Talk:Albanian–Eastern Romance linguistic parallels

Scope

Borsoka -- literature covers not just Albanian/Romanian convergence but also Albanian/Aromanian/Romanian -- example [[1]]. In scope?--Calthinus (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Aromanian (Macedo-Romanian) and Romanian (Daco-Romanian) are two variants of Eastern Romance. In this respect, they are discussed together. Borsoka (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Should we then not move it to Albanian-Eastern Romance linguistic relationship? The separation of Romanian from its sisters may have occurred half a millenia after the end of the contact period-- perhaps the title may be anachronistic? (though it does roll off the tongue better)--Calthinus (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

All cited works refer to Albanian and Romanian. Why should we ignore them? The word "Romanian" covers all variants. Borsoka (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, "Eastern Romance" as term seems to be a WP innovation. Borsoka (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Not a wp invention: [[ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C39&q=%22Eastern+Romance%22&btnG=]]. But ok.--Calthinus (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The term's scope in WP is a WP invention. For instance, the second book in your list also describes Italian as an Eastern Romance language. Borsoka (talk) 09:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

This is true but there are different definitions of E. Romance within Romance linguistics (one paper on controversial aspects of it if you're interested [[2]]) - though this in itself is also a rather valid argument against my proposal.--Calthinus (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I also propose we move this page to Balkansprachbund since it covers 3 (or more) languages included in the group and the connection is no longer limited to the ones titled. Alternately I propose removing the entire article since there are no unique features shared by the two languages. A third option would be to reformulate to Albanian-Eastern Romance language connection, but I don't see how deserves as special page since it's of the category to Albanian-Slavic Languages connection. Aristeus01 (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Balkansprachbund covers more languages: Greek, Bulgarian, Macedonian, certain dialects of Serbian. The Albanian-Romanian relationship is the closest relationship within the Sprachbund. Borsoka (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Borsoka -- I think we both have an understanding that this page concerns the Late Classical period of convergence and not later sources of congruence (Byzantine/Slavic/Turkish influences). Am I right? If so, we should say so in the lede, no?--Calthinus (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not know. I have no deeper knowledge about the subject. We should be in line with the approach that reliable sources follow. Borsoka (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Wexler

Borsoka ok, despite my failure to locate this source before, I have found it now only to have a new problem. Paul Wexler's relexification hypothesis is WP:FRINGE and widely discredited, at least with regards to its use for Yiddish, which as I understand was its primary use. As such we shouldn't be using it. Usage of a second party source covering his views is of course okay, so it can simply be replaced with another reference as long as it supports what's cited.--Calthinus (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Yes, his relexification hypothesis when he applies it to Jiddish and Romani is mainly discredited. I remember a review which explicitly says that his theory about Romanian as a relexified Balkanic language is his only probable assumption. I am far from my library, so I need some time to cite this review. Borsoka (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Sounds fair, I'll check back in after the new year I guess.--Calthinus (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Borsoka have you found it yet?--Calthinus (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot my above remark, but now I found the article. Anthony P. Grant writes in his review about Wexler's cited book, "Wexler proposes thirteen reasons, based on history, the contents of the Rumanian lexicon and ethnonyms, and other criteria to support his hypothesis of the role of the relexification from South Slavic, or, possibly, from pre-Slavic Indoeuropean languages (Wexler is not sure), in Rumanian. This chapter seems to be the most thoroughly researched and least strident of the four, but its arguments are still not completely convincing." [Grant, Anthony P. (Winter 2000). "Relexification in Creole and Non-Creole Languages, with Special Attention to Haitian Creole, Modern Hebrew, Romani, and Rumanian by Julia Horvath, Paul Wexler". Anthropological Linguistics. 42 (4): 589-592 (591). ISSN 0003-5483.] Thank you for your patience. Borsoka (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this may still warrant removal. I would expect a more fullhearted endorsement here than "still not completely convincing", given the context of his claims on Yiddish.--Calthinus (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Borsoka (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Aight I'll be removing it then. --Calthinus (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed explanations

The paragraph starts with Hamp's view, which is described as a minority view. Wouldn't it be more natural to begin with the majority view? Or there isn't any view accepted by most scholars? 86.120.251.199 (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The statement that Hamp's view is a minority view is unverified in the article. As far as I know, there is no majority view. Borsoka (talk) 07:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Correct, there is no majority view explain the relationship between Romanian and Albanian -- in part because there is not just one relationship involved but multiple (one mediated by "lower level" substrate vocab, one by high Latin, one by Vulgar Latin, a later relationship between Albanian and an extinct Romance tongue, then Albanian and Aromanian, shared influences from Byzantine Greek, Slavic, Turkish, and finally French, etc...). That said there are some things that there is majority agreement on: (1) Albanians and Romanians both resided in the Balkans as broadly defined (Romania included) since Roman times, (2) there must have been some point of cohabitation although the exact definition of this is unclear as (3) both peoples were nomadic, (4) both peoples were in the Balkans prior to the Slavic invasions i.e. not Italy or anything else weird, (5) the territory of both languages must have been modified by the Slavic invasions and domino migration effects, (6) the "contact zone" is restricted in that it must include one or more of the following areas: inland Praevalitana (i.e. Northern/Northeast Albania + West Kosovo, roughly), Dardania, Dacia Mediterranea, the Mosava, West Wallachia, Paeonia, and Moesia (the "Carpic" theory including Moesia+SW Transylvania is not so often discussed; the "Bessian" Rhodope mountain theory has limited support and a ton of issues hence outright refutation in many quarters). --Calthinus (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. Some remarks. Ad 1. The theory that Romanian survived in the lands north of the Lower Danube can hardly be defined as a majority view nowadays. (Andreose, Alvise; Renzi, Lorenzo (2013). "Geography and distribution of the Romance languages in Europe". In Maiden, Martin; Smith, John Charles; Ledgeway, Adam (eds.). The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, Volume II: Contexts. Cambridge University Press. pp. 283–334. ISBN 978-0-521-80073-0.; Maiden, Martin (2016). "Romanian, Istro–Romanian, Megleno–Romanian, and Arumanian". In Ledgeway, Adam; Maiden, Martin (eds.). The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford University Press. pp. 91–125. ISBN 978-0-19-967710-8.) Ad 3. Slavic loanwords appeared later in Romanian than in Albanian, implying that Proto-Romanians were isolated from the Slavs for centuries. (Schramm, Gottfried (1997). Ein Damm bricht. Die römische Donaugrenze und die Invasionen des 5-7. Jahrhunderts in Lichte der Namen und Wörter [A Dam Breaks: The Roman Danube frontier and the Invasions of the 5th-7th Centuries in the Light of Names and Words] (in German). R. Oldenbourg Verlag. ISBN 978-3-486-56262-0.). Borsoka (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka this would be a great addition to the page :)! On my part I can add some of the commentary about the location of Albanian at the point of contact from BD Joseph, Orel, etc.--Calthinus (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the article could/should be expanded. For the time being, I am working on other topics, but some time later I would like to return to this article. I guess you are an expert of Albanology, so your edits will add more than value than my edits could. Borsoka (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I second the minority view undue weight by placing it at the start of the paragraph. The entire section relies heavily on selected authors that express marginal views of the linguistic and historical connection, while citing specialty view as "others". This is typical POV editing. Aristeus01 (talk) 08:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

2013 paper on substrate, morphology etc.

Borsoka I thought you might appreciate this one, from Kore at Sapienza Uni of Rome in MJSS [www.richtmann.org/journal/index.php/mjss/article/download/203/188]. Cheers! --Calthinus (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the article. Yes, it is indeed a useful summary. Borsoka (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Title

The previous title "Albanian–Romanian linguistic relationship" is misleading and erroneous, there is no linguistic relationship between the Albanian language and the Romanian language. They belong to separate IE branches. The scope of the article is about lingusitic parallels found between Albanian varieties (Gheg Albanian and Tosk Albanian) and Eastern Romance varieties (Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian, Romanian and Istro Romanian). The most common parallels are found between Tosk Albanian and Istro Romanian and some dialects of Daco-Romanian. Other parallels are found between all Albanian and Eastern Romance varieties. Hence "Albanian–Eastern Romance linguistic parallels" is the appropriate title of the article. – Βατο (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Fully agree. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. For the record, I would like to specify the topic is part of the (much) larger Latin interaction with Albanian therefore this is also a move in the right direction as per WP:PCR. Aristeus01 (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)