Talk:Neapolitan language

Classification of central italy dialects as "Neapolitan"

I don't think the phrase:

as well as throughout most of southern Italy including the Gaeta and Sora districts of southern Lazio, the southern part of Ascoli province in Marche, most of Abruzzo, Molise, Basilicata, northern Calabria, and northern and central Apulia.

is completely correct.

I'm not a linguist, but i'm italian, and i live in central Italy; some parts of above categorisation seem to me not completely correct.

In Gaeta and Sora, although spoken language being different from "Napoli's neapolitan", i can agree that "Neapolitan" is an enough good classification. I guess the same holds, at least to some extent, looking at Molise and Basilicata. Situation of Calabria is well explained below so i won't spend more words upon.

What i really do not understand is classifying as "Neapolitan" the italian dialects spoken in Apulia, Abruzzo and most of all Marche. Believe me, dialect of Marche has very little in common with Neapolitan... i guess also that most people from that region would "jump on their chairs" reading such a thing. The same holds about Abruzzo, where we should distinguish among at least 3 different families of dialects - see for reference http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IT , looking at "Italian" section. About Apulia, i honestly don't know whether to classify it as a Neapolitan derivative or a dialect of his own, but i think this deserves at least some serious discussion.

LINGUISTIC DEMARCATIONS

which forum? if it is the yahoo one run by carmine then yes, if not then no. so then how do we classify these languages? do we make a separate classification for northern calabrese? I am not a linguist so i don't know. The problem is there is no official language standard. there are differences between napulitano and n. calbrese too, just as there are differences in salerno napulitano, amalfi napulitano.....

you make good points and comparisons though. --espo111 05:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi Frank,

Are you the same Frank I've spoken to in the 'O Nnapolitano forum? Ciao cumpà! The problem with Calabria is that it is a region. The dialects of Calabria are so different from each other (in a direction from north to south) that you cannot group all of the dialects of Calabria as a single language. Cultural differences cannot be used to group languages, because you can look at Canada and the United States, as an example. For the most part, both countries speak the English language, although both countries are very different culturally, and even widening this idea, add in the U.K., Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand. Yes, subtle differences exist between these countries, but they are for the most part based on accents, or idiomatic. Even the cultural differences among the English speaking nations do not result in each country having a 'different' language.

Comparing Spanish and Catalan can be another example of cultural differences. However, the two languages are different because of historical reasons, and above all else, they are separated because of the lexicon, syntax, vocabulary, sentence structure, and so many other reasons.

Which leads me to my last argument about the Calabrian dialects. Again, clearly, if you look at the Sicilian or Neapolitan language groups, you can take a look at the lexicon, syntax, look at the personal pronouns, the adverbs, the prepositions, the intonation, and notice the stark contrasts. Then take the Calabrian dialects, and notice they cannot be grouped together as one. The southern ones belong to the Sicilian group, the northern ones belong to the Neapolitan group. These are not ideas of fantasy, I have provided many documents to support this already widely held theory on the linguistic classifications of Italo-Romance.

But in closing, just by analyzing the information on this main page of the Neapolitan language, you will see how the Calabrian dialects are not related to each other, and cannot be grouped linguistically or even culturally. Like Sicily, Southern Calabria has had a far different history than northern Calabria or Naples, especially when it comes to influence by the Arab and Middle Eastern peoples.

N.C. Northern Calabrian (Neapolitan) ------------------- S.C. Southern Calabrian (Sicilian)

Patre nuorru chi sta ntru cielu ------------------- Tata nostru chi' sini nt'o celu,

    *contrast N.C. patre with S.C. tata (Sicilianesque word)
    *notice the grammatical difference N.C. sta (stare) versus S.C> sini (essere, sei, Italian)
    *notice the pure use of S.C. celu (as one sees in Sicilian, from celum) versus the dipthongized form of N.C. cielu

chi sia santificatu u nume tuoio ------------------- ù si tena pe' santu u noma toi

    *now look at the possessive adjectives... N.C. tuoio (with the dipthong like Italian tuo)
    *S.C. toi, no dipthong like the standard Sicilian vowel system

venisse u riegnu tuoio ------------------- ù vena u rregnu toi,

    *again, the dipthongization - N.C. riegnu  versus S.C. rregnu (Latin regnum), also tuoio/toi

se facisse a vuluntà tuoia ------------------- ù si facia a voluntà

sia ntru cielu ca nterra. ------------------- com'esta nt'o celu, u stessa sup'a terra.

Ranne oje u pane nuorro e tutti i juorni ------------------- Dùnandi ped oja u pana nostru e tutti i juorna

     *N.C. danne (dare + ne = Italian dacci "give us") vs. dùnandi (dunari + ndi)
     *the use of nni (ndi) is customary use of Sicilian, in contrast to Italian ci 'us'
     *while both N.C. and S.C. use the forms nne/ndi here, the verb forms of dare/dunari are totally different
     *N.C. i juorni vs. S.C. i juorna (in Sicilian many masculine plural verbs end with a, lu libbru, li libbra)
     *typical of Latin neuter declensions, something you don't find in Italian or Neapolitan/N. Calabrian

perdunacce i rebita nuorri ------------------- e' pardùnandi i debiti

     *as in my previous point, I question the fluctuating uses of cce/ndi for 'us'
     *prior, there is danne/dùnandi, but now here perdunacce/pardùnandi
     *this fluctuating use shows that N.C. is on the edge linguistically
     *or the on-line transcriber to this prayer made a mistake in the usage
     *regardless, again, this shows the huge differencs, between Northern and Southern Calabrese

cumu nue perdunammu i rebituri nuorri ------------------- comu nù nc'i perdunamu ad i debituri nostri

Un ce mannare ntra tentazione ------------------- On nci dassara nt'a tentazioni

ma liberacce e ru male ------------------- ma liberandi d'o mala

     *again, here N.C. uses the Italian/Neapolitan form "liberacce" while S.C. uses the Sicilian form of "liberandi"

In closing, it is very clear to see that there are several differences between the northern and southern Calabrese dialects, differences so large that all published linguists combines the two different dialects into either the Neapolitan or Sicilian language groups. To say that there would be a single Calabrian language because of cultural similarities would be like saying New England should have their own separate language as well as southern Californian, as the histories, ethnicities, and cultural characteristics are totally different in those two regions. And comparing Catalan and Spanish is the same as comparing French and Spanish, they are all different languages regardless of culture! It is the historical development of the language, the philology, the evolution, the syntax, the grammar, the lexicon, and so forth. It is like comparing apples and oranges when one tries to analyze Spanish/Catalan, as being in the same linguistic position as Calabrese/Italian. Again, I have no problems with the Calabrese dialects, but they are what they are. One cannot dispute the fact that they share enough different grammatical and vocabular characteristics that they do not constitute a single language, but rather two different dialects of the same region. I urge you to investigate these classifications, either via Ethnologue, in printed material, or through the weblinks I have posted below. Linguistics is a science, and the dialectologists in Italy have analyzed and studied these issues for well over a century, and the consistent conclusion is that the 'southern' Calabrian dialect is part of the Sicilian/Extreme Southern language group, while the 'northern' Calabrian dialect is part of the Neapolitan/Intermediate Southern language group. While you raised an excellent point based on a cultural aspect, one has to accept these findings based on the scientific research. Calabria has always been bifurcated north-south not only in terms of language, but also history, hence the south is an extension of Sicily, and the north an extension of Naples. Even culturally-historically, Calabria can be divided, and this strenghtens the idea that as a result of different invaders and influences, the dialects are so divergent, and classified into separate language groups. --VingenzoTM 19:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---The point of the differentiating Neapolitan from Calabrese is to demonstrate that although linguistically similar, both languages have cultural and literary differences. This article should not be based solely on Philological and Linguistic similarities, but rather a distinction of particulars, that is what makes them different. Would one classify Spanish and Catalan as the same? My answer would be no, and I believe the same classification distinction should be applied here.

sign posts like this --->--espo111 23:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) (second from last button ^^^)

To the site administrator,

I disagree with the references toward Calabrese being considered a distinct language. As a student of Romance Philology and Linguistics, there is no significant proof that Calabrese is a unified language. One only has to look at the examples provided on this page that southern Calabrese (resembling Sicilian) is far different than northern Calabrese (closer to Neapolitan).

Instead, Calabria is a region in southern Italy, yes, but it does not necessarily equate being a language as well. The historical information shows that much of southern Calabria was influenced in the same ways as Sicily, while northern Calabria has more in common with greater Naples. Calabria was part of the Two Sicilies, with Sicily (the island), and greater Naples the bifurcated hubs of the former kingdom.

Linguistically speaking, the region of Calabria can be divided north to south in terms of its various dialects. Even the northernmost province of Cosenza is divided between Sicilian and Neapolitan. The other four southern provinces all contribute to the Sicilian dialect group. It is no surprise, that the southern Calabrian dialects are virtually identical to the Messinese dialect of Sicily, and the Salentine dialect in peninsular Puglia. The northern Calabrian dialect is very similar to those of Lucano, Campania, and greater Naples.

For these reasons, the dialects of the region of Calabria cannot be grouped together as contributors to a single, consistent language. Instead, southern dialects make up the language of what some call "Extreme Meredional" (or simply "Sicilian"), while the northern dialects make up the language of what some call "Intermediate Meredional" (or simply "Neapolitan"). Again, these reasons are geographical, historical, and aboveall, linguistic.

If one visits Ethnologue, they will at times see a bifurcated grouping of "Neapolitan-Calabrian" but this is not exactly correct. This is done because northern Calabrian is very similar to (and joins) the many dialects of the Neapolitan group, BUT some argue that Calabrian should retain its own identity, at least in name sake. Unfortunately, linguistics is a science, and Calabria is a region with very different dialects. One cannot simply speak of a "Calabrian" language when the region's dialects are so different. Again, region does not always equal dialect.

I leave you with the following links on the various languages of Italy, including maps and the official Ethnologue linguistic classifications:

http://www.italica.rai.it/principali/lingua/bruni/mappe/mappe/f_dialetti.htm Interactive map of Italy with the linguistic classifications, researched in the 1920s and most recently revisited in 1977 with the publication of the "Carta dei dialetti." See here that southern Calabrian is classified in the group of extreme southern dialects, referred to as 'Sicilian', while northern Calabrese is classified in the intermediate southern group of dialects, referred to as 'Neapolitan.'

http://www.calabriadna.com Compare the above map of linguistic/dialectal boundaries to that of the provinces of Calabria.

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=nap Neapolitan-Calabrese group of dialects - which again is not accurate. There is no hybrid Calabrese dialect, instead the 'region' of Calabria is made up of several 'dialects' which pertain to two different language groups, "Neapolitan" and "Sicilian."

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=scn The Sicilian group of dialects. Pay attention that this group is sometimes called "Sicilian-Calabrese" but this, like the "Neapolitan-Calabrese" category is inaccurate. Unfortunately, the region of Calabria is geographically between two larger linguistic groups, and because the Calabrese dialects are so divergent from each other, there is no universial Calabrese language, and therefore it is bifurcated into the other two larger groups of Sicilian and Neapolitan. Even in the peninsular portion of the region of Puglia, that dialect "Salentine" is also part of the Sicilian group, while northern Pugliese is considered a dialect of Italian, according to Ethnologue. But linguistically speaking, this is also incorrect, as you saw with the first weblink (map) above. The reasons for considering northern Pugliese as Italian instead of Neapolitan are of political reasons, and ignorance.

http://www.linguasiciliana.org/articuli_file/puglisi.HTM Finally, here is an essay on the Italian 'languages' or 'dialects.' This essay was written by a Calabrese linguist who regularly participates in a Sicilian language organization. Written in Sicilian, this Calabrese discusses how and why the languages of Italy are classified as such, and also includes much information on his home region of Calabria and why for many different reasons is divided into two different linguistic classifications, none of which are centered around the region of Calabria. He also writes of the different Pugliese dialects, the southern being part of Sicilian, and the northern being part of the Neapolitan group, and not the Italian group as erroneously printed in Ethnologue.

I have no qualms against the people or region of Calabria. Its various dialects are enchanting and bold, but as a researcher, I cannot help but argue against the classification of Calabrese as a single Romance language. All of the evidence points against this idea. I hope that I may have enlightened some of you, and cleared up any previous misconceptions about this topic. I would ask that the administrators remove any information pertaining to a "Calabrian" language. Rather to reiterate, northern Calabrese is a Neapolitan dialect, while southern Calabrese is a Sicilian dialect. Also, the example of the "Lord's Prayer" in southern Calabro should either be removed, or highlighted only for comparison purposes, as the Ethnologue organization clearly states that this dialect is part of the Sicilian linguistic group.

I Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

I may be reached at VingenzoTM@yahoo.com for further questions

User:VingenzoTM

This is 16 years later, so maybe it’s for others to read an answer, but the problem is that, as I’m sure you appreciate as a student of linguistics, there is no universal standard for the boundary between language and dialect - hell, all of these are regarded as dialects of Italian by many people. And beyond a certain point this can be an impossible problem where dialect continua exist.

Wikipedia has to be a secondary source and can’t include original research and argumentation. If you have a source that classifies Calabrian as a separate language in a consistent framework, then feel free to include that as another convention. Wikipedia won’t adjudicate either of these being right or wrong, because it’s not consensus and not black and white well-defined.

Emilio-Romagnol is another major example of this: there are some massive differences between dialects within either of these, some very unique within Romance, and Emilian and Romagnol in turn fall on either side of major isoglosses down to the level of pronouns.

Right now the usual standard Wikipedia applies where some choice must be made for logistical/format reasons is based on Ethnologue, though this isn’t cut and dry or limited to it and multiple widespread reasonable conventions should be mentioned. Harsimaja (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

The number of speakers cited in the article is for the Napoletano-Calabrese group as a whole. What is the number of speakers for straight up Neapolitan? There are around 1,100,000 inhabitants of the city proper with another million in the immediately girding communities (2001 census). In terms of number of speakers, at what point does the dialectical continuum flow so far out as to lose its Neapolitan-ness as such? E. abu Filumena

So, I can see why the Latin might be illustrative, but the untransliterated Greek? Admittedly, Naples was a Greek-speaking city up to the 800's (or so) but... I also changed the headings back from the Latin(?), that seemed like a particularly peculiar choice. There is also no need to wikify things multiple times (those terms had been linked earlier in the page). E. abu Filumena 06:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Since most discussions here involve the big differences between the regional languages of southern Italy (and that one cannot speak of "one" Calabrian variant), it seems useful to include the southern Calabrian variant of the Lord's Prayer too. Thus I've readded this text (half a year ago someone removed it for no apparent reason).

Moreover, since the Greek version does not add extra information (and might just confuse), I've removed it. If anyone can give me clear reason, it would be OK to readd it.

--JorisvS 16:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well...it is the original version from which all others were translated. That's a pretty good reason, I feel. Also many words of Nnapulitano came directly from greek. It is useful for orthographic, translatory, and lexical comparisons. I would readd.--Josh Rocchio 06:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

For comparison, check out la:lingua neapolitana. I'm not hell bent on the readdition, but I think with a quick sentence or two in the main page about the historical significance, and about how since Naples was definitely a greek colony and naturally its language reflects such, it would be useful to the article. About the comment above by E. abu Filumena, I don't think the lack of transliteration is egregious. To whom it is legible it will be appreciated, to whom it isn't it may be inspiratory.

Maybe, I can read the Greek alphabet, that is not my problem. First of all not all the text showed up correctly on my browser (weird, since it shows Chinese, Japanse, Hindi, a.s.f.). Secondly what did show up correctly wasn't inspiratory, since I couldn't see any connection with the Neapolitan words. But if you want to readd it, I won't stop you, but please make it appear nicely on the Internet browser (with the spiritus asper and other accents showing up, like I show below). Moreover if you do, it might be good idea to split the table into two halves, so its width won't be too large (by placing the last three columns under the first three).

Note: the sentence on Ancient Greek DOES show up correctly (here it no longer does): Ὃτι μὲν ὑμεῖς, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, πεπόνθατε ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμῶν κατηγόρων, οὐκ οἶδα: ἐγὼ δ' οὖν καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπ' αὐτῶν ὀλίγου ἐμαυτοῦ ἐπελαθόμην, οὕτω πιθανῶς ἔλεγον. καίτοι ἀληθές γε ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν οὐδὲν εἰρήκασιν.
I notice now, that in pasting this here, it no longer shows up correctly, with a modification it shows up correctly again:
Ὃτι μὲν ὑμεῖς, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, πεπόνθατε ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμῶν κατηγόρων, οὐκ οἶδα: ἐγὼ δ' οὖν καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπ' αὐτῶν ὀλίγου ἐμαυτοῦ ἐπελαθόμην, οὕτω πιθανῶς ἔλεγον. καίτοι ἀληθές γε ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν οὐδὲν εἰρήκασιν.
--JorisvS 14:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

See Ethnologue entry for nap for details [1].

-1. according to me, this is a mistake in Ethnologue. if you check the list of the languages spoken in Italy, no regional language is mentioned for the area Puglia/Molise/Abruzzo. also, have you ever heard Abruzzese people speak? they definitely speak a Neapolitan dialect, with a strange accent for one used to Naples' Neapolitan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfrasca (talk • contribs) 06:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me, I'm Italian, and the concept of Napoletano provided here just makes me laugh. I really don't see any reason for this confusion between Neapolitan and the group of dialects of southern Italy (meridionale interno or intermedio) among which Neapolitan is just the major one.
Differences are so plain to us Italians, that our Wikipedia says: «It is spoken in Campania, specifically in the city of Naples, and in general influences southern dialects, especially in Apulia, Basilicata and Southern Latium».
No mention of central dialects, of course. I'm from Ascoli Province and know for sure how distant my dialect and Neapolitan are. There are so many differences that, when I went to Apulia, my accent was mistaken for Romanesco. --Llayumri 07:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I believe that it's a reference to the Kingdom of Naples and not the city of Naples. For the record, the Italian Wiki no longer says that. Rbritt518 (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Every language is a group or continuum of related dialects. Neapolitan is just another name for the language that Dante called il volgar pugliese, by which he meant the south-central dialects (dialetti meridionali). It is very difficult to choose a neutral name for a language that has no country. The last time these lands were united as one, it was under the Kingdom of Naples, thus the name. It has nothing to do with the dialect of Naples being "better" or more prestigious than the other dialects. It also does not imply that the dialects of, for example, Irpino, Abruzzo, Molise, or Puglia somehow 'descend' from the dialect of Naples. All of these dialects are sisters, and in fact they are extremely similar in terms of grammar - most of the differences are in the pronunciation. Ascoli is at the extreme North of the dialetti meridionali area and Apulia is at the extremem south, so of course those two accents/dialects will be most divergent from one another. And it makes sense that your dialect sounded like Romanesco to them, because Ascoli borders on the dialetti centrali area, which includes Romanesco (and, Romanesco is one of the dialetti centrali with the most southern features - some people even say it was once part of the dialetti meridionali before the massive influx of Northern immigrants during Italian unification). I am from Campobasso and I find my dialect very similar to Neapolitan. I also have friends from Foggia and from Pescara and our dialects are similar. In Pescara, I spoke to the owners of my hotel in my dialect and they answered in their dialect and they were almost the same. However, in Ancona several people thought I was speaking Russian. In that sense, I feel there is a very real demarcation between the dialetti meridionali and the dialetti centrali. Whatever we chose to call this group, it is clear that the dialetti meridionali form one continuum or language. The name doesn't really matter, it's an issue of convenience and expediency.--70.48.143.156 (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

In an encyclopedia, it's also an issue of supplying accurate information. Staring with the cover term Neapolitan and its use here, this article misinforms the reader coming to this article looking for understanding of the linguistic landscape of Southern Italy.75.134.23.211 (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

The article says: vedé (to see)

What tense is it? Present indicative 3rd singular? Why the accent, then? (see conjugation at Verbix)

Please be gentle, i'm not a big expert in Italian. Thanks in advance for your answer. --Amir E. Aharoni 11:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think there is a little misunderstanding: vedé is Neapolitan, not Italian. :) --Llayumri 14:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Now you totally confused me. I thought that the Neapolitan form is supposed to be "veré". Or is it written vedé and pronounced veré? And in any case, what tense is it in Neapolitan? --Amir E. Aharoni 14:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

It is the present infinitive (It. vedere, Engl. to see). I don't think Neapolitan has strict spelling or pronounciation rules, despite its literary tradition. Italian Wikipedia says rhotacism is "frequent". They probably use both forms, at least in spoken language. Anyway, I'm quite sure that writers prefer the -d- form: "senz' essere scetato, / senza sentì e vedé" (Di Giacomo). --Llayumri 18:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is this really rhotacism or flapping? Is the sound /r/ (the "Italian" "r") or /ɾ/ (the pronunciation of intervocalic "d" and "t" in some American accents that makes "metal" and "medal" homophones)? I am not at all familiar with Neapolitan, but it sounds like this might be flapping rather than true rhotacism. — Paul G 12:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's stronger than that. It's an odd case in Neapolitan, traditionally, many of the words are written with "d"s but are pronounced as if they were "r"s. The effect is strong enough that most native speakers who are unfamiliar with traditional literary Neapolitan write them straight away with "r"s, like "ra" for "d''a".-E. abu Filumena 02:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks to Ethnologue, this article assumes the term applies to the dialects of southern Italy. It therefore overlaps the recently created Southern Italian article, which assumes the term Neapolitan (Napoletano) applies to just Naples. Personally, I prefer the "southern Italian" angle, which is closer to actual linguistics, but such a merger should be discussed. Dionix (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Again, I'm not sure what the difference is between the two articles. Can someone please elaborate or comment on my proposal to merge or distinguish? Dionix (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

As I said above, I don't believe that Neapolitan refers to the city, but the historical Kingdom of Naples which encompassed all of the areas (with one exception) where it is spoken. Rbritt518 (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

To add to that, "Southern Italian" is a misnomer and the article should probably be deleted. What has come to be known today as "Italian' is a language that originates from Tuscany and should not be confused with Neapolitan or Sicilian. Rbritt518 (talk) 11:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Napulitano, Siclian, Central Italian/Romanesco, Corsican and Tuscan are very closely related and are descended from an immediate common ancestor and have a close knit continuum like the norse languages and mainland japanese dialect groups.---Kasumi-genx (talk)

I think it should be called as Eastern-Italian not Southern Italian.Kasumi-genx (talk)

Eastern Italian makes no sense, there's no such thing as Eastern Italy. As a Neapolitan, I can say that the Neapolitan language/dialect is spoken not only in Naples but in the whole region, at the very least (with different accents). I'd say Sicilian is a totally different language. But I'm not a linguist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptex (talk • contribs) 10:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

According to Unesco , Neapolitan is a language (http://www.napoli.com/viewarticolo.php?articolo=34942) , why this article is called "Neapolitan dialect" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanno29 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm agree . I propose to change the name of the page in Neapolitan language !It's called "language" also in the text of the article ... Another fact: why we have an article "Sicilian language" , but "Neapolitan dialect" ? They were the two official languages in the same state , the Kingdom of two Sicilies , pace all'anema sua ! Anno1443 (talk • contribs)

+1. not only was Neapolitan recently recognized as a language at UNESCO level, it's been recorded as a language for much longer than since 2008. see http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=nap. so please do rename this page "Neapolitan Language" an have "Neapolitan dialect" redirect there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfrasca (talk • contribs) 05:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

You're on the wrong page. They're talking about Southern Italian. We might want to rename that article 'Neapolitan language'; this might then be 'Naples dialect'. Make a move request if you like. — kwami (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Never mind. The distinction was not stable after several years, so I merged. — kwami (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

No, even by Unesco, the Napolitan variety is recognized as Southern Italian. Not everything that appears on their atlas is a separate language. Dialects are also present in that webpage. Some Greek dialects appear along with other languages (unrelated to Greek) spoken in Greece, for example. Anyway, check how it's recognized as a southern dialect: http://www.unesco.org/languages-atlas/en/atlasmap/language-id-1022.html

The article should be renamed "Napolitan dialect".

124.33.177.82 (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I am not an expert... but I believe some of the confusion comes from the double meaning of the word “dialetto” in Italian... It could mean either “una varietà di una lingua” (a variety of a [single] language) or “[una] lingua contrapposta a quella nazionale” (a language, as opposed to the national language - referring to a language spoken in the country other than the official one). From a linguistic and practical standpoint, Neapolitan probably wouldn’t be a dialect in the first sense, since someone who speaks only standard Italian can’t simply jump into a conversation in Neapolitan the way an American can jump into a conversation between Australians - it is only partially mutually intelligible with Italian, much like another Romance language not spoken in Italy. Case in point: popular Neapolitan songs often include a “traduzione dal napoletano” into standard Italian on genius.com. That wouldn’t be necessary for a mere dialect (in the first sense)

But it can definitely be “un dialetto” as per the second definition, and that can also include languages like Piedmontese that aren’t even Italo-Dalmatian.

To make matters more complicated... there is a dialect of standard Italian influenced by the Neapolitan language (the Italian Wikipedia has a separate page for it), and in everyday speech, the term “dialetto napoletano” could refer to both the Neapolitan language and to regional standard Italian with a Neapolitan accent.

And on top of that... there are several dialects of Neapolitan itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flexthink (talk • contribs) 03:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I changed the rating of the "Neapolitan language" from C to B, because I find that the article

• is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary;
• reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies;
• has a defined structure;
• is reasonably well-written;
• contains supporting materials where appropriate; and
• presents its content in an appropriately understandable way.
  These are the criteria for a B rating.

However, JorisvS reverted the rating to C, explaining "Not really". Opinions? -The Gnome (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Rather "really not", in fact, but I wanted to be mild. There is very little on its grammar. There is little on its phonology and what there is focused on orthography, rather than the other way around (a poor structure). The classification section is rife with tags and is not well structured. There is a list of dialects, but nothing about them. The list of dialects is in the distribution section, rather than in a dialects section. There is nothing on its history. There is very little literary usage and what there is is misplaced in the classification section. Doesn't come close to a B-class article. Compare also Italian language, which is far better, but still not rated B class. --JorisvS (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I can see your points. I cannot disagree. After a more careful examination from my part, I have to agree with your assessment. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Both "Napulitano" and "(’o n)napulitano" are currently unsourced, but at least the latter is consistent with both the explanation in this article and as used at the Neapolitan wiki. The stable version is "nnapulitano", not "Napulitano". @Alessandro57:, do you have a source for your change? --JorisvS (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hallo, and thanks for being on the talk page. Ooops, I did not notice that, thanks, and SOM! :-( About the rest, I can just repeat what are wikipedia policy: another wikipedia cannot be in any case a RS for a wikipedia article. If you see an unsourced info, you are entitled to add a citation missing template and/or to remove it (as I did now). I propose that we find a RS (I am roman, write on wiki:it and know a couple of "partenopei" there, should not be difficult to find the truth. :-) In the meantime, feel free to restablished your preferred version and leave the citation template :-). Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

The citation-needed template is good, of course. I'll revert it, because that version at least has the advantage of being internally consistent. --JorisvS (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Reference from our literature:

E parlava accussì: napulitano!

Ferdinado Russo: 'O luciano d' 'o Rre. Page 34. 14th verse. Hope it helps! ;) --C.R. (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

That cannot distinguish between them, unfortunately. The n is only doubled when directly preceded by the definite article. Therefore, unless the source clarifies the situation around the definite article, it is not useful in clarifying this. Moreover, that's from Wikisource, which means it is not at all a better reference than the native Wikipedia[2]. --JorisvS (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

The reference is a book published by an author with some authority, available online and easy to check. It does not matter if it is available at wikisource or books.google, the archive or the library of my town... or does it?. But yeah, I agree we need to come out with an "article + napulitano" out of the iceberg.--C.R. (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Actually why are we discussing about the article written in the autonym?... I don't see you use L'italiano, El idioma español or lu sicilianu in the autonym of similar language articles in the English wikipedia, so why should neapolitan have the article as an appendix? as you can see from the reference: without the original article you can also give a valid description in english, as you do for italian, spanish and sicilian already.--C.R. (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's not so much the article as it is that the native name can also be nnapulitano when preceded by the definite article. --JorisvS (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

That's an unreferenced grammar attempt for a language that has no (official) grammar. On the spoken language there is no difference wether it has an article or not (actually out of context I would transcribe it with one n without doubt, otherwise it would sound "in neapolitan" --> 'n napulitano --> "nnapulitano", and (opinion) I think this is the source of the confusion...), and again: to be coherent with the rest of the articles, this issue must be dealt within the grammar section and not in the first description (as you won't do it with the other languages). In the neapolitan wikipedia of course: we need to write it in neapolitan, so we need to use articles, prepositions, ecc... and the best grammar we know.--C.R. (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Every language has a grammar, regardless of the existence of any comprehensive descriptions or officialness. The native-language page uses it, though inconsistently, which is to be expected for a non-uniform language without a standardized form. I'm fully okay with (n)apulitano, or alternatively napulitano/nnapulitano if you think that's better. 'o nnapulitano and 'n napulitano should be easily distinguishable from context. --JorisvS (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I was meaning standardized and scientific form. Anyway, I would challenge the double-n, but unfortunately I need more time digging in the texts, and up to date I can tell you I have no reference. However, the native-language page is not a valid reference, and even more: If you check the history, you will see that it was created and reviewed as 'o napulitano by native speakers, and then changed to 'o nnapulitano by a literated non-native user. Proposal: Since it does not seem even phonetically accurate, and leaving it like this would lead you to drag a (quotation needed) for a long time... while we lost coherence between language articles... I would move it to as a "grammar" curiosity, and leave "napulitano" on the autonym.--C.R. (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

It has always fascinated me how the French language in particular has been partly absorbed into Neapolitan. Some words are the same, like "buatta" adpted from French "boîte" (box, scatola in Italian). It would be really awesome to find some serious references to this influence, as well as to the Spanish one. Vincenza1950 (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

This article mixes the languoid "Neapolitan" as given in Ethnologue with the languoid "Neapolitan" as described in other linguistic sources, i.e. the languoid spoken in Neaples, or Neapolitan proper ("proper" is used here informally, I know no source making the distinction with "proper" and I know no academic publication using "Neapolitan" for the languoid given in Ethnologue). Please, check the literature: the entire voice is written based on the classification assumptions of Ethnologue, thus breaking the Neutral Point of View policy. I'm not against Ethnologue in principle, I'm just saying that it seems the other academic literature does not use the glossonym the same way as Ethnologue does. This should be mirrored in the article. (P.S. "languoid" and "glossonym" are not my inventions, see Language#Languoid for definitions and references). See the following:

• Posner, R. (1996). The romance languages. Cambridge University Press.
• Maiden, M., Smith, J. C., & Ledgeway, A. (Eds.). (2010). The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages: Volume 1, Structures. Cambridge University Press.
• Alkire, T., & Rosen, C. (2010). Romance languages: a historical introduction. Cambridge University Press.
• Loporcaro, M. (2009). Profilo linguistico dei dialetti italiani (Vol. 275). Laterza.
• Marcato, C. (2002). Dialetto, dialetti e italiano. Il mulino.
• Pellegrini, G. B. (1977). Carta dei dialetti d'Italia (Vol. 5). Firenze.
• Smith, J. C., & Maiden, M. (Eds.). (1995). Linguistic theory and the Romance languages (Vol. 122). John Benjamins Publishing.
• Harris, M., & Vincent, N. (Eds.). (2003). The romance languages. Routledge.

--SynConlanger (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

This from treccani encyclopedia may provide a redundant reference. However, it comes with the typical Italian POV of considering whatever is not italian a dialect...--C.R. (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's because in Italy the term "dialect" settled in academia with a sociolinguistic meaning. But both Italian and English works usually use the term "dialect" for the languages of Italy which are not Italian. 😊 --SynConlanger (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SynConlanger: Find here your full redundant reference, however if we agree that this language passes the test of the duck... (with many stones thrown from Italy's Dante-centristic academic community) It may be worthy to open minds and search carefully sources out of Italy... rather than removing contents that may not have double or triple-proof source... :D (na frecciatina te l'aggia mannà sorry ^^)--C.R. (talk) 08:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

The link you provide leads to "Encyclopaedia of the Stateless Nations" (which is not a linguistic publication, btw) but I cannot see the content because it's a preview only. Would you mind giving us the references? I'm not saying "10 refs say so, so it must be it". I'm saying that the references I was able to find say what I said above: that Ethnologue classification must not be takes as the gold master and that Ethnologue's "Neapolitan language" and the thing spoken in Neaples are two different objects. That's all. --SynConlanger (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

P.S. about half of the references I cited above are in English. --SynConlanger (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry the edit conflict: I cannot check your books, but I don't believe they state explicitly that "Neapolitan is a dialect of Italian" as e.g. "Occitan is a dialect of French", when you can find such a reference... I will be very surprised...--C.R. (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SynConlanger:...I can see it though... wait...check here: It is surprisingly precise, so I would not discard they had linguists in order to check it...

--More references are already on the text, you can check them easily... and I propose to remove the "lack of references" tag.--C.R. (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Language and religion: The Neapolitans speak a Romance language called Neapolitan-Calabreze, which is spoken in three major dialects and many regional varieties. The language is not intelligible to speakers of standard Italian; many of its speakers do not speak the Italian national language, particularly in rural areas. The use of the language remains vigorous, and attempts are under way to standardize its usage and teaching. There is a large amount of literature, written mostly in the Neapolitan dialect. The dialects associated with Neapolitan in the northern regions differ considerably from the Calabreze dialects spoken in Calabria, Basilicata, and Puglia. The other regional dialects are Aquilano, Abruzzese, Pugliese and *Molisano, spoken in the eastern parts of the peninsula. An estimated half the population of the region uses one of local dialects as their fist language.

--James Minahan: Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: L-R., pp.1348, 2002

This reference is previous to Ethnologue, so now you have two references... If you don't like the title of the book it's your problem, the definition of the languoid is quite precise...--C.R. (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

As I said above, the confusion here is between "Neapolitan-Calabreze" and "Neapolitan dialect". Although, since other references refer to the two languoids in a different manner, that must be reflected in the article here. I don't see this mentioned anywhere in the article. 😊 --SynConlanger (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

P.S. as for the citation tag, there is still too much text unreferenced in the article so I'm against the removal. Moreover, some of the referenced text is reference in a manipulated way. Like citing the Carta by Pellegrini, where "Lingua Napoletana" does not appear at all. And so on and so forth. --SynConlanger (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's your interpretation, Neapolitan from Naples has too much relative weight (recognition and mass media presence)... we must live with it, if some sources don't mention the other variants that's not a reason to state that the linguistic continuum of the so called "Neapolitan-Calabreze" begins in Portici and finishes in Piedigrotta... If you check the first reference I provided from treccani: it says EXACTLY the same about "Neapolitan-Calabreze" as for "Dialetti meridionali"... (and it never says they are dialects of the italian).... so how will you call this languoid honestly, tell me... how are we coherent in wikipedia? Occitan language is called as it is... even if you will find many sources calling it Aranese or Provençal dialect... those are localisms... and you will know as good as me that saying neapolitan is a language is a typical controversial topic in italy, so the academics (despite of not being NPOV) avoid this definition as a language, ... as in treccani... where the author avoids clearly to state of which language is talking about...--C.R. (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I reckon that from the Grammar chapter on, the article is talking about the Neapolitan from Naples-Naples. Any proposal on how re-word and/or notice it I would be happy to hear.--C.R. (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't this be "gemination"? -- Evertype·✆ 13:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Italic languages are these: -GALLO-ITALIAN: Venetian, Romagnolo, Emilian, Lombard, Piedmontese, Ligurian, Friulian -MEDIAN-ITALIAN: course, standard italian, Roman dialect, Umbrian, Tuscan -SOUTH-ITALIAN: Neapolitan, Apulian, Lucanian and Abruzzese -EXTREME SOUTH ITALIAN: sicilian, Calabrian, Salentine -SARDIANIAN In Italy these are the linguistic groups, the Neapolitan is not spoken in Puglia, Abruzzo and Basilicata, only in the Campania region. I'm Apulian and I do not speak Neapolitan, I speak Apulian. They are two distinct languages but belonging to the same family.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Neapolitan language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727043316/http://www.denaro.it/VisArticolo.aspx?IdArt=548026 to http://www.denaro.it/VisArticolo.aspx?IdArt=548026
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121003072247/http://www.italica.rai.it/principali/lingua/bruni/mappe/flash/regionalok.htm to http://www.italica.rai.it/principali/lingua/bruni/mappe/flash/regionalok.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606222954/http://venus.unive.it/canipa/pdf/MFo_16_Italia.pdf to http://venus.unive.it/canipa/pdf/MFo_16_Italia.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080621074948/http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/translation/Neapolitan/ to http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/translation/Neapolitan/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051107211735/http://www.italica.rai.it/principali/lingua/bruni/mappe/mappe/f_dialetti.htm to http://www.italica.rai.it/principali/lingua/bruni/mappe/mappe/f_dialetti.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.lastoriadinapoli.it/vocab.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.torreomnia.com/Testi/argenziano/dizionario/presentazione.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have never before come across the word sect used as a technical term of linguistics. Does anyone have better information than I have on this matter? It did cross my mind that perhaps the editor who added this word actually meant set. If so, would not group be better? LynwoodF (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think it's just a typo.Dk1919 (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I am inclined to agree, so I think I shall change the word to group. By the way, it is nice to meet a Sardinian speaker, albeit only electronically. I know very little Sardinian, but I did once do some online research on the pocket of Ligurian in the south-west. Best wishes, LynwoodF (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Neapolitan language (). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

The map is quite nice, but in its current location it’s difficult to compare the the detailed list of dialects/languages. Could we move it next to them and float it to the side? babbage (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

After 5 years I brought this up, this article still relies entirely on the classification by SIL/Ethnologue. The lead section now mentions that in some other contexts Neapolitan refers to the languoid spoken in Naples and surroundings and not to the whole branch, but a reference is not provided (I will take care of adding these, since there are many). Can someone with a background in (Romance) linguistics help? --SynConlanger (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ethnologue and UNESCO seem to be very reliable sources, although they don't mention any "Neapolitan language", but "Neapolitan-Calabrese" or "South Italian" instead; however, this appears to be a mere bagatelle (in the worst case scenario, we ever can move "Neapolitan language" page to another title). Actually, we don't know where Neapolitan language is spoken (only in Naples and surroundings, or possibly in other Southern regions of Italy too), but we do know that it is a very unitary language, as no sources cite any other Southern languages. Conversely (and obviously), the various diverse dialects spoken everywhere in Italy straightforwardly stem from Latin (e.g. see this Italian source), and therefore they have nothing to do with Neapolitan or any other regional languages.--3knolls (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

As least Ledgeway (2016) and Maiden & Parry (1997) call "Upper Southern dialects" the varieties spoken in the area that is referred to in this article (with my caveat that "dialect" is used in this context in a sense different from the English word "dialect"), and Ledgeway (2016) says "Despite considerable structural unity and general mutual intelligibility (Avolio 1995:29f.), southern dialects do not form an entirely homogeneous linguistic group, being standardly divided [...] into dialects of the upper south (southern Lazio (south of a line Circeo-Ceprano-Sora), Abruzzo (excluding the upper Aterno Valley and western Marsica), Molise, Campania, Basilicata, northern Apulia, northern Calabria) and those of the extreme south (Salento, centralsouthern Calabria, Sicily)". I think moving the page to "Upper Southern X" or similar, where X should be dialect based on the references but could be something else too, is probably a good idea. I actually don't know where UNESCO takes its classification from (I'll investigate), and SIL/Ethnologue assigns the ISO 639-3 code nap to "Neapolitan" here (this is the official page of the ISO 639-3) but to Napoletano-Calabrese here (this is the website of the official SIL/Ethnologue catalogue, which is now paywalled...), which is confusing at best. :) --SynConlanger (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion, we have not to confound a single language with a vast cluster of dialects. This article speaks about a unitary language, because UNESCO and Ethnologue refer to it as a language: you can freely choose or change the language's name, but you cannot speak about a cluster of dialects. If you want to speak about dialects, please create a new page and use the sources you have cited (as far as I can see, Avolio and others only spoke about dialects, not about a single language ).--3knolls (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I see what you mean and I partially agree, but the lead section of this article is confusing (and confused). If we want an article that refers to what SIL and UNESCO say about this languoid, that's fine, but then we need to be clear about it. Moreover, as I mentioned above, SIL is not clear as to whether they are referring to a higher-level languoid, or to the variety spoken in Campania/Naples. The lead section here should say something like "Neapolitan is the name assigned by SIL/Ethnologue and UNESCO to the Romance varieties spoken in the area of ...". It should be very clear that here we are speaking of a specific doculect, specific in the sense that is the doculect referred to by SIL and UNESCO. (For the terminology I'm using here, see https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/4606. I am using this terminology to avoid confusion, but we might not adopt it to write the articles... :) ). --SynConlanger (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am no linguist. However, in this discussion about the article, please take into consideration WP:COMMONNAME for the article title (so for example Neapolitan language should be a much better choice than Upper Southern Italian), and WP:NOTJARGON and WP:TECHNICAL regarding the content (especially of the lead). For example I disagree with "Neapolitan is the name assigned by SIL/Ethnologue and UNESCO to the Romance varieties spoken in the area of ...": Neapolitan language is not defined as "a name", it's "a language" (or "a dialect" I don't want to enter the discussion), and that's the definition that should stay in the lead. --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Ritchie92: You are mixing different issues. One is what to call the article (this one) that describes the languoid that SIL calls Neapolitan or Neapolitan-Calabrese and what UNESCO calls South Italian. The other is creating a separate article that refers to the languoid that academic references (among which the ones I cited above) call "Continental Southern Italian". How to title this other article, is yet another issue (it could be "Continental Southern Italian dialects" because that is what the references call them. This is not an issue of "language" vs "dialect", I don't care about that, I just stick to the references). SIL is ambiguous because it calls the languoid with code [nap] "Neapolitan" here https://iso639-3.sil.org/code/nap but "Napoletano-Calabrese" here https://www.ethnologue.com/language/nap. What I am saying is that we need to be clear in the article that the article refers to the doculects by SIL and UNESCO (this is what the article is referring to as it stands now). --SynConlanger (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there are references that claim that the languoids that SIL calls Neapolitan/Napoletano-Calabrese and that UNESCO calls South Italian are the same thing as the academic references's Continental Southern Italian, so that claiming this in the article would qualify as original research. UNESCO lists the ISO code [nap] for South Italian so we can assume that they are referring to the same languoid as SIL's Neapolitan/Napoletano-Calabrese. But the academic references I provided above (and others) do not make reference to that ISO code, so claiming that they refer to [nap] would be original research. --SynConlanger (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

However the first thing to do is carefully specify the meaning of the term "dialect". An English dialect stems from English, whereas a Neapolitan dialect (or a Southern Italian dialect) does NOT stem from Neapolitan (or from Italian), as it is remarked in the Treccani source linked above (that's a very reliable source, not an original research!). One can even suppose that Neapolitan language was more widely spoken in the past (when Naples was a Kingdom's capital) than today, but Southern Italian dialects have ever remained discretely unrelated. Therefore I think it is not a good idea to speak about dialects in this article (or in the article: Italian language), as long as the meaning of the word "dialect" is inherently misleading.--3knolls (talk) 11:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

You are right to point out that "dialect" as used in the academic literature that treats those Romance varieties spoken in Italian does not mean what the English word "dialect" normally means, but it has a specialistic meaning. However the lead section now uses the term "dialects": "While the term "Neapolitan language" is used in this article to refer to the language group of related dialects found in southern continental Italy, ...". Common usage has been mentioned above. I personally don't know what the common usage would be for the glossonym "Neapolitan language". In the academic references I cite above they use the glossonym "Neapolitan" to refer to the languoid spoken in Naples and surrounding areas, and not to the higher-level languoid spoken across the south of Italy (Which rather they call "Upper Southern Italian"). When non-academics people talk about "Neapolitan language" I don't know what they refer to. This is very problematic, but I think again we are mixing a lot of different (although) related issues. I think what we should agree on here before anything else is what this article is supposed to be about. :) Is this article about the languoid called Neapolitan/Napoletano-Calabrese [nap] by SIL? --SynConlanger (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Also, what is meant by "language group" in the lead section? Is it "group of languages"? Is it "linguistic group"? It is not clear, nor is it clear where that definition is taken from (hence also the citation needed template). --SynConlanger (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately this article appears to be confusing, just because it merges two discrete concepts (Neapolitan language and Southern Italian dialects). In my opinion, only a demerging can solve the problem.--3knolls (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

(��) I agree that splitting and cleaning is probably the best action. --SynConlanger (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

P.S. So, after some thought, I think this article should be renamed to "Upper Southern Italian languages" and we should create another article "Neapolitan language" which refers to the languoid spoken in Naples and Campania (Glottocode: napo1241, no ISO 639-3 code). I explain why.

1. The ISO 639-3 code [nap] has the glossonym "Neapolitan" on the ISO website and "Napoletano-Calabrese" on the SIL/Ethnologue website (the autonym is "Napulitano"). SIL/Ethnologue does not cite references, so I do not know where they took the names from, and SIL/Ethnologue is not a primary source, but secondary or tertiary since it is an encyclopaedia. Note also that there might be dialects of [nap] listed in there too, but since now SIL/Ethnologue is paywalled I don't have access to that info. So, although they present [nap] as a unitary language rather than as a group of languages, this is possibly made of sub-varieties (I can't see them so if anyone has access to the full SIL/Ethnologue, please let us know).
2. UNESCO, which is not a primary source, has the glossonym "South Italian" linked to ISO 639-3 [nap]. Again, they don't cite references, so I don't know where they got that name from.
3. Glottolog has the name "Continental Southern Italian (group/languages)" linked to ISO 639-3 [nap] with a glottocode [neap1235]. Their reference for the classification is Agard, Frederick B. 1984: 73-80. It looks like [neap1235] does not exactly corresponds to [nap] because South Lucanian is not included in [neap1235] but seems to be included in [nap] according to the infobox here (again, I don't know if that is what SIL/Ethnologue says, because I don't have access to the full thing).
4. The academic references I could check so far (which as far as I understand are quite standard, although there are others) have "Upper Southern (dialects)/Dialetti alto-meridionali" (Maiden & Parry 1997; Ledgeway 2016, Loporcaro 2009), "Dialetti meridionali intermedi" (Pellegrini 1977). In all of these references, "Neapolitan/Napoletano" refers to the languoid spoken in Naples/Campania and not to the whole thing.

Given that it looks like the academic references agree on "Upper Southern" I think this should be part of the name of this article. I think "Upper Southern Italian languages" fits well with other articles of the sort. In this article we can then give all the info about classification and group vs unitary language, etc. I don't think having separate articles for 1-4 would follow from the principles of Wikipedia. --SynConlanger (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Again, I oppose this per WP:COMMONNAME. Nobody ever refers to the southern Italian dialects as "Upper southern Italian" except for academics, it's just "Neapolitan" and its variations. Please check how many (non subject-specific or highly technical) sources refer to the languages spoken there. [This is similar to the situation for the article Brexit, which is titled like that per common-name policy, instead of being titled "Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union", although of course in technical and specific documents it's called like the latter and not "Brexit".] There is plenty of space in the lead section to specify the formal and technical names of Neapolitan according to all the sources you mentioned, but the article's title should reflect the most common name. --Ritchie92 (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I approve of conveniently splitting this article, whereas Italian, French and German Wikipedias already follow this pattern in order to avoid misunderstandings. But I propose naming the other one as "Middle Southern Italian dialects" (or possibly "Midsouthern Italian dialects"), that reflects Italian "Dialetti meridionali intermedi" as named by Pellegrini. Conversely, the term "Uppern" (="Superior", in Italian "superiore") does not appear to be used by any sources, and no sources consider those dialects as "languages", although there is a Wikipedia in Tarantino. However, Southern Italian dialects are not "variations" of Neapolitan language (as Ritchie92 says), on the contrary they are quite discrete languoids that stem directly from Latin language, as stated in the Treccani source linked above.--3knolls (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Nowhere in the Treccani source it is stated that the southern dialects stem directly from Latin though, while multiple sources classify the southern dialects as Neapolitan (which, as every language, also has its dialects). Treccani only says "Infatti, l'italiano deriva dal latino, così come dal latino discendono i dialetti che si parlano in Italia." which only means the dialects are descendants of Latin, not the first discendants. Also, Treccani is an encyclopedia, therefore not exactly a primary source. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Discendere da means "be descended from", "come from", and the author of Treccani's article is an influential linguist. If you think that Southern Italian dialects stem from Neapolitan, please provide your source here.--3knolls (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

"To be descended from" does not imply "directly from", that's what I'm saying. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Southern Italian dialects stem from Latin: that is what the source states. If you think that Southern Italian dialects stem ("directly" or "indirectly", that's doesn't matter) from a language other than Latin, e.g. from Neapolitan or Italian language, please provide your source. On the contrary, if no sources state that Southern Italian dialects stem from Neapolitan or Italian language (even though Neapolitan or Italian themselves stem from Latin), then that's only an original research of yours.--3knolls (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your questionable interpretation of the Treccani source is original research. It is stated nowhere therein that southern Italian dialects stem from Latin, but only that they are descendants of Latin. In order to use this source to motivate such a big change like moving this article, you need more specific and explicit sources, it's not me that needs to prove anything since you are proposing the split (with a misinterpreted source). --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

This article mixes two discrete concepts up: the Neapolitan language (with the sources being Ethnologue and Unesco) and the Southern Italian dialects (with the sources being Pellegrini, Avolio and other influential linguists). No reliable sources merge those two concepts; only the English Wikipedia does so. If a Wikipedia user is minded to create the new page Southern Italian dialects (currently being a redirect), how can you successfully propose deleting that page if you don't provide any reliable source stating that Southern Italian dialects are exactly the same as the Neapolitan language?--3knolls (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

First you wanted to move this article, then you went for "split", and now you rephrase the split by calling it "creating a new article about the southern Italian". I am of course not against an article about the southern Italian dialects, if that's the question. I am only worried about a move of this article to "southern Italian language" or dialect. --Ritchie92 (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

"The academic references I could check so far (which as far as I understand are quite standard, although there are others) have "Upper Southern (dialects)/Dialetti alto-meridionali" (Maiden & Parry 1997; Ledgeway 2016, Loporcaro 2009), "Dialetti meridionali intermedi" (Pellegrini 1977). In all of these references, "Neapolitan/Napoletano" refers to the languoid spoken in Naples/Campania and not to the whole thing."

yes, this is how it should work. Scientific terminology should be used, as in the case for articles about plants, species, etc... So I don't understand where @Ritchie92's comment comes from. You would not say 'only Academics say Canis familiaris when referring to dogs', or would you? So why are you doing this about languages? Scientific terms need to be used, or else Wikipedia fails to be an encyclopedia. Ophoryce (talk) 11:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

(←) The statement that the common name in the English-speaking world for the languoid [nap] is "Neapolitan language" is simply false. The comparison with Brexit is unfortunate: the general public talks about Brexit, but not about the languoid [nap]. So COMMONNAME here does not apply. Treccani is an encyclopaedia, so it is a tertiary source, and should not be used as a gold standard. [nap] descends from Latin, directly or indirectly doesn't make any sense whatsoever, it just does discend from Latin (meaning that Latin is the ascestor language of Neapolitan). We now have this article "Neapolitan language". What I am proposing to do is to have instead an article called "Upper Southern Italian languages" for [nap]/[neap1235]/Upper Southern Italian dialects/languages and an article called "Neapolitan language" for [napo1241]. In the former we can detail all the issues with classification and unitary language vs. group. I am opposed to having this article, and article called "Neapolitan dialect" and an article called "Upper Southern Italian languages" for the reasons I have given above. Compare with Gallo-Italic languages, which---since an ISO code for Gallo-Italic does not exist---did not end up being called Milanese language or the like. I refuse to accept the statement that English-speaking people talk about Neapolitan (if they ever do) to mean the things spoken in Campania, Abruzzi, Puglia, etc etc. I will send an email to SIL/Ethnologue now or later to ask what their source is for "Neapolitan/Napoletano-Calabrese". Also, why is this article called Neapolitan when on Ethnologue is actually called Napoletano-Calabrese? --SynConlanger (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

WP does not need to be a copy of Ethnologue or whatever source you deem best on the topic. Regarding the issue of COMMONNAME, you just need to compare the Google search results of "Neapolitan language" or "dialect" to the ones for "Neapolitan-Calabrese language" or "upper southern Italian dialects" to see that there is an astounding preponderance of the use of "Neapolitan" instead of upper Southern etc. etc. (about 100 times more hits). Also, as a little hint, why do you think the upper etc. is coded as [nap] or [neap1235]? Doesn't it remind you of the root of a word? I bet it's [neap]olitan but I might be wrong. Or were the authors of the coding convention trying to tell us something else? Anyway, I think it's fine to have articles about the group of dialects of southern Italy, but certainly not to move or delete this article. --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Searching for a word on Google search and just checking the hits does not prove anything since “Neapolitan” can be have many referents and probably more often the languoid spoken in Campania and Naples than [nap]. Moreover, That’s not how glottocodes work. The name given to the languoid and the string in the code are epistemologically independent and what matters is the name not the code. Furthermore, I’m not cherry picking references. Experts in the field (Romance linguistics) agree on the naming so I don’t see why we should make things up. —-SynConlanger (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

We're not making anything up, the common word is Neapolitan. It is indeed quite natural that it's difficult to find English sources for this, since the "commonness" of the word "Neapolitan" to describe this language is more proper of the geographical area where the language is mostly known, i.e. Italy, where the primary common language is Italian, not English. Indeed in Italy if you speak of "lingua" or "dialetto napoletano" every single person will know what you're referring to, while if you mention "dialetto italiano alto-meridionale" probably only a handful of people will grasp its meaning, and most importantly understand that in reality you're referring to Neapolitan. It is also customary on WP that articles' titles referring to some country-specific entity are the translation from the most common name in that language, if the English equivalent is straightforward (as in this case). See for example the names of many Italian parties, where often the journalistic sources are only in Italian and nonetheless the consensus is that wherever possible the English translation of the name is taken, even if it does not appear very often on English-language sources. --Ritchie92 (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't agree for two reasons. 1. Wikipedia:Articles titles clearly states that "[Such] a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." So Italian has very little to do here. 2. "Dialetto napoletano" in Italian means the "parlata di Napoli e Campania". No Italian person would ever dream to say that for example in Chieti or Bari they speak "dialetto napoletano". That would be preposterous. --SynConlanger (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

No Italian person would ever dream to say that for example in Chieti or Bari they speak "dialetto napoletano". That would be preposterous. and I am also not saying this. I am saying that an article named "Neapolitan language" should exist on WP with this title, because it's relevant enough (the language spoken in Naples and its area) to have poetry, novels and plays written in it, and millions of native speakers. Then, I am not against the creation of another article about the group of southern dialects which would include (I guess) Neapolitan as one example. --Ritchie92 (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Indeed we need an article called "Neapolitan language" that gives information about what in Italy is called "dialetto napoletano". But this article is not about "dialetto napoletano" is about what academic references refer to as "Upper Southern Italian dialects" which comprise among others dialetto napoletano, dialetto molisano, dialetto abruzzese, dialetto barese, etc etc. --SynConlanger (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why delete or move this page? English Wikipedia has already an article titled Vastese (Vasto's dialect), and Neapolitan is else a language, that's a bit more than a dialect! Notwithstanding a new article which speaks about the entire cluster of midsouthern dialect is needed, because various southern dialects (e.g. Vastese) are not mere "variations" of Neapolitan language. I only propose naming the new article "Middle Southern Italian dialects" instead of "Upper Southern Italian dialects", because even in Italian "Dialetti meridionali intermedi" appears to be used more often than "Dialetti alto-meridionali".--3knolls (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

(←) This is Wikipedia in English so should give precedence to English, not Italian. But that's besides the point now. I don't see why we should have two articles (this one and "Middle Southern Italian dialects") that treat more or less the same languoid [nap/neap1235]. I am opposed to having three articles in total: Neapolitan language, Middle Southern Italian dialects, and Neapolitan dialect. I think two are sufficient. Whatever we want to call those two is a different matter. --SynConlanger (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

There's a relevant difference between a "language" and a "cluster of dialects": the sources state that Neapolitan is a language (or possibly it was a language, when Naples was a Kingdom' capital), and a language always has its lexicon and grammar. Instead Midsouthern Italian is a cluster of dialects, each of which has its own lexicon and grammar. If the present article contains some information related to the cluster of dialects, then that information has to be transferred to the new article, once it has been created. However, I don't think a third article (titled "Neapolitan dialect") is needed anymore.--3knolls (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

The difference "language" vs "cluster of dialects" is epistemologically vacuous or anyway a very very thorny issue. There are no hard empirical linguistic criteria to differentiate between the two concepts and they are not even mutually exclusive since a "language" can be (and most times is) a "cluster of dialects" (dialects in the English sense of varieties of a language). So "English language" is a "cluster of dialects of the English language". Hence why the term "languoid" was introduced. Even SIL/Ethnologue states that "Neapolitan language" has dialects. Moreover, if a language has its own lexicon and language like you say, and "Neapolitan language" is a language, then "dialetto barese" has the same grammar and lexicon than "dialetto napoletano". So you are saying that dialetto barese and dialetto napoletano are the same language, which is what SIL/Ethnologue claims. Note that as a linguist, I don't care whether [nap/neap1245] is a unitary language or a cluster of languoids, because as I said it's the same thing, two sides of the same coin. Every languoid is a cluster of languoids, so even a unitary language is a cluster of languoids. The issue language vs cluster does not grant two separate articles, quite the opposite, just one article, named according the most common view, and detailing the issue. Moreover the grammar described in this article is that specific of the "parlata di Napoli e Campania" and not of for example "dialetto barese". :) To be clear, what I am saying is that a single article should discuss both the unitary hypothesis by SIL/Ethnologue and the cluster of languages hypothesis by the academic sources. (Note cluster of languages vs cluster of dialects because the sources use dialects in the Italian sense of regional languages, as you have repeatedly and rightfully observed). --SynConlanger (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am very confused by the continuous change of statements at each post. First it has been stated that we need to move this article, then that we need to split, not in three articles, but into two, ok. Now the position of having a single article is back... Also the editor is making contradictory statements, since they said before that this article is not about "dialetto napoletano" is about what academic references refer to as "Upper Southern Italian dialects" but now they say that the grammar described in this article is that specific of the "parlata di Napoli e Campania" and not of for example "dialetto barese". Just to boost the hopes to end this discussion soon, can we have a clear statement about (a) moving this article to "upper southern", or (b) creating a new "upper southern" article with parts taken from this article (that would then be removed from here)? --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Syn Conlanger
A language can be a cluster of dialects only if the term "dialect" has the English sense (i.e. the dialects have had the same origin), but not if it has the Italian sense (i.e. the dialects have originated discretely). "Barese" or "Vastese" (as any other Italian dialects, whereas the term "dialects" has the Italian sense) do have their own lexicon and grammar, but they cannot be called as "languages" (because no sources state that) and they don't stem from Neapolitan language, but from Latin language instead. However, Neapolitan language can have its dialects ("dialects" in the English sense) because Naples was long a Kingdom's capital: for example, "Casertano" is a Neapolitan dialect, because Caserta was founded by Neapolitans; "Ischitano" is also a Neapolitan dialect, because Ischia's port was controlled by Neapolitans. But Forio's dialect does not stem from Neapolitan, even though Forio is in the same island of Ischia! In my opinion, this article should speak only about Neapolitan language (and its dialects – as Casertano or Ischitano –whereas the term "dialects" has the English sense). Conversely, the other article should speak about every other dialects ("dialects" in the Italian sense: e.g. Vastese, Barese, and also Forio's dialect) that are not related to Neapolitan language, i.e. they don't stem from Neapolitan.--3knolls (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Ritchie92: Yes, I am sorry for the confusion. My proposal is the one at the beginning of this subsection (i.e. one article about [nap/neap1245] and one about the specific "parlata" di Napoli/Campania and other articles for other languoids as necessary if information is available on these other languoids---which parallels what we have for Gallo-Italic languages vs Lombard language, Ligurian language etc). @3knolls: Yes, I agree with what you say. If this article is to speak about the parlata di Napoli/Campania then we need to change the lead because it now says that this languoid is spoken also in Abruzzo, Puglia, Molise etc. --SynConlanger (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

P.S. The confusion also stems from the fact that this article is confused. The sections Alphabet and pronunciation and Grammar of this article clearly describe the grammar of the parlata of Naples/Campania, which is different from the grammar for example of Barese. To achieve a status with two articles as I propose (one for the higher-level languoid [nap/neap1245] and one for the parlata di Napoli, plus others about other parlate if necessary) we can actually do any combination of split and renaming, so it makes it difficult to explain. What we should agree on is the end product, rather than how to get there. And the end product is one article about [nap/neap1245] and one about the parlata di Napoli with info on alphabet and grammar. --SynConlanger (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what it should be done. At this point, my only suggestion would be to ask if this can be examined by someone expert in linguistics and knowledgeable about Wikipedia's general policy and format and to let them examine and analyze the article, all the discussions present on this page and all the references, preferably both Italians and English, before taking any actions regarding renaming, splitting or other such actions.84.222.183.130 (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I changed the glottoname in the InfoBox. It assigned the glossonym "Neapolitan" to Glottocode [neap1235], but the glossonym assigned to that code on Glottolog is "Continental Southern Italian" and not "Neapolitan". If you search "Neapolitan" on Glottolog using the search field, what you get is "No matching languoids found for name part "neapolitan"". The glossonym "Napoletano" is assigned to the code [napo1241] and is a sub-languoid of the languoid "Central Southern Italian [neap1235]". --SynConlanger (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

This article mixes up three discrete languoids: 1) the very Neapolitan language, which was co-official (besides Latin) within the Kingdom of Naples in 1442–1501, and was then largely spoken in that Kingdom until Italian unification; 2) the intermediate southern Italian dialects (the map actually refers to them), which stem straightforwardly from Latin and not from the Neapolitan language; 3) the Neapolitan dialect currently spoken within the metropolitan city of Naples. I would therefore propose splitting the current article into three ones, similarly to what Italian Wikipedia does (it:Lingua napoletana, it:Dialetti italiani meridionali, it:Dialetto napoletano).-- 3knolls (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I would tend to disagree, the term "dialect" to describe the language currently spoken in Naples is extremely problematic. A tripartite division of that kind is based more on linguistic ideology than anything else.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Notwithstanding the time and effort that SynConlanger went to above in explaining and documenting the facts, the article treats readers to first this (with completely inappropriate references):

"Neapolitan [...] is a Romance language of the Italo-Dalmatian group spoken across much of southern Italy, except for southern Calabria, southern Apulia, and Sicily, and spoken in a small part of central Italy (the province of Ascoli Piceno in the Marche)."

then this (with no references):

"in a colloquial or non-academic or non-linguist context, “Neapolitan language”, napulitano, or napoletano generally refers specifically to the variety of the language spoken in Naples and the surrounding area."

Reality is the opposite: the Romance languages spoken across much of southern Italy go by various names, but no respectable linguist would use Neapolitan/napoletano as a serious cover term for that vast variety; linguists refer to the language of Naples as Neapolitan/napoletano. While once upon a time a very broad unscientific, impressionistic and inaccurate usage of napoletano could be found even in the works of some well-meaning linguists, that time is gone. That that sort of usage remains in the lexicon of some naive native speakers of Italian should be reported here (and the unfortunate UNESCO usage explained), but should not be presented as standard usage, no more than dolphin should be left officially labeled fish. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree. However, not even UNESCO refers to the languoids spoken in Southern Italy as "Neapolitan", but "Southern Italian" instead.--3knolls (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I was referring to UNESCO's "Alternate names" Neapolitan and Neapolitan-Calabrese, but yes, South Italian (en) and italien du sud (fr) are probably just as bad in a different way, in being quite likely very misleading for non-expert readers -- i.e. Italian construed not as geographic, but suggesting varieties of Italian. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Barefoot through the chollas So what umbrella-term should be used? 'Southern Italo-Romance' is a bit of a mouthful and would also apply to Sicilian. Nicodene (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

No easy solution for the present state of the article, IMO, given the heavy napoletano slant, even with lots of cleanup. Mouthful shouldn't be an obstacle; if Sicilian is excused out for a page of its own, even Continental Southern Italo-Romance would do. The main point is that Neapolitan/napoletano refers to the language of Naples and immediate area, implying two articles: one on Neapolitan, one on dialects of southern Italy. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Agreed on the necessity for such a split- to me it is just a question of nomenclature. Incidentally it would be best to have some consistency with Central Italian- that is to say, a schema along the lines of:

• Central Italian : Upper Southern Italian : Extreme Southern Italian

The last of these would solve the problem of Wikipedia awkwardly assigning the dialects of southern Apulia to the page for Sicilian.

So much to fix, so little time. Nicodene (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm not a linguist; I speak Neapolitan from Naples. In my opinion, currently no naive native speaker of Italian (or Neapolitan) would call "napoletano" any regional language from any region outside Campania. The current lay perception is that napoletano is a "dialetto" "of Italian", not a language (I realise this is linguistically incorrect), and it is spoken in Naples and in nearby areas only. (Actually, people from Naples can easily spot speakers from very close areas like Pozzuoli or Torre del Greco and call their dialects "puzzulano" or "turrese" - not napoletano!). This is to say that I agree with the statement that the lay interpretation of napoletano is narrow and that it does not coincide with "Southern Italian Italo-Romance". Two key references by linguist Nicola De Blasi are misisng: Storia linguistica di Napoli and Profilo linguistico della Campania. Unfortunately I don't have the books with me, but they would be a reputable source IMO. -- CRYptex talk 14:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Cryptex, thanks for your observations, pretty much in line with my experience, both as an occasional visitor to the area and as a working linguist. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have seen that people in my zone, bordering with Campania, acknowledge their dialect as belonging to the Neapolitan’s family, even without having linguistic notions. It may not be the same in a region like Apulia though. The term Parthenopean is commonly used to reference what relates to the city of Naples, as opposed to the Kingdom of Naples as a whole. We could therefore distinguish the Neapolitan language page from the Parthenopean dialect one. Zagreides (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

So I was reading Molise's page in English, and the page gives the pronunciation for the region's name in... Neapolitan. I was like, what the? I click on Neapolitan, and I find out... That this page is the stuff of nightmares. Not even a single soul in the scientific literature calls Southern Italo-Romance 'Neapolitan'. No. one. Where does this definition even come from? Neapolitan is just one of the Southern Italo-Romance languages. This page's quality is really below zero - and I am afraid that my students will learn wrong things from it. Wikipedia is truly influential - please do a better job. Ophoryce (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Also, I understand that during the existence of the Kingdom of Naples everything was 'Neapolitan' in the sense of belonging to the Neapolitan Kingdom. But since this is not the case anymore, the contemporary reader will probably not get the reference, and will just assume that all Southern Italo-Romance is 'Neapolitan'. Ophoryce (talk) 11:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well said: linguist's nightmare, indeed, and also (thus) a nightmare for a naive reader. The second paragraph of the article tries to warn people what they're getting into, but that shouldn't be necessary. The focus throughout should be the language of Naples, with perhaps a couple of paragraphs at some point about the usage of the label in the historical-political sense, clarifying that in actual terms of language, it's at best very misleading. -- For another example of mislabeling that can both confound and misinform readers, perhaps have your students check out Venetian (Venetan), including the discussion of labeling in talk. From Trieste to Verona, it's all Venetian! Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

But this makes more sense, since Venetian and Venetan (Veneziano e Veneto) are two very similar words, while referring to Southern Italian languages as to Neapolitan is just misleading (a true neapolitan would say: "Che c'azzecca? :-))" Alex2006 (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

True enough that there's no good (linguistic) reason to label most of`the dialetti meridionali Neapolitan. For Venetian and Venetan, though, one could argue that precisely because the terms are similar, it's necessary to be careful to use them accurately. And certainly not translate falsely, i.e. render veneto as Venetian when Venetan is clearly the meaning of the original. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I agree, a veneto can tell you after hearing a couple of words where another veneto comes from. But coming back to napoletano, there is no other way to name the meridional dialects? Alex2006 (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

There are various labels available, depending on what the purpose of the labeling is. Neapolitan/napoletano is the least satisfactory of labels that I can think of. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I agree - I wonder when the content of the page will reflect that? Ophoryce (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

This discussion has been repeated over and over for months. Why doesn't someone start a move request? So this matter will finally be sorted out. Yakme (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Good point. Perhaps the discussion here should be of the need to "move" (re-title) or not. The December 2020 suggestion to split this into three articles seems to have fallen on deaf ears, perhaps because two of the three are engraved invitations to (endless, irresolvable) quibbling over language/dialect. Seems to me that the simpler solution would be to edit this article into what would be expected from a linguistic point of view, i.e. the language of Naples and immediate vicinity. This might include a reasonably brief section on the much wider historical-political use of the label, and it would entail other editing such as removing the list under The following dialects constitute Neapolitan, perhaps employing it with an appropriate label in the article Languages of Italy, or massaged and expanded within an eventual article Southern Italian languages. Whatever the solution, the main point is that Neapolitan should concentrate on actual napoletano and not leave readers with untenable linguistic notions. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think that if we move, the move should be to "Southern Italian X", where X could be Dialects or Languages. This will make room for an article about Napoletano as almost everyone (including the Enciclopedia Italiana) understand it. But since it seems that the move is impossible, due to the large patrol of defenders of the Regno al di qua del faro that populate these pages, the only possible solution is to mutilate the article in the sense suggested above, letting time heal the wounds. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 05:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Currently, the article claims the they become lenis voiced after a nasal and remain fortis voiceless everywhere else. I don't know how representative the pronunciation of popular singers is, but my impression is that they can have both pronunciations in all positions. Perhaps these stops are lenis with variable voicing? 89.64.69.62 (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

As has been said quite a few times already, calling all dialetti alto-meridionali "Neapolitan language" is highly problematic from a linguistic perspective. The confusion stems from the fact that the ISO-639-3 code for this language continuum / group of dialects is "nap" and Glottocode labels it "Neapolitan" for lack of a better word. This goes against the consensus in Romance linguistics, that call these dialetti (local lects that are not local dialects of Italian, as per the Italian sociolinguistic definition) . Napoletano/napulitano/Neapolitan is only the dialetto of the city of Naples. Sources:

• Nicola De Blasi 2006, Profilo linguistico della Campania
• Adam Ledgeway 2009, Grammatica diacronica del napoletano
• Michele Loporcaro 2009, Profilo linguistico dei dialetti italiani
• Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden 2016, The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages
• Pietro Maturi 2023, Napoli e la Campania

I know this has been said a million times, but the news is that even UNESCO has now stopped calling ISO-693-3 "Neapolitan" and calls it "Continental Southern Italian": https://en.wal.unesco.org/languages/continental-southern-italian.

I think this is enough to reopen the move discussion? We could follow UNESCO nomenclature and invert the redirect from Continental Southern Italian. CRYptex talk 18:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the news. Perhaps progress can be made? Unfortunately, Continental Southern Italian is probably troublesome for anglophones, in that it can so easily be read to mean varieties of Italian, i.e. of italiano regionale. I don't know of a good label, but Southern Italo-Romance is at least accurate (with or without Continental, depending on consensus re Sicilian). Southern Italian Dialects might suit Wikipedia better, though given a) that anglophones tend not to be at all familiar with the linguistic landscape of Italy, and b) that dialect is so often used in English to mean 'variety of' (thus Italian dialects = dialects of Italian likely as default reading), the lead would have to make clear what dialect/dialetto means in the context of Italy. -- In any case, encouraging news from UNESCO. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

As linguistic layman: I am strongly disinclined to invent a new name for Wikipedia. If the article is moved, it should absolutely be moved to something that is the widespread name accepted among linguists. Either that or common usage if there is such a thing here (as in some fields of expertise, there is a never-ending fascination with replacing perfectly good names that mean something to the average person with sterile, multi-word, technical jargon). In short, if Neapolitan is no longer used by the substantial majority experts, and there is no pre-existing WP:COMMONNAME, then we are constrained to adopt the widely accepted name among experts. Ergo Sum 23:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ergo Sum, I agree with you 100%. There seems to be a misunderstanding, though: there has been no invention of terms here. Unfortunately, there is no single label used by the majority of linguists (of which I am one) for the zone in question, thus the discussion here. If forced to use a term in a scholarly paper, I'd opt for Southern Italo-Romance, which is accurate typologically (if somewhat vague geographically), often seen and heard, and would be understood as intended by those who read such publications, i.e. most crucially as not the Italian of the south of Italy, but the indigenous Romance lects of the area. Southern Italian Dialects might be more apt for the much more general Wikipedia readership (with the caveat noted), and it matches common usage in Italy, dialetti italiani meridionali. There may be other frequent labels as well, that for some reason just don't come to mind. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I know people might not agree with me, but Continental Southern Italian dialects is the name I would prefer, as these varieties are probably almost always considered a dialect cluster or continuum instead of a cohesive language with dialects within it. Language officialization unfortunately doesn't help with naming things here, and the consensus among linguists is basically absent because some don't even regard Italy's regional languages as languages, or, more often, they think that it doesn't matter what you call them. Neapolitan-Calabrese is problematic because these dialects are not only spoken in Naples or Calabria. Anyway, it's important to state clearly that even though "Italian" is in the name, these are not dialects of Italian, so to avoid confusion among people who don't know much about the subject. Teangacha (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I tend to be in favor with Ergo Sum's reasoning. One addition: should we keep using the template of "[...] language" for the title? In that case the proposals would be Continental Southern Italian language or Southern Italo-Romance language. Yakme (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Either sounds good to me, though I would hope languages rather than language would finish off the title, to try to nudge people away from assuming that the topic is Italian as spoken in Southern Italy. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

1) Neapolitan is not Italo-Dalmatian. For the love of God. 2) Neapolitan is spoken in Naples. Elsewehere in Campania other closely related languages are spoken 3) Neapolitan is not spoken in Abruzzo, Apulia, Marche, Calabria, etc. The author is confusing Southern Italo-romance with Neapolitan. Just plain wrong! 4) The section on articles was contradictory, and it showed articles with the lateral. It has been amended. Please check the scientific literature before writing, or these pages become a joke. Ophoryce (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I can't think of a reason to re-name ("move") the article, since Neapolitan language is what it is about, or wants to be. With Italo-Dalmatian vs. Italo-Romance mostly a pseudo-problem, that leaves the question of what should be covered in the article. Treccani makes it clear enough:

napoletano s. m. a. (f. -a) Abitante, nativo, originario di Napoli: la vivacità festosa dei n.; una famiglia di napoletani; ha sposato una napoletana. b. Il dialetto di Napoli, e per estens. l’insieme delle varietà dialettali della Campania. c. Con iniziale maiuscola, il Napoletano, il territorio, il circondario di Napoli; dal sec. 14° al 19° s’indicò con questo nome tutta la parte continentale del Regno di Napoli.

One relatively brief paragraph can inform readers of the variable inexactitudes of b and c in common usage, then move on to the actual topic, the language of Naples. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you are right, my mistake. I'm going to delete the response, if that's ok, so as not to clutter the talk page. I do think the term "language" is a bit forced here, I don't think many linguists use that when referring to Neapolitan. Teangacha (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Writing in English about Italian dialetti, it's becoming ever more common among linguists to try to avoid the term dialect, mostly due to Italian dialetto and English dialect having different meanings. In common parlance for sure, but even among many anglophone linguists, the term entails dialect of x. Easier to just avoid the label rather than explain over and over that e.g. bolognese, senese, napoletano (etc. etc.) are not in any way dialects of Italian. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Neapolitan language is indeed used by linguists. As @Barefoot through the chollas says, it's more common now than ever Ophoryce (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yeah per estensione, it's the whole region, however no linguist would say that Avellinese is Neapolitan, for instance. So it eventually comes down to how specific you want to be. Ophoryce (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, expert in Italian languages (languages of Italy), but it has had that attention from more than one, and that solved nothing. Suggestions? Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply