Talk:ananasso

RFV discussion: August–November 2015
Were pineapples grown in Europe at the time Old Italian was spoken? DTLHS (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What is Old Italian? Seriously, it doesn't have ISO 639-2 code (apparently treated as part of Italian (it)), so there's no standard for when Old Italian was spoken. Unless others think we need an Old Italian language here, it should be merged to Italian and RFVed based on that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The only definition of Old Italian I could find was our own mainspace dictionary definition of it (Old Italian), which I copied to WT:About Old Italian. - -sche (discuss) 18:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That seems idiosyncratic; I was under the impression that we used languages as defined by ISO 639-3 codes unless there was a clear consensus otherwise. It also seems pretty late; Dante is generally consider the birth of modern Italian.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's apparently attestable in modern Italian; http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924000340749;view=1up;seq=31 is a 1915 cite and http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=ananasso;a=srchls comes up with scores of hits in Italian documents that look on topic. I hate to try and cite in a language I know nothing of, but it seems like a pretty easy pass as an Italian word.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Pineapples wouldn't have needed to be grown in Italy, only known there, but even that does seem to be a stretch. English use of pineapple in reference to pineapples (rather than in reference to pine cones) is said to date from the mid 1600s. If it entered Italian around the same time, it postdates the end of Old Italian. - -sche (discuss) 18:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I've added an Italian L2 section, which ought to have been there anyway. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have any references for this, or for the Old Italian language in general? DTLHS (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It really is best to discuss introducing new languages without an ISO 639 code before doing it. We do need a reason to cut off Old Italian from Italian, and have criteria to tell one from the other. We do have Old Portuguese of course, which is analogous because it doesn't have an ISO 639 code. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I would prefer that ==Italian== be the language, but with an "obsolete" label. Dante is certainly known as the father of modern Italian, but most native Italians have a real struggle to read his text. For an English comparison, it is easier than Chaucer, but more difficult than Shakespeare. And I'm not convinced that he was writing in Italian, just the Tuscan dialect that turned into modern Italian. (My Italian teacher once said that we should aim at "la lingua toscana in bocca romana" - the Tuscan language with a Roman accent), SemperBlotto (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There's a discussion at Requests_for_moves,_mergers_and_splits. Easier than basically the easiest major Middle English author, and harder then the earliest major Modern English author; that's basically saying if we used the same standards we do for English, he would be right on the line.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * RFV-failed. The general discussion of whether or not to have "Old Italian" continues on WT:RFM. - -sche (discuss) 08:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)