Talk:Tuscan dialect

k to kh

Isn't it typical of Florence to change intervocalic k to kh (I am not indicating an aspiration but a velar?), Michele [mikhele]? --Error 01:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no :) I mean, if Michele is pronounced in Florentine dialect, the 'ch' is a [h]. In case you've heard a Tuscan speaking Italian with a non-Tuscan Italian or with a foreigner, you might have heard the velar [kh]. This is typical for Tuscans when they try to speak proper Italian. Generally it is hard for us (I know it being myself Tuscan) to pronounce the 'ch' in Michele as a [k], so we try to get closer to it by pronouncing it as [kh] :) --Rutja76^{(talk to me!)} 08:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

ci to zi

Is it a rule the correspondence of Florentine Uffizi for Italian ufficci? --Error 01:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Uffizi is just an archaic italian form. The modern italian is uffici (not ufficci), and we pronounce it with the soft c. Sergio Ballestrero 20:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

cci vs. sci ?

With letter c as [ʧ] → [ʃ] , do -cci- and -sci- become homophonous?

• No. Single phoneme /tʃ/ is pronounced [ʃ] between vowels (/ˈbatʃo/ → [ˈbaːʃo] bacio), but geminate /ttʃ/ and /ʃʃ/ remain phonetically distinct: [ˈlattʃo] laccio and [ˈlaʃʃo] lascio thus form a minimal pair.96.42.57.164 (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Not in Firenze or Prato, where actually a double c does not become soft at all. I'm not sure about other areas. Actually, the article fails to note some finer details; for example, in some cases the consonants are actually reiforced respect to what they would be in Italian: "vieni a casa" sounds more like "vien'a ccasa". Sergio Ballestrero 20:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm from San Gimignano and I study in Pisa so I can pretty much can tell you that no, it doesn't happen in any part of Tuscany. It's correct what Sergio said, sometimes the cs are reinforced because Tuscan tend to merge words.

• Lengthening of the consonant in a casa [kk], più caro [kk] etc. is known as raddoppiamento (or rafforzamento) sintattico. Note the contrast in Tuscany between la [h]asa 'the house' and a [kk]asa 'at home'. Ecco:

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raddoppiamento_fonosintattico 96.42.57.164 (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Usage of past tenses

It is quite common for Tuscans to use the passato remoto tense (meaning "remote past") instead of passato prossimo ("near past"), for example "Lo vidi ieri al supermercato" ("I saw him/it yesteday at the supermarket"). Can someone formulate this in a correct form and point out in which parts of Tuscany it is common (should be at least Florence and Siena)?

Use of "punto"

I think in the morphology section should be added the use of punto as a negative form. --Fertuno 01:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

"Codesto" is not an exception but the real correct italian

Being italian and from Florence I'd like to point out that "codesto" is the only correct italian form to reference an object far from the speaker and near to the listener. Using "questo"(this) or "quello"(that) in place of codesto(which can't be literally translated to english as far as I know) should be considered a grammatical error in italian. The fact that tuscan people are the only people still respecting this rule does not diminish the rule importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.176.55 (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not true. Every, I say every vocabulary say that 'codesto' is a "Literary or Tuscan" form in standard Italian. This doesn't mean it is not correct of course. It pretty much means the contrary: it is Italian spoken at its best, as it is often the case with Tuscans. Still, it is not common elsewhere. --89.97.35.70 (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that CODESTO is used only in Toscana should make you think about it.... "Italian spoken at its best" ? Well,you know, there's a history about a man who is driving along the highway when he hears the radio : " watch out, there's a fool on the highway and he's driving in the wrong direction". Immediatly a car runs towards the car of the man and he's barely able to avoid the collision. Soon after another car runs towards him,and another one,and another again,and so on. The man thinks:"A fool ??? Here EVERYONE is fool! "

Now,do you think that he was the one who was driving "at his best" ? Or maybe is he the only one who's wrong ? The ones who say CODESTO are the best speakers ? Or maybe are there the only ones who still keep using that useless word that never reached the other languages (I don't call them "dialects")? Many languages in Italy have the form QUISSU,QUESSU,CHISSU, that are clearly "siblings",and that have the same meaning, "codesto". The fact that "codesto" is in the dictionary and the fact that it's used in Florence it means nothing. Florentine is considered the italian language, but you just have to match the Florentine with the Italian and you'll see that there's almost nothing of Florentine in the Italian and vice versa (verbs,lexicon,pronouns....let's alone the pronunciation).Dante,Boccaccio,Petrarca,"fathers of the Italian language" ??? People should read them before believing that they are "fathers of the italian language". Read them,and you'll realize how many lies they told us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.249.200.39 (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Article name

Even if this article should be at Tuscan language and not dialect (which is highly POV, if you ask me), capitalizing the L is incorrect. —Wiki Wikardo 14:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Severely lacking in citations

This entire article needs to be slapped with a big citation needed header. Even if the status of this dialect weren't contentious in Italy, the sheer lack of citations would still be a huge problem. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 13 Shevat 5775 07:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No need for slapping -- just add citations. Giannelli's book will supply precise page references for almost everything that needs citation. It's not clear what you mean by "the status of this dialect" being "contentious", but that can be cleared up by some reading of the specialist literature.96.42.57.164 (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tuscan dialect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080506030444/http://www.maldura.unipd.it:80/romanistica/viale/lezione_diatopia/ to http://www.maldura.unipd.it/romanistica/viale/lezione_diatopia/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Stress position of truncated infinitive

Try as I might, I can't come up with any reason why Tuscan truncated infinitives (e.g. finì, pèrde) would be expected to undergo stress shift as a result of truncation. Would whoever suggested that the lack of stress shift needs explanation please elaborate?96.42.57.164 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

No response, so I've cleaned it up.96.42.57.164 (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Becoming modern Italian

I hope this article can in the future tell more about how Tuscan became modern Italian. WikiParker (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Two observations with regard to that, though. 1) At no time is what is now and previously labeled Italian actually equivalent to Tuscan. Italian is definitely and rather obviously formed from Tuscan, but even Dante says outright that there are Tuscan features that he does not approve of. (The long Italian / Tuscan battle is what's known in Italian as the questione della lingua). 2) Thus Tuscan can't really be said to have become modern Italian, and both origins and development of Italian are better treated under history of Italian. 68.98.110.11 (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Some scholar individuate the subdivision in etruscan age.

This is pretty much meaningless in English: Some scholar individuate the subdivision in etruscan age. Does anyone know what is intended? And what the appropriate reference(s) might be? (A list of names is not a reference.) Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Random mention of other Romance varieties re infinitival -r-?

Is there some reason relevant to Tuscan for this text?

A similar process is found in Catalan and its dialects. Final infinitive -r is not pronounced, so anar is realised as /ə'na/, as well as in Campidanese Sardinian.

If so, why mention just Catalan and Campidanese? Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Fo & vo section

What seems to have taken place is a realignment of the paradigm in accordance with the statistically minor but highly frequent paradigms of dare (give) and stare (be, stay). Thus so, sai, sa, sanno (all singulars and 3rd personal plural of 'know') come to fit the template of do, dai, dà, danno ('give'), sto, stai, sta, stanno ('be, stay'), and fo, fai, fa, fanno ('make, do') follows the same pattern.

All five 1st p sg forms (do, fo, so, sto, vo) are pronounced with ò, not ó, pointing to earlier *dao, *fao, *sao, *stao, *vao. So there was much more analogical development and much fewer inherited forms. 195.187.108.130 (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)