This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romani people, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romani people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Romani peopleWikipedia:WikiProject Romani peopleTemplate:WikiProject Romani peopleRomani people articles
I think this article is not fully correct because『calé』is also spoken in Portugal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.83.148 (talk) 09:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The example is not politically correct, as it suggest that a product was hidden from officers because it was stolen. I suggest it to be changed to something more neutral.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Closed based on the discussion in the following section which I read as saying withdrawn and rethink the best solution. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I request to move Caló language (Spanish romani) to『Caló language』for the following reason:
We don't need separate pages for every Romance Caló variety, such as Portuguese Calão (short article) or Catalan Caló (which I redirected to Caló language). We certainly can cover them in separate sections, instead of having multiple individual pages with almost no info.
Erromintxela is the only Iberian Caló variety that should keep its own page (info is very dense, plus it is the only non-Romance variety of Caló language, therefore lexicon differs greatly from that of Spanish, Catalan & Portuguese Caló/Calão). Jɑυмe (xarrades) 16:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Whoa, I think I'll revert that for now. Last time I looked, at least Catalan and Spanish Caló looked different enough to me to warrant separate pages, being based on Catalan rather than Spanish. Why do you think they should be merged? Or rather, do you have a source that says they're the same? Akerbeltz (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right it would seem there wasn't a page at Catalan Calò yet anyway so no harm done so far. I'll try and dig up my source (I have too many books...) but I don't think we should merge. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lexically (regarding Caló roots) they are not so different, a clear difference is the pronunciation: Catalan Caló (as Portuguese Calão) has kept voiced sibilants (/z/, /ʒ/), whereas in Spanish Caló (as in Castilian language) most of these voiced consonants were lost. IMO we should merge them (at least for now), since we don't have here that much info about Catalan & Portuguese Caló/Calão (Portuguese Calão is a very short article, and we don't have yet a Catalan Caló).
Ethnologue list them all as "Caló language", with several varieties.
So, I don't really see any reason to have all Iberian Caló varietes split (besides "Erromintxela"). Another way could be to fill the Caló language article with common features to all Iberian Caló varieties (including Erromintxela), so it doesn't link only to "Spanish Caló". What do you think? Jɑυмe (xarrades) 19:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ethnologue is shaky on Romani and Para-Romani, they used to have Erromintxela and Caló under the same ISO code, remember? I want to ponder this a bit more before I decide what I think - especially since I can't locate my sources - gimme a day or two? Akerbeltz (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok, shall we revert -and postpone- the renaming and the merger? Jɑυмe (xarrades) 21:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right, we'd be better off with a good page covering iberian/catalan/br caló for now. If we get THAT much material or if it becomes obvious the difference is much great than anticipated, we can always rethink. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The RAE [1] says "chusma" is of Genoese origin, bujarra/bujarrón of italian/latin origin, garito of French origin. GS3 (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed potra from Spanish, since Diccionario Crítico Etimológico Hispánico links it to potro and mentions no Caló hypothesis. I am tempted to remove it from Catalan, but it is mentioned in the reference. Can anyone check a Catalan etymological dictionary? -- Error (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 3 external links on Caló 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:
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.
I have just modified one external link on Caló 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:
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.
Very dubious. Unless anyone disagrees I'm removing this. Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cristodelosgitanos: To be honest I doubt the 400,000 figure too, however, it does seem to come from a reliable source. Ethnologue is considered generally reliable and cites Stan Anonby[2] 2014 as the source of this claim. Brazil does have a Romani population of upwards of 800,000 so it may be plausible. Additionally, other sources I have come across say there are only 10,000 Caló Speakers in Brazil. The 2003 International Encyclopedia of Linguistics from Oxford University Press, 2015 Pidgins, Creoles and Mixed Languages[[3](here they cite Lewis et al. 2014 as their source) and the 2005 Elsevier Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics [4] all say only 10,000 speakers in Brazil. I think these sources are reasonably reliable and the Lewis source comes from the same time as the Anonby source. It would probably be best to say between 10,000-400,000 or keep 10,000 in the infobox and say certain estimates cite up to 400,000 speakers in Brazil in the body.TagaworShah (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
