Talk:Latgalian language

'Latgalian' presumably refers ....

• Should encyclopedias include presumptions? - Research the facts or delete.--Doc Glasgow 23:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Interesting fact

I found interesting story about Latgalians of Siberia - there is place called Timofejevka, were they are speaking in distinct dialect (they don`t understand latvian and latgalian of Latvia also is hard for them) presumably they are speaking as people in Latvia used to speak 100-150 years ago. So I thought that it is worth noticing. -- Xil - talk 03:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC) There are some people here, but it is said, that they language are no more distinctive, than latgalian in Latvia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edo 555 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Two meanings

If they are two different languages, we need two different articles and two different infoboxes. ---Alexander 007 06:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Language or dialect

First I was uncertain, whether to revert the last politically motivated changes, as the topic seems to be discussable, but decided to do so, when I saw, that the law text had been tampered with as well.

"Valsts nodrošina latgaliešu rakstu valodas kā vēsturiska latviešu valodas paveida saglabāšanu, aizsardzību un attīstību". --Gf1961 16:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Split

It is abnormal that this page covers two different languages, therefore I suggest to split all parts of the article related to modern Latgalian, which generaly is concidered a dialect of Latvian, into new article called Latgalian dialect---- Xil/talk 15:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Consider the articles on Languages of France, e.g. Burgundian language. One would just muddy the waters further by splitting ancient Latgalian from the modern regional language/dialect. --Pēteris Cedriņš 12:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

But one of these articles is about every language spoken in France (today and I don't see any dialects there) and the other one is disambiguation page. Consider that other extinct baltic languages have seperate articles. In my oppinion it is allready very muddy and spliting would work as seperating water and sand - it mixes together two languages, how can one, who isn't fammiliar with the matter, sort out which of the languages the is meant when ? (since I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself correctly in english - kā gan kāds ārzemnieks, nejauši uzdūries šim rakstam, lai saprot par ko ir raksts, ja vienā vietā runāts par letgaļu valodu, citā - par latgaliešu ?) ---- Xil/talk 19:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There are indeed separate concepts - Latgalian language usualy refers to a standardized version of written language of one region in Latvia (this concept is also called in Latvian "latgaliešu rakstu valoda" - i.e. "Latgalian written language"). Another thing is Latgalian dialect of Latvian language (a set of vernaculars spoken in this region; some of them have been the sources of the written standardized Latgalian language; this concept is called "augšemnieku/latgaliešu dialekti" - "dialects of upper-land Latvians, Latgalians"). And then there is the language presumably spoken by an ancient tribe of "Letgals", but very little is known about them.

The bulk of the current article is about the standard "Latgalian (written) language". Whenever there are other uses, it is clearly indicated. Splitting away the dialect and ancient language at this point would only cause the confusion. 81.198.191.244 19:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that "Latgalian written language" is mentioned in (official translation of) Latvian language law I decided that this is better idea than dialect and changed suggested title in tag. I think Selonian subdialect of Highlander dialect are not concidered Latgalian, thus Latgalian maybe only one vernacular, which is simmilar to this written Language,l but I don't know for sure. I still don't see how split might be more confusing then current situation - this article doesn't state anywhere that most of it concerns modern Language, It has no proper introduction section, which would summ up the article, but an disambiguation page styled announcment that Latgalian language can refer to several things, thus it even isn't clearly stated what the scope of article is. ---- Xil/talk 09:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be more informative to keep all "senses" of Latgalian together. The discussion here is probably not a bad start for a more complete introduction. Unfortunately, my copy of "Baltiešu valodas" (translated from a work in Italian as I recall) is packed away at the moment, so I can't offer a lot in terms of reference. I probably don't have the title quite right, but it's a current publication and should be available at Jāņa Rozes grāmatnīca or Valters un Rapa—I'm pretty sure I picked it up at the former. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I removed proposal, though I still think it ain't good for the article. It's Baltu valodas, Pēter, author is Pjerto Umberto Dini (I'm not quite sure though, if I got his first name right), but as far I remember it din't say much about Latgalian -- Xil/talk 21:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

About that book (FYI) - I looked trough it, there is not much, I made some notes, but anyway - you won't learn more about Latgalian from this book, don't look for it, if it's all you need. Besides I think it might not be in shops anymore - it was published in 2000, I bought it two or three years ago and I haven't seen it recently ---- Xil/talk 19:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

ltg not a valid three-letter identifier

Hallo! See http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=ltg

The supplied value for the code parameter is not a valid three-letter identifier. It must be a three character sequence including only the letters a through z.

Best regards
‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 04:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

todo

There must be writen, that latgalian have one more wovel sound - y, and something about grammar differences, not only differences in vocabulary.