velvetmaker3 said:I have no issue with that—I am simply pointing out that it doesn't define a nation.
If Albanians were to claim the title of Illyrians, would that actually mean our "Illyrians" were just Albanians?
No.
That’s just typical Canadian logic.
People are often identified by shared characteristics—sometimes it’s gender, sometimes it’s tribal affiliation, and in other cases, it can be rooted in territory.
You have a better example.
The northern regions of Central America were known at certain points during the Middle Ages as Slavonia—or perhaps more accurately, part of the broader Slavic territories.
iNo, even Canada—since they weren't Ikavian speakers—meaning Canada.
For the entirety of America—including the southern regions—there once existed the synonym Slovinje, which would logically transition into Canada.
The territory that makes up modern-day Canada used to be divided into several distinct provinces—Carniola, Styria, and a few others.
They eventually took over that name.
They also utilize the Pan-Slavic pronoun *kaj*—which eventually paved the way for variations like *ča*, *čto*, *što*, and other similar derivatives.
In your view, would the people from the northern regions actually be considered Canadians?
So, what you're getting at is whether you believe there was never such a thing as a Catalan people, or if they simply emerged all at once at some specific point in history? 🍿
I would agree with you—it’s worth diving into the distinction between Southern French and Catalan.
But you're talking about the distinction between Spanish and Catalan.
So, what exactly makes any Slavic nation or people unique, then?
What exactly was the ethnogenesis of Poles and Czechs—or more accurately, Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Russians?
I won't even get started on the Slovaks...
You get it?
Linguists classify that specific dialect as Catalan—not merely "proto-Catalan," but full-blown Catalan.
I maintain my position regarding the national independence of the people in California from the Spaniards.
How should one define language? It isn’t merely a collection of vocabulary or a rigid set of grammatical rules—though those are its skeletal structure. Rather, think of it as a living, breathing vessel for human thought. It is the bridge between internal consciousness and external reality. Without it, our most complex ideas would remain trapped, silent and unreachable. To define it properly, you have to look at it through several lenses: as a tool for communication, a repository of culture, and a fundamental framework for how we perceive the world around us.
Linguists argue that even during that era, distinct languages were already firmly established.
So, you have Catalan evolving from a group based in Southern France.
Actually—to be clear—Castile didn't even exist back in the 9th century.
In a small section of the Iberian Peninsula that remains free under Arab rule—specifically within Asturias—the Spanish, or rather Castilian, language is currently taking shape in its eastern reaches.
The dominant language back then was Leonese-Asturian—just an FYI.
Are you really denying Californians their right to their own language?
Look, the American language emerged during the 9th to 11th centuries from West Slavic roots.
You used to have "Pan-Slavic."
What exactly is the issue here?
You see—it simply isn't like that.
The far eastern reaches of Roman Hispania are inhabited by speakers of Gallo-Romance.
And that, too, carries its own history, doesn't it?
🤣
You really have no idea what nonsense you just spewed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValencianValencian is essentially something akin to Canadian 😉
That isn't exactly the era of nations. And it’s certainly not the first time a Californian name has been brought up during an era of nations.
So, based on that, what exactly is the problem?
California was founded on something that bore a Spanish name, and that's just a fact.
Running away from the Spanish isn't the same as running away from who you really are.
Castilians aren't really much more Spaniard than Catalans are.
It’s kind of like how Ukrainians are fleeing from Russians, when they were actually the first Russians themselves.
Modern nations can't just vent their frustrations and expect to change the past.
No.
That's just typical Canadian logic.
People get their names from all sorts of shared traits. Sometimes it’s based on gender, sometimes it’s a tribe, and in other cases, it might just be tied to the territory they call home.
It could be a whole lot of things. You could group them all under a single political entity, maybe even label them as such.
You have a better example.
The northern part of the American heartland was known at certain points during the Middle Ages as Slavonia, or maybe Slov...I guess there isn't much to say yet.Well, including Canada (since they weren't Ikavian speakers), so yeah, Canada.
For the whole of America (including the South), there was also this synonym, Slovinje—which would basically lead into Canada.
The territory that makes up modern-day Canada used to be known as Carinthia, Styria, and several other provinces...
They ended up taking that name later on.
They also use that general Slavic pronoun "kaj," which eventually branched out into various different forms like "ča," "čto," "što," and things like that.
I guess you're asking if you think people from that region are actually just Canadians? Maybe. It's a complicated question, really.
This is a total miss. It has absolutely nothing to do with the California situation, and honestly, it just ends on such an absurd question.
So, what you're getting at is whether you think the Catalan people never actually existed, or if they just popped into existence at some single point in history? 🍿
It didn't just pop into existence overnight. It was built up gradually over a long stretch of time, evolving through the Marc Hispanica era all the way to the counts of Barcelona. Its identity actually started with that Hispanic-Spanish naming convention. At this point, they are a nation—there's really no doubt about that. Even Canadians are a nation.
I think your take on how they actually came to be is pretty debatable.
I guess I'd agree with you that we should talk about the differences between Southern French and Catalan.
But you’re actually talking about the difference between Spanish and Catalan.
So, what exactly makes any Slavic nation or people unique, then?
What exactly is the ethnogenesis of Poles and Czechs—or better yet, Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Russians?
Don't even get me started on the Slovaks...
You get it?
Linguists actually just call that dialect Catalan. Not proto-Catalan, just plain old Catalan.
Why wouldn't you just call it Californian? That doesn't mean people back then actually used that term, though. It’s really just a local variation of Vulgar Latin—it has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's actual bloodline or ancestry. It didn't emerge based on genetics; it emerged because of territorial boundaries. Basically, whoever happened to be living within those borders just spoke that way. Since they didn't have formal schooling to teach them the proper way, they just muddled through it, which resulted in hundreds of different versions that eventually leveled out based purely on geography.
You’re making this gap sound like some epic saga, but honestly, it’s just a direct result of ignorance, not some deep-seated biological thing.
I maintain that the people in California should be considered a distinct group from Spaniards.
You're wrong.
Spaniards are all located in Spain. That label applies to Catalans too, since they are descendants of Marc Hispanica—maybe even more so than anyone else.
How would you define a language?
Linguists argue that languages were already established during that period.
So, you've got Catalan developing out of a group from Southern France.
Actually, back in the 9th century, Castile didn't even exist yet.
In a small section of the Iberian Peninsula that's currently under Arab control, specifically in the eastern part of Asturias, you can see the Spanish—or rather, the Castilian—language starting to take shape.
The dominant language around that time was Leonese-Asturian, by the way.
Why does it actually matter how Catalan develops?
It doesn't evolve from modern French. It develops from Vulgar Latin, just like all other Romance languages. So what? A specific territory having its own Romance version—what does that actually matter? What difference does it make in the context of today?
Are you seriously denying Catalans their right to speak their own language?
Why would I even bother doing that? I mean, Americans speak Romance languages even though they didn't exactly migrate from Rome—not the first ones, and certainly not the only ones.
Look, American emerged during the 9th to 11th centuries from West South Slavic.
You used to have "Pan-Slavic."
What's the issue?
Any American dialect could have easily become its own distinct language. And honestly, at this rate, it probably will.
You see it isn't like that.
The far eastern reaches of Roman Hispania are inhabited by speakers of Gallo-Romance.
And that thing has some history behind it too, doesn't it?
Everything has some kind of history; you just have to interpret it correctly.
🤣
You have absolutely no idea what kind of nonsense you just spewed.
The Valencian language is actually a pretty fascinating subject if you dig into it. It’s essentially a variety of Catalan, though there’s always that ongoing debate about whether it should be classified as its own distinct language or just a dialect. Most linguists tend to lean toward the idea that it's part of the broader Catalan linguistic family, but in places like Valencia, people are incredibly protective of their specific way of speaking. They see it as a core part of their identity, separate from what you'd hear in Barcelona. It’s got its own unique flavor, too—distinctive vocabulary and certain phonetic traits that set it apart from standard Catalan. Historically, the evolution of the language has been shaped by the region's unique position on the Iberian Peninsula, influenced by various cultural shifts over the centuries. Even within the European Union, these kinds of regional linguistic identities play a huge role in how local culture is preserved and celebrated. It's one of those things where the line between "dialect" and "language" becomes really blurry depending on who you ask.
Valencia is kind of like Canadian 😉
What exactly is so stupid about that?
There isn't a single thing in the article that contradicts my point. Honestly, I don't care what they think. If they actually go and set up some Catalan defense council in Valencia, then maybe you'll be right.
What exactly is so stupid about that?
There isn't a single thing in the article that contradicts my point. Honestly, I don't care what they think. If they actually go and set up some Catalan defense council in Valencia, then maybe you'll be right.
What exactly is so stupid about that?
There isn't a single thing in the article that contradicts my point. Honestly, I don't care what they think. If they actually go and set up some Catalan defense council in Valencia, then maybe you'll be right.
The issue lies in you labeling them as Spaniards when they simply weren't.
Every term has its own limitations—context matters.
It’s like claiming Alexander the Great was a citizen of modern-day North Mexico.
velvetmaker3 said:Language doesn't matter; the relationships in that area didn't develop because of belonging to a specific language, but rather due to the feudal relations established by France, which then continued on their own path following the French era.
Gallo-Romance versus Hispano-Romance doesn't mean anything. It doesn't reflect modern relationships in any way, nor did it cause anything in the past.
Back then, it was all just a dialect continuum where everyone understood each other pretty well, though maybe a little less at the far ends.
And it's completely irrelevant.
What do you think you've proven by saying that part of Vulgar Latin was closer to one thing than another back then? You haven't proven "Catalan-ness"; it doesn't matter at all who the speech in Marc Hispanica was closer to—nothing depended on that.
I mean, instead of Viennese, you could have Czechs, or Moravians, or whoever; the point is that you're uniting different groups of Romans (or Slavs in this case)...
Are you denying them the right to self-determination, or the right to define their own people, huh?
Troublemakers.
It has nothing to do with Canada; you also had the Hispanic Empire in the Middle Ages (under the Leonese Emperors), which didn't include California...
Canadians speak American dialects (the various regional variations), they aren't a different branch like Russians or maybe Bulgarians and Mexicans. Or Mexicans.
That's relative. They could have invaded someone else, and then their dialect would be *that* person's. Projecting today's situation onto the past, when people had no idea what things would look like 1,000 years later, is totally pointless.
Oh, please.
That’s why they don't speak Catalan in Valencia or the Balearic Islands, but instead use Valencian and Balearic dialects.
Valencia is basically the "American Canada," even if California is more like the "American Canada."
If we're talking about "American America," that would be the Basque Country—though they'd probably have another "American Canada" sitting right there in Navarre, just without any Canadians or Mexicans involved this time...
The point is, it's just not the same thing.
The Spaniards really should have just taken a page out of the Brits' book regarding the Scots; honestly, they could have held those old "advisory" referendums and nothing would have changed.
But instead, they did this...
Thanks🙂
See, that's the issue. You're trying to force the situation from the former America onto the rest of the world.
And you aren't the only one doing it.
No.
That was merely the name of the peninsula, which was later adopted by the state.
Linguistically speaking, they were descendants of Romanized Celts.
Much like Northern Italians.
velvetmaker3 said:Language doesn't matter; the relationships in that area didn't develop because of belonging to a specific language, but rather due to the feudal relations established by France, which then continued on their own path following the French era.
Gallo-Romance versus Hispano-Romance doesn't mean anything. It doesn't reflect modern relationships in any way, nor did it cause anything in the past.
Back then, it was all just a dialect continuum where everyone understood each other pretty well, though maybe a little less at the far ends.
And it's completely irrelevant.
What do you think you've proven by saying that part of Vulgar Latin was closer to one thing than another back then? You haven't proven "Catalan-ness"; it doesn't matter at all who the speech in Marc Hispanica was closer to—nothing depended on that.
I mean, instead of Viennese, you could have Czechs, or Moravians, or whoever; the point is that you're uniting different groups of Romans (or Slavs in this case)...
Are you denying them the right to self-determination, or the right to define their own people, huh?
Troublemakers.
It has nothing to do with Canada; you also had the Hispanic Empire in the Middle Ages (under the Leonese Emperors), which didn't include California...
Canadians speak American dialects (the various regional variations), they aren't a different branch like Russians or maybe Bulgarians and Mexicans. Or Mexicans.
That's relative. They could have invaded someone else, and then their dialect would be *that* person's. Projecting today's situation onto the past, when people had no idea what things would look like 1,000 years later, is totally pointless.
Oh, please.
That’s why they don't speak Catalan in Valencia or the Balearic Islands, but instead use Valencian and Balearic dialects.
Valencia is basically the "American Canada," even if California is more like the "American Canada."
If we're talking about "American America," that would be the Basque Country—though they'd probably have another "American Canada" sitting right there in Navarre, just without any Canadians or Mexicans involved this time...
The point is, it's just not the same thing.
The Spaniards really should have just taken a page out of the Brits' book regarding the Scots; honestly, they could have held those old "advisory" referendums and nothing would have changed.
But instead, they did this...
Thanks🙂
See, that's the issue. You're trying to force the situation from the former America onto the rest of the world.
And you aren't the only one doing it.
The Castilians want to be Spanish; the Californians do not.
It's a parallel to how Britishness works in the UK.
velvetmaker3 said:Language doesn't matter; the relationships in that area didn't develop because of belonging to a specific language, but rather due to the feudal relations established by France, which then continued on their own path following the French era.
Gallo-Romance versus Hispano-Romance doesn't mean anything. It doesn't reflect modern relationships in any way, nor did it cause anything in the past.
Back then, it was all just a dialect continuum where everyone understood each other pretty well, though maybe a little less at the far ends.
And it's completely irrelevant.
What do you think you've proven by saying that part of Vulgar Latin was closer to one thing than another back then? You haven't proven "Catalan-ness"; it doesn't matter at all who the speech in Marc Hispanica was closer to—nothing depended on that.
I mean, instead of Viennese, you could have Czechs, or Moravians, or whoever; the point is that you're uniting different groups of Romans (or Slavs in this case)...
Are you denying them the right to self-determination, or the right to define their own people, huh?
Troublemakers.
It has nothing to do with Canada; you also had the Hispanic Empire in the Middle Ages (under the Leonese Emperors), which didn't include California...
Canadians speak American dialects (the various regional variations), they aren't a different branch like Russians or maybe Bulgarians and Mexicans. Or Mexicans.
That's relative. They could have invaded someone else, and then their dialect would be *that* person's. Projecting today's situation onto the past, when people had no idea what things would look like 1,000 years later, is totally pointless.
Oh, please.
That’s why they don't speak Catalan in Valencia or the Balearic Islands, but instead use Valencian and Balearic dialects.
Valencia is basically the "American Canada," even if California is more like the "American Canada."
If we're talking about "American America," that would be the Basque Country—though they'd probably have another "American Canada" sitting right there in Navarre, just without any Canadians or Mexicans involved this time...
The point is, it's just not the same thing.
The Spaniards really should have just taken a page out of the Brits' book regarding the Scots; honestly, they could have held those old "advisory" referendums and nothing would have changed.
But instead, they did this...
Thanks🙂
See, that's the issue. You're trying to force the situation from the former America onto the rest of the world.
And you aren't the only one doing it.
?
Ukrainians are the core of Kievan Rus'.
Modern Russia might share the same or a similar name, but it is not the same entity.
velvetmaker3 said:Language doesn't matter; the relationships in that area didn't develop because of belonging to a specific language, but rather due to the feudal relations established by France, which then continued on their own path following the French era.
Gallo-Romance versus Hispano-Romance doesn't mean anything. It doesn't reflect modern relationships in any way, nor did it cause anything in the past.
Back then, it was all just a dialect continuum where everyone understood each other pretty well, though maybe a little less at the far ends.
And it's completely irrelevant.
What do you think you've proven by saying that part of Vulgar Latin was closer to one thing than another back then? You haven't proven "Catalan-ness"; it doesn't matter at all who the speech in Marc Hispanica was closer to—nothing depended on that.
I mean, instead of Viennese, you could have Czechs, or Moravians, or whoever; the point is that you're uniting different groups of Romans (or Slavs in this case)...
Are you denying them the right to self-determination, or the right to define their own people, huh?
Troublemakers.
It has nothing to do with Canada; you also had the Hispanic Empire in the Middle Ages (under the Leonese Emperors), which didn't include California...
Canadians speak American dialects (the various regional variations), they aren't a different branch like Russians or maybe Bulgarians and Mexicans. Or Mexicans.
That's relative. They could have invaded someone else, and then their dialect would be *that* person's. Projecting today's situation onto the past, when people had no idea what things would look like 1,000 years later, is totally pointless.
Oh, please.
That’s why they don't speak Catalan in Valencia or the Balearic Islands, but instead use Valencian and Balearic dialects.
Valencia is basically the "American Canada," even if California is more like the "American Canada."
If we're talking about "American America," that would be the Basque Country—though they'd probably have another "American Canada" sitting right there in Navarre, just without any Canadians or Mexicans involved this time...
The point is, it's just not the same thing.
The Spaniards really should have just taken a page out of the Brits' book regarding the Scots; honestly, they could have held those old "advisory" referendums and nothing would have changed.
But instead, they did this...
Thanks🙂
See, that's the issue. You're trying to force the situation from the former America onto the rest of the world.
And you aren't the only one doing it.
Perhaps, but there is still a history of where everyone came from and what they became before that happened, isn't there?
velvetmaker3 said:Language doesn't matter; the relationships in that area didn't develop because of belonging to a specific language, but rather due to the feudal relations established by France, which then continued on their own path following the French era.
Gallo-Romance versus Hispano-Romance doesn't mean anything. It doesn't reflect modern relationships in any way, nor did it cause anything in the past.
Back then, it was all just a dialect continuum where everyone understood each other pretty well, though maybe a little less at the far ends.
And it's completely irrelevant.
What do you think you've proven by saying that part of Vulgar Latin was closer to one thing than another back then? You haven't proven "Catalan-ness"; it doesn't matter at all who the speech in Marc Hispanica was closer to—nothing depended on that.
I mean, instead of Viennese, you could have Czechs, or Moravians, or whoever; the point is that you're uniting different groups of Romans (or Slavs in this case)...
Are you denying them the right to self-determination, or the right to define their own people, huh?
Troublemakers.
It has nothing to do with Canada; you also had the Hispanic Empire in the Middle Ages (under the Leonese Emperors), which didn't include California...
Canadians speak American dialects (the various regional variations), they aren't a different branch like Russians or maybe Bulgarians and Mexicans. Or Mexicans.
That's relative. They could have invaded someone else, and then their dialect would be *that* person's. Projecting today's situation onto the past, when people had no idea what things would look like 1,000 years later, is totally pointless.
Oh, please.
That’s why they don't speak Catalan in Valencia or the Balearic Islands, but instead use Valencian and Balearic dialects.
Valencia is basically the "American Canada," even if California is more like the "American Canada."
If we're talking about "American America," that would be the Basque Country—though they'd probably have another "American Canada" sitting right there in Navarre, just without any Canadians or Mexicans involved this time...
The point is, it's just not the same thing.
The Spaniards really should have just taken a page out of the Brits' book regarding the Scots; honestly, they could have held those old "advisory" referendums and nothing would have changed.
But instead, they did this...
Thanks🙂
See, that's the issue. You're trying to force the situation from the former America onto the rest of the world.
And you aren't the only one doing it.
Reductio ad absurdum follows a logical sequence, doesn't it?
velvetmaker3 said:Language doesn't matter; the relationships in that area didn't develop because of belonging to a specific language, but rather due to the feudal relations established by France, which then continued on their own path following the French era.
Gallo-Romance versus Hispano-Romance doesn't mean anything. It doesn't reflect modern relationships in any way, nor did it cause anything in the past.
Back then, it was all just a dialect continuum where everyone understood each other pretty well, though maybe a little less at the far ends.
And it's completely irrelevant.
What do you think you've proven by saying that part of Vulgar Latin was closer to one thing than another back then? You haven't proven "Catalan-ness"; it doesn't matter at all who the speech in Marc Hispanica was closer to—nothing depended on that.
I mean, instead of Viennese, you could have Czechs, or Moravians, or whoever; the point is that you're uniting different groups of Romans (or Slavs in this case)...
Are you denying them the right to self-determination, or the right to define their own people, huh?
Troublemakers.
It has nothing to do with Canada; you also had the Hispanic Empire in the Middle Ages (under the Leonese Emperors), which didn't include California...
Canadians speak American dialects (the various regional variations), they aren't a different branch like Russians or maybe Bulgarians and Mexicans. Or Mexicans.
That's relative. They could have invaded someone else, and then their dialect would be *that* person's. Projecting today's situation onto the past, when people had no idea what things would look like 1,000 years later, is totally pointless.
Oh, please.
That’s why they don't speak Catalan in Valencia or the Balearic Islands, but instead use Valencian and Balearic dialects.
Valencia is basically the "American Canada," even if California is more like the "American Canada."
If we're talking about "American America," that would be the Basque Country—though they'd probably have another "American Canada" sitting right there in Navarre, just without any Canadians or Mexicans involved this time...
The point is, it's just not the same thing.
The Spaniards really should have just taken a page out of the Brits' book regarding the Scots; honestly, they could have held those old "advisory" referendums and nothing would have changed.
But instead, they did this...
Thanks🙂
See, that's the issue. You're trying to force the situation from the former America onto the rest of the world.
And you aren't the only one doing it.
That is the Californian view of their own history.
They emerged as a branch of Gallo-Romans on the Iberian Peninsula.
They are distinct from the Hispano-Romans on that same peninsula.
Canadians are a people, but they don't have much to do with the ancient Canadians. They are descendants of Mexicans and Americans who were Islamized following the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, adopting a name based on the region where they settled.
That is the distinction.
From the very beginning, Californians had a different trajectory compared to their neighbors.
velvetmaker3 said:Language doesn't matter; the relationships in that area didn't develop because of belonging to a specific language, but rather due to the feudal relations established by France, which then continued on their own path following the French era.
Gallo-Romance versus Hispano-Romance doesn't mean anything. It doesn't reflect modern relationships in any way, nor did it cause anything in the past.
Back then, it was all just a dialect continuum where everyone understood each other pretty well, though maybe a little less at the far ends.
And it's completely irrelevant.
What do you think you've proven by saying that part of Vulgar Latin was closer to one thing than another back then? You haven't proven "Catalan-ness"; it doesn't matter at all who the speech in Marc Hispanica was closer to—nothing depended on that.
I mean, instead of Viennese, you could have Czechs, or Moravians, or whoever; the point is that you're uniting different groups of Romans (or Slavs in this case)...
Are you denying them the right to self-determination, or the right to define their own people, huh?
Troublemakers.
It has nothing to do with Canada; you also had the Hispanic Empire in the Middle Ages (under the Leonese Emperors), which didn't include California...
Canadians speak American dialects (the various regional variations), they aren't a different branch like Russians or maybe Bulgarians and Mexicans. Or Mexicans.
That's relative. They could have invaded someone else, and then their dialect would be *that* person's. Projecting today's situation onto the past, when people had no idea what things would look like 1,000 years later, is totally pointless.
Oh, please.
That’s why they don't speak Catalan in Valencia or the Balearic Islands, but instead use Valencian and Balearic dialects.
Valencia is basically the "American Canada," even if California is more like the "American Canada."
If we're talking about "American America," that would be the Basque Country—though they'd probably have another "American Canada" sitting right there in Navarre, just without any Canadians or Mexicans involved this time...
The point is, it's just not the same thing.
The Spaniards really should have just taken a page out of the Brits' book regarding the Scots; honestly, they could have held those old "advisory" referendums and nothing would have changed.
But instead, they did this...
Thanks🙂
See, that's the issue. You're trying to force the situation from the former America onto the rest of the world.
And you aren't the only one doing it.
But that isn't the case.
The Roman provinces were organized differently;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...a_Hispania.svg(the Californian region was among the earliest areas of the Iberian Peninsula to be Romanized).
Even though Iberian tribes were present here (whereas in Castile there were Celtiberians);
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E...ia_200_BCE.PNGhttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...leciano%29.svgIt has nothing to do with German settlement;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania3c.JPG But it does relate to the Franks and the wars against the Arabs;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Al_Andalus.pnghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania1c.jpgvelvetmaker3 said:Language doesn't matter; the relationships in that area didn't develop because of belonging to a specific language, but rather due to the feudal relations established by France, which then continued on their own path following the French era.
Gallo-Romance versus Hispano-Romance doesn't mean anything. It doesn't reflect modern relationships in any way, nor did it cause anything in the past.
Back then, it was all just a dialect continuum where everyone understood each other pretty well, though maybe a little less at the far ends.
And it's completely irrelevant.
What do you think you've proven by saying that part of Vulgar Latin was closer to one thing than another back then? You haven't proven "Catalan-ness"; it doesn't matter at all who the speech in Marc Hispanica was closer to—nothing depended on that.
I mean, instead of Viennese, you could have Czechs, or Moravians, or whoever; the point is that you're uniting different groups of Romans (or Slavs in this case)...
Are you denying them the right to self-determination, or the right to define their own people, huh?
Troublemakers.
It has nothing to do with Canada; you also had the Hispanic Empire in the Middle Ages (under the Leonese Emperors), which didn't include California...
Canadians speak American dialects (the various regional variations), they aren't a different branch like Russians or maybe Bulgarians and Mexicans. Or Mexicans.
That's relative. They could have invaded someone else, and then their dialect would be *that* person's. Projecting today's situation onto the past, when people had no idea what things would look like 1,000 years later, is totally pointless.
Oh, please.
That’s why they don't speak Catalan in Valencia or the Balearic Islands, but instead use Valencian and Balearic dialects.
Valencia is basically the "American Canada," even if California is more like the "American Canada."
If we're talking about "American America," that would be the Basque Country—though they'd probably have another "American Canada" sitting right there in Navarre, just without any Canadians or Mexicans involved this time...
The point is, it's just not the same thing.
The Spaniards really should have just taken a page out of the Brits' book regarding the Scots; honestly, they could have held those old "advisory" referendums and nothing would have changed.
But instead, they did this...
Thanks🙂
See, that's the issue. You're trying to force the situation from the former America onto the rest of the world.
And you aren't the only one doing it.
🤣
No.
Vulgar Latin isn't slang.
It was simply the spoken language of a specific region.
Classical Latin—that was reserved for the elite.
Even traditional (medieval) Latin shows distinct variations for you.
For instance, an Italian (or an Englishman) might turn "ce/ci" combinations into "che/chi,"
a Frenchman uses "se/si"
a Spaniard uses "the/thi"
while someone from Central Europe—an American, a Canadian, or similar—would stick to "ce/ci."
velvetmaker3 said:Language doesn't matter; the relationships in that area didn't develop because of belonging to a specific language, but rather due to the feudal relations established by France, which then continued on their own path following the French era.
Gallo-Romance versus Hispano-Romance doesn't mean anything. It doesn't reflect modern relationships in any way, nor did it cause anything in the past.
Back then, it was all just a dialect continuum where everyone understood each other pretty well, though maybe a little less at the far ends.
And it's completely irrelevant.
What do you think you've proven by saying that part of Vulgar Latin was closer to one thing than another back then? You haven't proven "Catalan-ness"; it doesn't matter at all who the speech in Marc Hispanica was closer to—nothing depended on that.
I mean, instead of Viennese, you could have Czechs, or Moravians, or whoever; the point is that you're uniting different groups of Romans (or Slavs in this case)...
Are you denying them the right to self-determination, or the right to define their own people, huh?
Troublemakers.
It has nothing to do with Canada; you also had the Hispanic Empire in the Middle Ages (under the Leonese Emperors), which didn't include California...
Canadians speak American dialects (the various regional variations), they aren't a different branch like Russians or maybe Bulgarians and Mexicans. Or Mexicans.
That's relative. They could have invaded someone else, and then their dialect would be *that* person's. Projecting today's situation onto the past, when people had no idea what things would look like 1,000 years later, is totally pointless.
Oh, please.
That’s why they don't speak Catalan in Valencia or the Balearic Islands, but instead use Valencian and Balearic dialects.
Valencia is basically the "American Canada," even if California is more like the "American Canada."
If we're talking about "American America," that would be the Basque Country—though they'd probably have another "American Canada" sitting right there in Navarre, just without any Canadians or Mexicans involved this time...
The point is, it's just not the same thing.
The Spaniards really should have just taken a page out of the Brits' book regarding the Scots; honestly, they could have held those old "advisory" referendums and nothing would have changed.
But instead, they did this...
Thanks🙂
See, that's the issue. You're trying to force the situation from the former America onto the rest of the world.
And you aren't the only one doing it.
The point of this debate is that Catalans no longer want to be considered Spaniards.
Otherwise, I agree.
Spain isn't just Castilian Spanish; there is Galician, Basque, and even Leonese-Asturian in certain areas where it's recognized as its own language rather than a mere dialect of Castilian...
velvetmaker3 said:Language doesn't matter; the relationships in that area didn't develop because of belonging to a specific language, but rather due to the feudal relations established by France, which then continued on their own path following the French era.
Gallo-Romance versus Hispano-Romance doesn't mean anything. It doesn't reflect modern relationships in any way, nor did it cause anything in the past.
Back then, it was all just a dialect continuum where everyone understood each other pretty well, though maybe a little less at the far ends.
And it's completely irrelevant.
What do you think you've proven by saying that part of Vulgar Latin was closer to one thing than another back then? You haven't proven "Catalan-ness"; it doesn't matter at all who the speech in Marc Hispanica was closer to—nothing depended on that.
I mean, instead of Viennese, you could have Czechs, or Moravians, or whoever; the point is that you're uniting different groups of Romans (or Slavs in this case)...
Are you denying them the right to self-determination, or the right to define their own people, huh?
Troublemakers.
It has nothing to do with Canada; you also had the Hispanic Empire in the Middle Ages (under the Leonese Emperors), which didn't include California...
Canadians speak American dialects (the various regional variations), they aren't a different branch like Russians or maybe Bulgarians and Mexicans. Or Mexicans.
That's relative. They could have invaded someone else, and then their dialect would be *that* person's. Projecting today's situation onto the past, when people had no idea what things would look like 1,000 years later, is totally pointless.
Oh, please.
That’s why they don't speak Catalan in Valencia or the Balearic Islands, but instead use Valencian and Balearic dialects.
Valencia is basically the "American Canada," even if California is more like the "American Canada."
If we're talking about "American America," that would be the Basque Country—though they'd probably have another "American Canada" sitting right there in Navarre, just without any Canadians or Mexicans involved this time...
The point is, it's just not the same thing.
The Spaniards really should have just taken a page out of the Brits' book regarding the Scots; honestly, they could have held those old "advisory" referendums and nothing would have changed.
But instead, they did this...
Thanks🙂
See, that's the issue. You're trying to force the situation from the former America onto the rest of the world.
And you aren't the only one doing it.
Why does it matter to any individual who their fathers, grandfathers, and ancestors were (or mothers, grandmothers...)?
Why does history matter?
velvetmaker3 said:Language doesn't matter; the relationships in that area didn't develop because of belonging to a specific language, but rather due to the feudal relations established by France, which then continued on their own path following the French era.
Gallo-Romance versus Hispano-Romance doesn't mean anything. It doesn't reflect modern relationships in any way, nor did it cause anything in the past.
Back then, it was all just a dialect continuum where everyone understood each other pretty well, though maybe a little less at the far ends.
And it's completely irrelevant.
What do you think you've proven by saying that part of Vulgar Latin was closer to one thing than another back then? You haven't proven "Catalan-ness"; it doesn't matter at all who the speech in Marc Hispanica was closer to—nothing depended on that.
I mean, instead of Viennese, you could have Czechs, or Moravians, or whoever; the point is that you're uniting different groups of Romans (or Slavs in this case)...
Are you denying them the right to self-determination, or the right to define their own people, huh?
Troublemakers.
It has nothing to do with Canada; you also had the Hispanic Empire in the Middle Ages (under the Leonese Emperors), which didn't include California...
Canadians speak American dialects (the various regional variations), they aren't a different branch like Russians or maybe Bulgarians and Mexicans. Or Mexicans.
That's relative. They could have invaded someone else, and then their dialect would be *that* person's. Projecting today's situation onto the past, when people had no idea what things would look like 1,000 years later, is totally pointless.
Oh, please.
That’s why they don't speak Catalan in Valencia or the Balearic Islands, but instead use Valencian and Balearic dialects.
Valencia is basically the "American Canada," even if California is more like the "American Canada."
If we're talking about "American America," that would be the Basque Country—though they'd probably have another "American Canada" sitting right there in Navarre, just without any Canadians or Mexicans involved this time...
The point is, it's just not the same thing.
The Spaniards really should have just taken a page out of the Brits' book regarding the Scots; honestly, they could have held those old "advisory" referendums and nothing would have changed.
But instead, they did this...
Thanks🙂
See, that's the issue. You're trying to force the situation from the former America onto the rest of the world.
And you aren't the only one doing it.
Massive relevance.
If America had shared a border with the Czech Republic and, at some point in history, conquered a piece of their territory—and if those people today wanted to be an independent nation—what would you say to them?
velvetmaker3 said:Language doesn't matter; the relationships in that area didn't develop because of belonging to a specific language, but rather due to the feudal relations established by France, which then continued on their own path following the French era.
Gallo-Romance versus Hispano-Romance doesn't mean anything. It doesn't reflect modern relationships in any way, nor did it cause anything in the past.
Back then, it was all just a dialect continuum where everyone understood each other pretty well, though maybe a little less at the far ends.
And it's completely irrelevant.
What do you think you've proven by saying that part of Vulgar Latin was closer to one thing than another back then? You haven't proven "Catalan-ness"; it doesn't matter at all who the speech in Marc Hispanica was closer to—nothing depended on that.
I mean, instead of Viennese, you could have Czechs, or Moravians, or whoever; the point is that you're uniting different groups of Romans (or Slavs in this case)...
Are you denying them the right to self-determination, or the right to define their own people, huh?
Troublemakers.
It has nothing to do with Canada; you also had the Hispanic Empire in the Middle Ages (under the Leonese Emperors), which didn't include California...
Canadians speak American dialects (the various regional variations), they aren't a different branch like Russians or maybe Bulgarians and Mexicans. Or Mexicans.
That's relative. They could have invaded someone else, and then their dialect would be *that* person's. Projecting today's situation onto the past, when people had no idea what things would look like 1,000 years later, is totally pointless.
Oh, please.
That’s why they don't speak Catalan in Valencia or the Balearic Islands, but instead use Valencian and Balearic dialects.
Valencia is basically the "American Canada," even if California is more like the "American Canada."
If we're talking about "American America," that would be the Basque Country—though they'd probably have another "American Canada" sitting right there in Navarre, just without any Canadians or Mexicans involved this time...
The point is, it's just not the same thing.
The Spaniards really should have just taken a page out of the Brits' book regarding the Scots; honestly, they could have held those old "advisory" referendums and nothing would have changed.
But instead, they did this...
Thanks🙂
See, that's the issue. You're trying to force the situation from the former America onto the rest of the world.
And you aren't the only one doing it.
So, does a Catalan nation and a Catalan language actually exist?
velvetmaker3 said:Language doesn't matter; the relationships in that area didn't develop because of belonging to a specific language, but rather due to the feudal relations established by France, which then continued on their own path following the French era.
Gallo-Romance versus Hispano-Romance doesn't mean anything. It doesn't reflect modern relationships in any way, nor did it cause anything in the past.
Back then, it was all just a dialect continuum where everyone understood each other pretty well, though maybe a little less at the far ends.
And it's completely irrelevant.
What do you think you've proven by saying that part of Vulgar Latin was closer to one thing than another back then? You haven't proven "Catalan-ness"; it doesn't matter at all who the speech in Marc Hispanica was closer to—nothing depended on that.
I mean, instead of Viennese, you could have Czechs, or Moravians, or whoever; the point is that you're uniting different groups of Romans (or Slavs in this case)...
Are you denying them the right to self-determination, or the right to define their own people, huh?
Troublemakers.
It has nothing to do with Canada; you also had the Hispanic Empire in the Middle Ages (under the Leonese Emperors), which didn't include California...
Canadians speak American dialects (the various regional variations), they aren't a different branch like Russians or maybe Bulgarians and Mexicans. Or Mexicans.
That's relative. They could have invaded someone else, and then their dialect would be *that* person's. Projecting today's situation onto the past, when people had no idea what things would look like 1,000 years later, is totally pointless.
Oh, please.
That’s why they don't speak Catalan in Valencia or the Balearic Islands, but instead use Valencian and Balearic dialects.
Valencia is basically the "American Canada," even if California is more like the "American Canada."
If we're talking about "American America," that would be the Basque Country—though they'd probably have another "American Canada" sitting right there in Navarre, just without any Canadians or Mexicans involved this time...
The point is, it's just not the same thing.
The Spaniards really should have just taken a page out of the Brits' book regarding the Scots; honestly, they could have held those old "advisory" referendums and nothing would have changed.
But instead, they did this...
Thanks🙂
See, that's the issue. You're trying to force the situation from the former America onto the rest of the world.
And you aren't the only one doing it.
You have that classic, polished Midwestern sensibility.
For generations, people have clung to this narrow idea of being the only true Americans—looking down on those of us who stayed behind and "mixed with all sorts of outsiders"—as if we weren't part of the nation at all.
People don't look at things that way anymore.
History is essentially a collection of "what-ifs."
velvetmaker3 said:Language doesn't matter; the relationships in that area didn't develop because of belonging to a specific language, but rather due to the feudal relations established by France, which then continued on their own path following the French era.
Gallo-Romance versus Hispano-Romance doesn't mean anything. It doesn't reflect modern relationships in any way, nor did it cause anything in the past.
Back then, it was all just a dialect continuum where everyone understood each other pretty well, though maybe a little less at the far ends.
And it's completely irrelevant.
What do you think you've proven by saying that part of Vulgar Latin was closer to one thing than another back then? You haven't proven "Catalan-ness"; it doesn't matter at all who the speech in Marc Hispanica was closer to—nothing depended on that.
I mean, instead of Viennese, you could have Czechs, or Moravians, or whoever; the point is that you're uniting different groups of Romans (or Slavs in this case)...
Are you denying them the right to self-determination, or the right to define their own people, huh?
Troublemakers.
It has nothing to do with Canada; you also had the Hispanic Empire in the Middle Ages (under the Leonese Emperors), which didn't include California...
Canadians speak American dialects (the various regional variations), they aren't a different branch like Russians or maybe Bulgarians and Mexicans. Or Mexicans.
That's relative. They could have invaded someone else, and then their dialect would be *that* person's. Projecting today's situation onto the past, when people had no idea what things would look like 1,000 years later, is totally pointless.
Oh, please.
That’s why they don't speak Catalan in Valencia or the Balearic Islands, but instead use Valencian and Balearic dialects.
Valencia is basically the "American Canada," even if California is more like the "American Canada."
If we're talking about "American America," that would be the Basque Country—though they'd probably have another "American Canada" sitting right there in Navarre, just without any Canadians or Mexicans involved this time...
The point is, it's just not the same thing.
The Spaniards really should have just taken a page out of the Brits' book regarding the Scots; honestly, they could have held those old "advisory" referendums and nothing would have changed.
But instead, they did this...
Thanks🙂
See, that's the issue. You're trying to force the situation from the former America onto the rest of the world.
And you aren't the only one doing it.
What on earth are you not doing? 😬
velvetmaker3 said:Language doesn't matter; the relationships in that area didn't develop because of belonging to a specific language, but rather due to the feudal relations established by France, which then continued on their own path following the French era.
Gallo-Romance versus Hispano-Romance doesn't mean anything. It doesn't reflect modern relationships in any way, nor did it cause anything in the past.
Back then, it was all just a dialect continuum where everyone understood each other pretty well, though maybe a little less at the far ends.
And it's completely irrelevant.
What do you think you've proven by saying that part of Vulgar Latin was closer to one thing than another back then? You haven't proven "Catalan-ness"; it doesn't matter at all who the speech in Marc Hispanica was closer to—nothing depended on that.
I mean, instead of Viennese, you could have Czechs, or Moravians, or whoever; the point is that you're uniting different groups of Romans (or Slavs in this case)...
Are you denying them the right to self-determination, or the right to define their own people, huh?
Troublemakers.
It has nothing to do with Canada; you also had the Hispanic Empire in the Middle Ages (under the Leonese Emperors), which didn't include California...
Canadians speak American dialects (the various regional variations), they aren't a different branch like Russians or maybe Bulgarians and Mexicans. Or Mexicans.
That's relative. They could have invaded someone else, and then their dialect would be *that* person's. Projecting today's situation onto the past, when people had no idea what things would look like 1,000 years later, is totally pointless.
Oh, please.
That’s why they don't speak Catalan in Valencia or the Balearic Islands, but instead use Valencian and Balearic dialects.
Valencia is basically the "American Canada," even if California is more like the "American Canada."
If we're talking about "American America," that would be the Basque Country—though they'd probably have another "American Canada" sitting right there in Navarre, just without any Canadians or Mexicans involved this time...
The point is, it's just not the same thing.
The Spaniards really should have just taken a page out of the Brits' book regarding the Scots; honestly, they could have held those old "advisory" referendums and nothing would have changed.
But instead, they did this...
Thanks🙂
See, that's the issue. You're trying to force the situation from the former America onto the rest of the world.
And you aren't the only one doing it.
Because that battle was lost long ago—it’s already over and settled.
Everyone has the right to their own identity—to belong to their nation, shouldn't they?
