This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Omar-toons (talk | contribs) at 00:33, 4 November 2013 (→Draft). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:33, 4 November 2013 by Omar-toons (talk | contribs) (→Draft)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Languages Stub‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Morocco Stub‑class | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
Classification as a Zenati dialect
Hello,
The current version of this article claims that the Ghomara language is a Zenati dialect, according to Blench . Blech, however, says that this paper is "a preliminary list" and that "there are still many problems", making it clear that his "list" can't be considered as a WP:RS.
Note that, on the other hand, J. el-Hannouche (2008), p.20, says that "We are of the opinion that the Berber language spoken in this linguistic enclave of Ghomara is highly interesting not only because of its origin (South Morocco) but also because of the interaction with MA and Tarifiyt" ; el-Hannouche's study remains to this day the only publication entirely dedicated to the Ghomara language. Also note that BRILL's First Encyclopaedia of Islam: 1913-1936 (1993), Morocco - VII. Linguistic survey, p.598 links the Ghomara language to the Central Atlas Tamazight.
Thus, classifying the Ghomara language as a Zenati dialect basing on a non-RS source (Blench) while two highly creditable RS gives the opposite statement makes it WP:OR.
Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- We use linguistic sources for linguistic claims. A general "encyclopedic dictionary" from 1927 hardly counts. If you'd care to provide a linguistic source for a different classification, I'll be happy to look at it. As for Blench's list being admittedly preliminary, that only tells us he's honest enough to admit his ignorance, and that as of 2006 there were questions about the subclassification of Afro-Asiatic that he was not able to resolve despite the number of linguists reviewing his classification. As of 2013, of course, there are still questions.
- And citing a source is hardly OR, so I removed that tag as itself OR. The tag about the source possibly not being an RS is fine, though.
- I had skimmed Hannouche, in the hopes that he addressed this, but unfortunately he doesn't seem to say anything more than what you quoted above. — kwami (talk) 03:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- BRILL's "Linguistic Survey" section (b. p.597) is a specialized source (note that it was edited in 1993, not in 1927). --Omar-toons (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- You need to read WP:RS as well as the copyright page. The title, First Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913–1936 should be enough to tell you it wasn't edited in 1993 and that it isn't a source for linguistics. They also cite Destaing, who published ca. 1920. And even if it had been edited in 1993, it would still be a general source 13 years older than Blench. — kwami (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- For information. --Omar-toons (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- So, Blench is reliable (of course, even if not ideal), and you have nothing else that is reliable. So we're left with Blench. Unless you can find something else, that's all we have to go on, and there is no controversy. Find an actual academic source supporting your claim, and I'll be happy to accept it, just as I did with Senhaja. — kwami (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- For information. --Omar-toons (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- You need to read WP:RS as well as the copyright page. The title, First Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913–1936 should be enough to tell you it wasn't edited in 1993 and that it isn't a source for linguistics. They also cite Destaing, who published ca. 1920. And even if it had been edited in 1993, it would still be a general source 13 years older than Blench. — kwami (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- BRILL's "Linguistic Survey" section (b. p.597) is a specialized source (note that it was edited in 1993, not in 1927). --Omar-toons (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Draft
Here is a proposition then the text can match the discussion on RS/N: the inclusion of a descriptive paragraph in the middle of the article. (for comparison)
| Ghomara | |
|---|---|
| Native to | Morocco |
| Ethnicity | Ghomara |
| Native speakers | ca. 10,000 (2004) |
| Language family | Afro-Asiatic |
| Language codes | |
| ISO 639-3 | gho |
The language of the Ghomara people is a Northern Berber language spoken by approximately 10,000 people in Morocco near Tetouan and Chaouen. Ghomara Berber is spoken on the western edge of the Rif in Morocco. It is spoken in at least the douar of Amtiqan and its immediate neighborhood, just west of Oued Ouringa, and is still being passed on to children in these areas. However, it is spoken by only a small minority of the Ghomara; even in 1931, only one of their eight tribes, the Beni Bu Zra, continued to speak it.
It is considered by the Ethnologue and Roger Blench in its draft list as a Zenati dialect. However, more ancient sources like Georges Séraphin Colin, Paul Moussard and Brill's Encyclopaedia of Islam rather link it to Atlas language. This last theory is supported by more-recent Jamal El Hannouche's thesis, a work endorsed by Harry Stroomer and taken as a basis for his future works on Ghomara language, and meets the widely accepted theory consisting in the non-Zenati origins of Ghomara people.
It is relatively similar to Senhadja de Srair Berber spoken around Ketama, a non-Zenati dialect, but is difficult to understand for a speaker of Riffian, a Zenati dialect. Some typical features which show the difference with Riffian are the use of the preposition dar instead of Riffian ghar, the feminine plural ending -an instead of -in, and the absence of spirantisation in word-initial position.
Oppose. This is a violation of SYNTH and OR: The only RS you have to counter Blench does not support the claims you're using it for, and you're trying to infer additional conclusions which it does not address. Where, for example, does Hannouch say that Ghomara may be an Atlas language? If you'd shown me last week that she says this, I would have agreed to your edits then. AFAICT this is a conclusion you are reading into her work, not something she actually says. Also, as noted at the RSN, the "more ancient" sources are not RS's for classification and should not be used. — kwami (talk) 04:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Then you consider that your opinion is the sole valuable one, no matter if people gave different opinions on RS/N?
- I cite:
- "Both views should be presented, with relative sources" (Justlettersandnumbers, 22:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC))
- "The ethnic connection could be mentioned, with due care to avoid drawing unsupported conclusions from it." (Justlettersandnumbers, 22:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC))
- "we think Camps & Vignet-Zunz is reliable, and it does seem so, then their comments on Colin are also reliable" (Itsmejudith 06:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC))
- "in this case "where the people came from" and "where the language came from" are related questions" (Itsmejudith 06:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC))
- Refusing to modify anything on the article to keep your preferred version, even if people don't agree with your opinion (which is that the sole valid reference is Blech), is DISRUPT. On RS/N, people agreed that Blech is reliable, but they also agreed that it is not the sole RS among the ones presented.
- If, after getting these third-parties opinions, you still refuse to accept any change on the artice (OWN) and continue to undo other people's editing (), the next step will be (automatically) WP:NPOVN.
- --Omar-toons (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)