Talk:Basque language

Neolithic

Can any linguist bet his head that the ancestor of Basque language was present in Western Europe before Late Neolithic? "Late Neolithic and later are IE times" is not a linguistic arguement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.249.44.2 (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this related to anything that is currently mentioned in the article or that needs to be added to it? Otherwise, please see WP:NOTFORUM. –Austronesier (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Video is messed up

The "Euskara iparraldean" video in the "Demographics" section loses sound about a minute in. It might be a poor recording or it might be fixable, but that's beyond my humble skill. Anyone who knows anything about these sort of things should take a look at it. Gamle Kvitrafn (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It plays fine for me all the way through, maybe you were on a slow connection and had a buffering issue? Akerbeltz (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems ok to me. In the last minute the sound does drop down somewhat and sounds like it's off in the distance compared to the first part of the tape - but still totally audible. It may be that if the sound on the device you're using is not strong that bit may be problematic. DeCausa (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Map not supported by source?

The map made and added by user User:Enekorga [1] is very helpful indeed for an overview of where Basque is spoken and where the strongholds of the language are. For all the municipalities on the Spanish side, everything seems entirely accurate. Enekorga provides the sources, and they detail the how many speak Basque per municipality. Big thanks to Enekorga for creating a map to show all data! My concern is with Iparralde, the French side. The source given was a telephone survey that did give indications of language use for Lapurdi, Behe Nafarroa and Zuberroa - but despite going through it in detail, I can find no data per municipality nor even any indication that such was collected. As the map is so useful, I hope we can keep it. That would require a source of the data from Iparralde actually containing the data used. If Enekorga or anyone else know of such a source and can add it, that's great. In the absence of such a source, the map might be seen to violate WP:OR. Rather than tagging it, not to mention removing it (neither of which I want), I hope we can simply find and add the proper source. (Apart from Enekorga, also tagging User:Akerbeltz, User:Austronesier, User:Ksarasola and User:DeCausa (active contributors) as it's my wish to find a source to keep the very useful map in the article). Jeppiz (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

My guess is that Enekorga has access to the raw data. I have a copy of the 2nd Linguistic Survey of the Basque Country (I think the last one where they published both a short and a long version) and it has down-to-the-district data. It may just be that Enekorga wasn't entirely sure how to reference a data source that isn't published? Not sure I would know how to reference that myself :) Akerbeltz (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Surely, an unpublished source shouldn't be referenced. It won't be WP:RS. DeCausa (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Akerbeltz, it's possible Enekorga has raw data, but as DeCausa already wrote, that would not meet WP:RS. The data should be verifiable, and at the moment it is not. I really hope Enekorga (or anyone else) can provide the data so we can keep the map. There's no hurry, but in the absence of any source/data in the next few days, the correct procedure will be remove the map pending data to support it. Jeppiz (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

PS I left a comment on Enekorga's page on Basque wikipedia about this discussion [2] Jeppiz (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi everybody,

the data for Iparralde does come from the cited source. The precise document I used was actually online, but I guess it must not be accessible anymore. Still, there is this tool created by Udalbiltza called Euskal Herriari Begira which takes back the same data from the Office public de la langue basque and is actually available online as of today, in case that would suit you.

The website does not show exclusively that data, there is a lot more about various topics. The one I am referring to is named Euskararen ezagutza tasa (%) and is found under Tokiko nortasunaren bizitasuna. However, I must warn you that the scale used for the displayed map is somewhat different to the one used on my map, since I decided to use the same scale of the precedent map. Still, the numeric data, which I think is the thing that you are more interested in, can also be found on the website.

I hope this helps. Enekorga (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Milesker ainitz, that is very helpful. Thanks again for your great contributions to Wikipedia! Jeppiz (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Shameless editors

You don't care about the truth. A native Gipuzkera Basque speaker, added a LINK with evidence proving tt is extremely common in both Gipuzkoa and Bizkaia and that the DD sound is very much used there and you choose to silence an actual euskalduna. SHAME ON YOU. 79.116.130.131 (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

here the tt sound all over Bizkaia and Gipuzkoa https://www.euskaltzaindia.eus/index.php?&option=com_ehha&view=frontpage&Itemid=466&lang=eu&mapa=2481 79.116.130.131 (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Map not supported by source? how dare you??? That map was created by the Euskaltzaindia! 79.116.130.131 (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Have you heard that meme before? In Wikipedia we have a very important policy called No original research. That means we must not take account of the personal knowledge of anyone who tries to edit Wikipedia because it is impossible to know whether or not they have real expertise. Instead, we only accept verifiable information. This is explained in this policy: WP:V. The most important aspect of this is that what is written here should be supported by reliable sources which are defined here: WP:RS and these should be cited. You are trying to replace information that is cited to reliable sources with your own knowledge and alternative sources. That is why you have been reverted. If you want to change what is written in the article (and you can do that) you need to persuade other people editing this page that:

• existing information and the cited sources are incorrect
• you have reliable sources that make it clear it is incorrect
• the sources you cite are more reliable than the existing sources

This is a collaborative project an changes are only made with consensus agreement. The onus is on the person wanting to make the change to persuade everyone else. You will find that editors here are happy to change incorrect information if you present the evidence on this talk page. What they will not do is change the article just because you say it should be changed. I hope this leads you to understand Wikipedia better. Please therefore compare the sources you are putting forward and explain why they should be followed rather than the existing sources. Please avoid arguments that are based on your personal knowledge. Please also do not insult other people editing here. We have a very strict policy of No personal attacks and if you continue to attack other editors you will be blocked. DeCausa (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

It's a euskaltzandia page, with a map in which the word "aita" pronounce either atta or atte is ALL OVER GIPUZKOA AND BIZKAIA. the nerve you have! 79.116.130.131 (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I will always defend my language, you're the ones acting like you know better and ignoring information, do as you wish, you've proven how little you care about the Basque language already. Your ego is more importan than actual facts. I'd certainty be ashamed. 79.116.130.131 (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The tldr version of my previous post is no one cares what you think unless you are prepared to understand and comply with Wikipedia policy. DeCausa (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not about what I think. I most definitely provided evidence that you're willingly choosing to ignore. 79.116.130.131 (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Imagine the frustration you'd feel if someone were spreading misinformation about your language, and completely ignoring evidence you're presenting. Evidence from an official academic language regulatory institution. Of course I'm upset because it's absolutely outrageous. 79.116.130.131 (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Stop lying about it too! my argument is based on the Euskaltzaindia! Not simply "personal experience"! 79.116.130.131 (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

You're blocking a legit correction backed up by the Euskaltzaindia and still think you are in the right. That level of ego is beyond my comprehension. https://www.euskaltzaindia.eus/index.php?&option=com_ehha&view=frontpage&Itemid=466&lang=eu&mapa=2481 2A0C:5A80:1307:EA00:191:668C:FF76:59AA (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Were you under the impression that Euskaltzaindia is a Wikipedia user? Largoplazo (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Mesedez, can we calm this down? :) So let's see what the article says In the Gipuzkoan and Biscayan dialects tt is often pronounced the same as tx, that is, as [tʃ], and dd does not exist.

So to begin with, it does not state that tt does not exist, it merely states that where tt may be expected, it is often realized as tx. It also states that (according to de Rijk), dd does not exist in Gipuzkoan and Biscayan.

Formalities first, the Euskaltzaindia uses non-standard IPA dd instead of [c] and tt instead of [ɟ] (NB this is not criticism, I'm merely clarifying so we're all on the same sheet, because [atta] in pure IPA means something else). Also, to locate items with a particular letter sequence, wildcards can be used in the Zer field e.g. *dd* to find words containing dd.

Let's do the easy one first: dd. This is not easy to pin down in the Atlas. We might expect it in onddo 'mushroom' but here we find the Euskaltzaindia data backs up de Rijk, onddo is realised as ondo in G and B. I can't find any other items with dd which would contradict that but I haven't looked at all.

For tt, the picture is more complex, there are clearly things going on that govern where tt appears as [c] in G and B which are beyond my ken. Yes, there is the aita map but this data shows that tt is realized as [ɟ] in aita in parts of G and B, but it does NOT state that tt is never realized as tx.

The main problem is that by and large, tt and dd are the result of palatalising t and d and while in some words these forms are the citation forms (e.g. Maddalen, onddo), such words are rare (especially with tt) and as a result it's really hard to pin down where an organic (for the want of a better word) tt is realised as [ɟ] and there it is tx.

Where we're talking active palatalization i.e. a word with underlying t being realised as tt or tx, the picture is very mixed. The inflected verb ditu in G and B largely is realized as dittu but note also the tx in part of B. At the same time, tortola > ttorttola does NOT appear to appear in G and B at all, nor with tanta/ttantta/txanta Ignoring the fact that what I just did may be argued as being OR, I think it's safe to say that the source is clearly correct regarding dd in G and B. Regarding tt, while the picture is much more complicated, it would be difficult to argue using the Atlas data that "tt realized as tx" is incorrect in a lot of cases. But I stress again that de Rijk doesn't say tt is absent in G and B, just that it CAN often be heard as tx. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Ttantto is extremely common in gipuzkera Basque and so is atta, attona, ze ittezu (egiten duzu). No shame at all... 2A0C:5A80:1307:EA00:191:668C:FF76:59AA (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

If tt sounds like TX (which is NOT TRUE) then the sound isn't distinct and doesn't exists. But guess what? It DOES exists. I'm yet to meet a single gipuzkera speaker who can't or doesn't pronounce the TT as you know, a tt. It's insane that a source from the euskaltzaindia is ignored like that. Just unbelievable. 2A0C:5A83:D400:8100:24A4:97C3:17E:C9C2 (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

We do not publish original research on this or any other subject, even if it's true. So I suppose we do not care about the truth, I'm afraid. Remsense诉 11:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

2021 Sociolinguistic Survey results

I cannot read Basque, but it appears 680,629 (36.2%) of population in the Basque Autonomous Community claim to speak Basque, with a further 18% stating they are passive speakers:

https://www.argia.eus/fitxategiak/ckfinder/files/VII_INKESTA_SOZIOLINGUISTIKOA_laburpena.pdf Culloty82 (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Tt sound

As a native gipuzkera speaker, the VAST majority of gipuzkera subdialects do have a tt sound very clearly distinguished from tx and dd also does exist. It's an absolute disgrace you will not allow me and many others to correct that. Shame on all of you. 2A0C:5A80:1307:EA00:191:668C:FF76:59AA (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

It's an absolute disgrace that Wikipedia isn't left to being a collection of claims that thousands of anonymous users make, all accepted just because they say so? If you're correct and it's documented in a reliable source, then you need only provide such a source. If there isn't any, then it's going to have to remain one of the many true things that aren't covered here because the alternative would be also to allow millions of falsehoods. Largoplazo (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

https://www.euskaltzaindia.eus/index.php?&option=com_ehha&view=frontpage&Itemid=466&lang=eu&mapa=2481 2A0C:5A83:D400:8100:24A4:97C3:17E:C9C2 (talk) 11:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Steppe hypothesis

We now know that the Basques have one of the highest Steppe migrant Y-DNA - almost 100%. Did anyone address the Basque language in this regard? Did anyone try to analize it on the possibility of it being a Steppe language, searching for Steppe traits in it, like Indo-European has been studied? --95.24.65.132 (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any source backing that up? Who is "we" exactly? -- VerusPhoebusApollo (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

2021 language survey data

Data from the most recent language survey can be found here, if anyone is motivated to add it in: https://basquetribune.com/the-basque-language-gains-speakers-but-no-surge-in-usage/ 2600:1702:6D0:5160:ACFA:FB1C:2E00:E86F (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

First mention of the noun Euskara?

It seems that the first mention of Euskara is possibly from Marzuq ibn Uskara, a basque from Medieval Iberia, can anyone check this out? https://puebladecastro.blogspot.com/2018/10/archuza-de-bahlul-ibn-marzuq-el.html Yefa36 (talk) 07:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It's claimed in that WP:BLOG that this work (without page number) is the source for that statement: Cañada Juste, Alberto (1980), Los Banu Qasi (714-924), Príncipe de Viana, Año Nº 41, Nº 158-159, págs. 5-96, ISSN 0032-8472. DeCausa (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

IE theory variant

The article begins non-scientifically asserting IE coming from Anatolia at some point in Bronze Age, something totally unproven. Kostandisloukos (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no mention of Anatolia anywhere on the page. Try your luck arguing that IE didn't move into Europe from further east on the Indo-European languages page and should you succeed there (you won't), come back here and we'll look into it. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

(I had already removed the funky passages in question.) Remsense诉 15:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)