articles where it is on-topic. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
My goodness, you've got some odd analogies Largo Plazo. How about this:
Media
Main article: languages of Malta

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

We can expand the "media" section into a fuller "sociolinguistic situation" one. The percentages can go to languages of Malta as they have more to do with "preference" rather than usage. The internet section should also be reworded, though I'd have to give more thought as to how. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of an analogy is to illustrate a point that evidently isn't clear to someone else by posing a situation that is comparable (in ways pertinent to the discussion) where the point is more obvious. Excuse me if that makes my analogies "strange", but sometimes I think the only analogy that people stuck to their stance in a discussion will accept is the useless one, A is to B as A is to B, being prepared to find the slightest disparity between A and C or between B and D in an analogy of the form A is to B as C is to D and to pick it apart—disregarding the irrelevance of that disparity to the point the analogy was produced to illustrate. Besides, in the case of my analogy, can you tell me what so strange about comparing "eating habits" to "radio stations listened to"? —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The A to B to Z is a classic example of slippery slope fallacy and a binary yes/no statistic on eating habits is absurd and non-notable because everybody eats. I hope you don't feel like I'm picking on you. I've come up with some pretty awful analogies myself; I once compared inexperienced writers to polar bears. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I chose the A, B, C analogy for that reason. The article about Maltese language is about a language. Italian is a language; one place where language is used is the radio; some people who are Maltese listen to Italian on the radio. I explicitly chose that analogy to illustrate how much of a stretch is involved in deeming Maltese people listening to Italian on the radio relevant to an article on the Maltese language: it's relevant only in the same way that Z is relevant to A. As for notability: notability wasn't under discussion here, relevance was. If you prefer notability, substitute any notable passion shared by some large percentage of Maltese for eating. "95% of Maltese fly kites on May Day," for example: even if it were true, it still wouldn't belong in this article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Neither the eating, nor the kite analogies, have anything to do with language, so in effect, are not an accurate portrayal. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Neither does radio. Oh, yeah, one hears language on the radio. People also converse over dinner. And in this case the language is Italian—so it has nothing to do with Maltese. Simply stated, "Maltese people listen Italian on the radio" is not information about the Maltese language. It can't be put any plainer than that. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Media
Main article: languages of Malta

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

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

That looks good, though I think instead of "emissions" we might want to say "broadcasts." — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Ordinary section-name followed by Main article: article-title implies that article-title is an expanded treatment of section-name. In this case, "Language of Malta" isn't an expanded treatment of Maltese media. It may contain such a treatment in a section of its own, but the "Main article" treatment is misleading. Is there a template for "Treated more fully in [[article-name]]"? —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes that did pass through my mind, but what I am presuming is that when the current section is moved across to form another section in Languages of Malta, the "main article" section here, will link to the sub-heading of the "media" section (that we will make there, from the current one here) in the languages of malta page, so it will be something like
Main article: Languages of Malta#Media
, if that makes sense? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Sort of, except that "main article" still implies the article itself is the expansion, not a section of the article, even if the link leads to the section. That's why I'd really prefer a "fuller discussion" link of some kind. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Alternatively, we could use a sub section "see also" to link to the Languages of Malta#Media, which would be more relevant than the "Main" template. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, of course. Perfect. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow, look at what happens to the discussion after I go to bed ;) I think the rewrite is good. While the article is "Maltese language", as with all languages with few speakers some sociolinguistic information is appropriate. The rewrite is concise and clear--perfect encyclopedic content. Well done. (Taivo (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC))
Shall it be done? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Discussion

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

The votes are not a "final decision", since wikipedia does not use polls to make decisions; it uses consensus. However, the votes help us get a summary of whether or not there is a consensus. Hope that helps. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is commonly formed by editing pages on the wiki. The process goes through repeated iterations. The sum of edits by successive editors leads to improvements to the page.
Consensus is commonly formed by editing pages on the wiki. The process goes through repeated iterations. The sum of edits by successive editors leads to improvements to the page.
What's wrong with the standard method of determining consensus? (see flowchart to the right). — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 18:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Because we tend to disscuss major changes first, without actually doing them, until consensus is reached. That other method involves actually modifying the project page first, and then other people reverting if they disagree, etc, etc, etc, until we end up with various edit wars. The best thing, I think, for a situation like this, is to disscuss it, and count up whether there appears to be consensus for the suggested changes. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I suppose I can't argue against measures to ensure clear consensus. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
So what are people's views on the rewrite? Should it go in or not? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, I would like to add that a vote being won does not necessarily mean "consensus". If, for example, 6 vote for something, and 5 against, the fact that there is one more vote for, does not make a difference, as there is not clear "consensus" either way, and as forth, a discussion should then ensue as to what conclusions can keep both sides happy. When wikipedia discourages voting, what it means is that votes should not be taken as "consensus", and should only be used alongside discussion - not in place of it. However, wikipedia fully encourages the voting system (see page) to get a summary of what the current views are on the discussion - which is exactly what we are doing. Just thought I'd clear some things up for people. ;) Basically, to summarize, votes are fine, as long as the answer is not considered "final", but just an "indication". MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, but even one disagreement may show a lack of consensus. Take a look at WP:SILENCE. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 02:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Opening paragraph

[edit] Proposal

Where it says this:

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

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

[edit] Discussion

Isn't the origin of Maltese a disputed topic amongst scholars? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Some dispute that Maltese was influenced by Tunisian Arabic rather than Siculo-Arabic, althought those stating that are in the minority. But that's off the point, as it's not what I am arguing. I think it is safe to say that basically all groups accept that the language was not formed from just the Arabic dialect (whatever dialect you state that to be) without keeping any of its earlier influence - the language brought over by the Sicani people was originally an Indo-European language, and the Arabic dialect was superimposed on it - it did not wipe it out and start completely again. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that Maltese is not descended from Classical/ninth century Arabic? My understanding is that it is, that it is not wildly more different from it than other nonstandard varieties of Arabic, and that it isn't considered a dialect of Arabic mostly for cultural and historical reasons. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
One can say the same about many other languages, including other varieties of Arabic. English was "superimposed" on Irish resulting in noticeable Irish influences on Hiberno-English; Arabic's contact with Berber in Morocco resulted in Moroccan Arabic; Gaulish and Latin into French, etc. This is not a unique property of Maltese. It simply suggests that Maltese, like most Arabic varieties, has substratal influences from the indigenous languages of those regions. — Zerida ☥ 23:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Gaulish is a substrate of French, but the opening section of the French language page does mention both Gaulish, Latin, and even Germanic influences; I see no reason why the original substrate of Maltese should be left out on this article.
In response to Aeusoes, no I'm not saying that - but that the current wording seems to suggest that the language started off with only Arabic - which is not true. The text, like other language pages, needs to show that the foundations of the language were not just "Arabic", but consist of an Arabic Dialect (Siculo-Arabic) superimposed onto an already pre-existing Indo-European language brought over by the Sicani tribe. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I think I see what you're saying, but I don't know if that's correct either. Aren't most of the features attributable to Indo-European influence thought to have occurred after Arab rule ended? History of Malta seems to see it that way. What does scholarship say? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 09:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This reference is frequently used to indicate about the Sicani tribe. The final result of Maltese gave us a situation in which, yes, the majority of the Indo-European influence was the post-Arabic influx of romance, but that does not mean that because it is the majority, that the earlier instance of the Indo-European influence should not be mentioned. Unless someone is suggesting that the original people who came over to the island did not have any language? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
You must be very careful about talking about "substrates". This term has a technical usage in linguistics that does not apply here. There is no more "Sicanii" linguistic influence on Maltese than there is Celtic influence on English, that is, virtually none. There is more Gaulish and Frankish influence on French than there is either Celtic or Sicanii influence on either English or Maltese, respectively. (Taivo (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC))
The language spoken by the natives was not "wiped out" during the Arab rule. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
So when did it go extinct? (Taivo (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC))
There wasn't a "point" where it stopped existing. It simply became mixed into the Maltese language as the Arabic was laid on top of it. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I want to clarify that I don't know myself whether Maltese contains a substrate or not, though I'd be surprised if it didn't. Essentially all the spoken varieties of Arabic do with the obvious exception of the Saudi/Bedouin dialects. If Maltese is part of the Maghreb Arabic continuum, then already we know that it has indirect Berber influences. — Zerida ☥ 18:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Maltese is NOT a "mixed language"--it is a variety of Arabic. There WAS a point when the previous inhabitants of Malta stopped speaking their earlier language and switched to Arabic. They surely did speak Arabic with "a Maltese accent" meaning that they carried over some small amount of phonological and lexical residue, but the previous language CEASED TO EXIST. It was NOT mixed into Arabic to form Maltese. Arabic was not "laid on top of it", Arabic REPLACED it. (Taivo (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC))
Sorry to disagree, but no, it was superimposed on it; it did not wipe it out and start again - otherwise, after the Arabs left, Malta would have spoken "pure" Arabic, which as we know, they did not. That is not to say that Maltese is not classifiably Arabic - it is - but the small foundations that it used first of all need to be mentioned. And yup, you're right Zerida, many varieties of Arabic do, but that does not mean this one should not be mentioned. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the quotes there Gian. :) Yup, the Arabic brought over was Siculo-Arabic, a dialect of Arabic that developed on the Kingdom of Sicily. But the native Maltese population wasn't wiped out in any sense; in fact, in 1224, the Arabs were all expelled from Malta, but if it was true that the natives were wiped out and only Arabs lived there, then there wouldn't have been anyone living there, which we know not to be true. Thanks lots Gian. :P MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking at the source you linked to, Magde, and I see nothing about language. What you're proposing is basically OR speculation. We need sources for it, even if it seems obvious to you. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
We do not need a source that says "they brought over an indo-european language", because there are sources which show they spoke an indo-european language, and there are sources which show they were the first settlers on Malta - and combining the sources, one gets the combined sourced information. Unless, as I said before, you are perhaps suggesting the people who came over did not bring their language? and that the first settlers on Malta used grunts?? ;) MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me see if I can't break the list of claims down:
  1. Malta was inhabited before the Arab conquest
  2. These inhabitants spoke a language
  3. Arabs brought their language with them when they took over Malta
  4. The population did not learn Arabic but instead spoke a mixed language with an Indo-European substrate and an Arabic superstrate
  5. The Maltese language is different from the variety of Arabic that came to the island
Sourcing for 1, 3, and 5 is present. 2 is obvious and certainly doesn't need a source. 4 is unsourced. You cannot assume that because of 2, 3, and 5 that 4 must be true (is also likely to be incorrect and would constitute OR by synthesis). 5 could be because of natural language evolution or skewed learning of Arabic by the native population, neither of which would justify calling Maltese a language of mixed origin. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 23:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying we should be calling it "mixed". I am saying the article should mention how it is not just "siculo-arabic", but is more complex than that, with siculo-arabic imposed over an already pre-existing Indo-European structure that was largely displaced by the Siculo-Arabic, but was not "removed", meaning the resulting language, although Arabic, had other roots too. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
What you're describing is a language of mixed origin. You're presuming a notable substrate language without any evidence. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
As said before by another, the long quote says NOTHING about language. I never said that the previous inhabitants were wiped out by the Arabs. I said that they LEARNED Arabic and STOPPED speaking their previous language. Their genetic material survives in Malta to this day, but their LANGUAGE is completely gone. Look at North Africa. The inhabitants of North Africa are genetically Berber, Punic, and Arabic, but linguistically Arabic. People learn to speak the language of their conquerors. This is the way language works. Look at Ireland. They are genetically Celtic, but linguistically Germanic (excluding the small Irish-speaking regions). You don't have to kill people in order to kill their language. In the U.S. there are millions of Native Americans, but only a few thousand of them still speak their native tongue. Maltese is NOT a mixed language. "Mixed language" has a VERY specific linguistic definition which Maltese does not even come close to meeting. (Taivo (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

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

[edit] Punic

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

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

There is no such thing as "Phoenician-based Spanish". Spanish did not exist at the time that Phoenician was spoken in Iberia. Indeed, the evidence is strong that the Phoenician language in Iberia did not extend inland much beyond the coastal enclaves where it was spoken. The same is true for the Greek that was spoken in Iberia--coastal enclaves only. Iberia before the Roman conquest was inhabited by a variety of Celtiberian as well as by non-Indo-European languages such as Basque and "Iberian" (non-Indo-European, non-Basque). Unless there is epigraphic evidence for the language of the Sicanii (which I don't know if there is or isn't), there is no way to even tell if it was Indo-European. With the Roman conquest of Iberia came a fairly rapid replacement of these languages with Latin, which later evolved into Spanish. While there were leftover pockets of pre-Roman languages (such as Basque and Lusitanian), by and large the earlier languages were replaced by Latin before or soon after the beginning of the Common Era. (Taivo (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC))
So when did the Punic enter into Maltese (according to the sources)? MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on the history of Malta, but it would have been during a period of time during which the Cathaginians controlled Malta. Transfer from Punic colonists in Spain is highly unlikely. (Taivo (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC))

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

Hemm hadd minkhom li hu skular tal-Malti? Imma kullhadd ghandu opinjoni?? Ghallhekk hemm daqsekk tahwida.. it's kinda sad really. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This is the English language Wikipedia and it is considered to be bad manners to write on the talk pages in a language other than English. (Taivo (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC))
Mur hudu, ja defsa. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
To rephrase my original comment, in English; Are there any scholars in Maltese interested in contributing to the page?
I think a more authoritative approach may resolve some of the key issues that have plagued this article for some time.. specifically accurate footnoting and verification of factual accuracy. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)