Talk:History of the Romanian language/Archive 1

Archive 1

Great article

This is a really, really well-written and informative article, something you don't often find on Wikipedia for more obscure topics. I encourage anyone to submit this article for Featured status. Moncrief (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is a joke, in addition to slavishly adhering to the controversial Dacia-Romanian continuation theory it makes no mention of the fact that the Romanian language was purged of Slavic words in the 19th century and replaced with French words! Open up Lucian Boia, History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.140.80 (talk) 06:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The modernisation of the Romanian language in the 19th century was not a purge: the Slavic words were not "purged", they remained and they still exist today, only their use decreased greatly. What happened was in fact a move to adapt the language to the modernisation of the society (increasing urbanisation, changes in the administration and political system, manufacture and industry production etc) by borrowing from French. This neological segment of vocabulary was very active and productive and re-shaped the profile of the Romanian language. 109.100.46.141 (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC) M.C.

Dubious

"Notice that the dental plosives t and d were changed to postalveolar affricates before 'o' and to alveolar affricates before other vowels". Not the 'o' seems to be the reason, but the stress placement -- right after the palatal in the former case and before it in the latter. If it was (only?) the labiality of the 'o' that caused the fricatives to shift (the only thing I can think of), why didn't 'u' have similar influence? 31.6.141.51 (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Borrowings from Albanian to Romanian

The cognates doesn't necessary imply borrowings/loanwords as it is in this case. It's like saying Standard German language borrowed words from Austrian German language. This is a very naive approach. It's more likely that Albanian and Romanian shared a common pre-Albanian and pre-Romanian language. Saturnian (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

All the same, it is interesting that this "very naive approach" is shared by Kim Schulte, Gottfried Schramm, Vladimir Orel, István Schütz and many other linguists.Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No, you modified and introduced later the term "Thraco-Dacian"!!! The construction "Albanian or Thraco-Dacian" is dubious because that's an anachronism. Perhaps "Proto-Albanian" instead of "Albanian" is more suitable in that construction. Saturnian (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Please read Kim Schulte's book. She clearly refers to "Thraco-Dacian/Albanian". Otherwise, a theory (namely that there are Romanian words which were borrowed from Albanian) which is accepted by at least four specialists independently of each other (Orel, Schramm, Schulte, Schütz) can hardly be dubious. Yes, their views are not unanimously accepted by linguists, but they are existing and relevant POVs which are published in reliable sources. The article's wording emphasizes that they do not represent a consensual theory.Borsoka (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Borsoka (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Origin of close central vowel

The article mentions that the mid central vowel ă comes from vowel reduction, but doesn't mention where the close central vowel â or î comes from. Regrettably I don't have the sources, but if anyone has information on this, it should be added. — Eru·tuon 21:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

https://conf.ling.cornell.edu/peggy/Renwick_2012_Vowels-of-Romanian.pdf

Lacking info

The article lacks some information in the internal history section and some information is confusing.

• Where did the diphthong ea come from in "Backing of e" section? Earlier the article says that Latin ē turned into /e/, not ea, but the examples in this section seem to suggest that: "pērae > peare", "mēnsae > mease".
• What happened to labiovelars before back vowels? The article mentinos they were turned into /k g/ before front vowels, and into /p b/ before a. But what about o and u?
• I understand that cl was palatalized everywhere? It should be clearly stated.
• The article doesn't explain the disappearance of final u, as in peru > păr.
• The article doesn't explain how the sound /ɨ/ (spelled â or î) came into being.

From what I know, final /i/ and /u/ in Romanian both disappaeared; however, /i/ left behind palatalization of the preceding consonant and was preserved in orthography.

• lupu > /lup/ lup
• lupi > /lupʲ/ lupi

compare definite plural lupii /lupʲi/

somewhat similar to Slavic yers

but I don't have sources and I don't know where it fits chronologically --188.146.129.240 (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Isn't lupii pronounced /lupʲij/? 89.64.70.34 (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of English which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of English which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

So, what is "ă"?

In Romanian, "ă" represents [ə], a mid-central vowel. It originates from unstressed [a] in Latin, which is a front vowel, but this article states that [e] becomes "ă" and "ea" (which I would assume is [e̯a]?) becomes [a] when preceded by labial consonants and followed by back vowels. The examples given of this are pēra > peară and mēnsam > measă. I'm incredibly confused... was Eastern-Romance "ă" a back vowel? If so, which one? [ɑ]?

Still missing explanations

Others have mentioned that the article lacks any mention/explanation of the origin of the vowel spelt â/î (also, why two different spellings?) and the apparent elision of final -u. In addition, the article explicitly restricts the palatalisation of palatalisation of /g/, /k/ to those originating from gu-, qu-, but this remains inexplicable to me, since but the examples (deget, ger etc.) seem to suggest that /g/, /k/ palatalise in the same way regardless of their origin. Furthermore, the example with the deaffrication of the initial consonant in joc presupposes that Latin /j/ had turned into an affricate previously, but that isn't mentioned either.--82.137.115.143 (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Just added info about the origin of â/î with the help of the dissertation linked to by another user on this page. In the meantime, I find another oddity. The e/o-breaking to ea/oa is presented as something that happened after e-backing - this is suggested both by the order and by the explicit exception 'when not changed to ă/a (see above)'. But on the other hand, the description of e-backing adds that under the same conditions that produced it, 'the diphthong ea was reduced to a ', and the only source of the diphthong ea we have been told about is e-breaking! Which would imply that e-breaking actually preceded e-backing. Which is it?--82.137.115.143 (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead, what is the evidence that the Romanian language was uninterruptedly spoken 2000 years long in Pannonia (today's Hungary), in Dacia (Transylvania)?

Hi Aristeus01!

I do not understand this edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Romanian_language&diff=prev&oldid=1118566167

Your edit in the first line:

"From a historical perspective, Romanian is the Latin language spoken without interruption in the western part of the Roman Empire, more precisely in the provinces of Dacia, Pannonia Inferior, Dardania, Moesia Superior and Moesia Inferior, from the time of Latin's introduction to the region until the present day."

Historical perspective? = I think, it means it needs real historical evidences.

What is the evidence that the Romanian language was uninterruptedly spoken until today ("western part"? of the Roman Empire, I think rather "eastern" if we see the map) in Dacia, Pannonia Inferior province? Do you state the Romanian language was uninterrupted spoken until today 2000 years long in the territory of today's west Hungary (Pannonia Inferior)? In Transdanubia, Lake Balaton? Around present-day Budapest, Pécs...? Could you show me what is the evidence for that? Because as a Hungarian I do not know any historical records or evidence that the Romanian language was spoken in Transdanubia (Pannonia Inferior) (center of Hungary) since the existense of Hungary country, since 900. Which means "uninterruptedly" term is not true. And before 900 I also do not know any evidence, but do you have any evidence for that the Romanian language was even spoke in Pannonia? Romans lost Pannonia in the 4th century, after many tribes lived there. If you think the Romanian = Latin, it means following this logic we can write on the list that the Romanian was spoken in Italy, in Spain, in France, Roman Britain... because the Latin was also spoken in that regions which was also part of the Roman Empire.

What is the evidence that the Romanian language was uninterruptedly spoken until today 2000 years long in the territory of Dacia, in Transylvania? This province was the most short lived Roman province, the Romans left it in 271 and after many documented tribes lived there. The first known written Romanian text is the Neacsu letter written in 1521 in Wallachia. What is the evidence that Romanian was spoken in the region before the first record from the medieval Vlachs around the 13th century? I see a 1000 years gap, how can be this "uninterruptedly"? Your sentence states the today's Romanian language was the same as the Latin was spoken 2000 years ago in the region, which is incorrect also, please do not forget the Romanian language got many Latin words in the recent times, I see you requested to delete this page: Re-latinization of Romanian.

OrionNimrod (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

From a historical perspective = diachronic view. It is a linguistic concept, not archeological. It refers to the language change by comparing different stages.

Please do not confuse the history of a language with history of people. Latin or Romanian were spoken without interruption because there is no gap between the two stages, and in those provinces because that is the wider region where the particular form is attested. If you kindly read the rest of the text it explains how these concepts work and even mentions the part you ask about as a thesis that is not universally accepted, which is as much as anyone outside the particular immigrationist view is willing to credit it with in any language study.

The Re-latinization of Romanian is a very badly written article that needs a lot of improvement before we should even mention it. I will not touch it, it is not my responsibility to keep fixing stuff others break.

In a nutshell, the intro uses linguistic terminology. I recommend more familiarity with the terms before we can discuss the implications to interdisciplinary studies. Aristeus01 (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

If you mean different than you need to use proper words, Wikipedia is not a riddle: historical = "historical", or this is a deliberate misinformation. Still the text is lot of strange statements. "Western part"? Do you mean present day France, England, Spain? Does the Romanian language was spoken there 2000 years ago? "more precisely"? I though Dacia, Moesia was Eastern or northeastern part of the Empire. "without interruption" = constantly. I ask again, what is the evidence that the Romanian language was uninterruptedly spoken until today in the territory of Pannonia and Dacia province? Any evidence that the Romanian language was spoken 2000, 1000 years ago in the region? OrionNimrod (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Diachrony Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Are you suggesting synonyms are misinformation?

"Western part? Do you mean present day France, England, Spain? I though Dacia, Moesia was Eastern or northeastern part of the Empire. " - "The Romance languages continue in situ the Latin spoken in the western part of the Roman Empire. The dividing line between Latin-speaking and Greek-speaking areas was established by Jireček" - The Cambridge History of the Romance languages. You are probably thinking of Western Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire, two successor states of the Roman Empire. The unified Empire extended from the Atlantic to nowadays middle East. Draw a line in the middle and see if Alvise Andreose and Lorenzo Renzi were wrong.

"without interruption = constantly" so now synonyms are acceptable?

I'm asking you this: are you confused or deliberately confused? Which part of "Latin spoken without interruption in the Roman Empire, more precisely in the provinces of Dacia, Moesia and Pannonia" or "Romanian is the Latin language spoken without interruption" do you want me to back-up? Because that is a lot of text to bring in. Roman Empire, Latin language, Vulgar Latin are good starting points. Is language genealogy confusing? Romance languages. And what do you mean by "Romanian spoken 2000 years ago". Do you need evidence of Latin to Romanian sound changes? Aristeus01 (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Checking the map clearyl see that Dacia is center part of the empire not the western one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Roman_Empire_Trajan_117AD.png Only Pannonia was part of the Western Roman Empire. Moesia was part of the Eastern Roman Empire (Western Roman Empire#/media/File:Theodosius I's empire.png). Dacia was ceased to exist before the Roman empire was split between east and west. The topic is the Romanian language not the Romance languages in the western part of the Roman Empire (France, Spain). Also you forget it was a big steppe territory (Great Hungarian Plain) between Dacia and Pannonia which was not part of the Empire: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Roman_Empire_125.png Your text says "Historically the Romanian language was spoken 2000 years long since the Roman occupation in the territory Pannonia, in Dacia (jumping also the steppe gap) until today. I need evidence that Romanian language (not Latin) was spoken in Pannonia, in Dacia 2000 years long continuously (without interruption). Or do you say Latin = Romanian? When was Latin or Romanian spoken continuously in the territory of Pannonia (west Hungary) by local population between 400-2022? When was Romanian spoken continuously in the territory of Dacia (Transylvania) by local population between 300-1200? The first line of the topic is a clearly history falsification. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

"The first line of the topic is a clearly history falsification." - I suggest you take it up with Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, Marius Sala, Grigore Brâncuș, Al. Rosetti, Alvise Andreose, Lorenzo Renzi, Cambridge University and Romanian Academy (the cited sources).

Your replies are based on original research, that has no place here.

You need evidence that Latin=Romanian but do not accept linguistic definitions? Then I need evidence the Danube was flowing uninterrupted between 4th century and 13th century but I won't accept basic geographical concepts. Aristeus01 (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I see you did not answer to my question, however I asked many times. You can find sources (for example from flat earth believers), but what is fringe it will be not fact. Do you say that all sources (btw which you are not referenced in that first line, so I doubt it) all say that Romanian language was spoken continuously in the territory of Pannonia (west Hungary) by local population between 400-2022? Anyway this is not true! I ask again, does the Romanian language was spoken continuously in the territory of Pannonia (west Hungary) by local population between 400-2022??? And what is the evidence for that??? OrionNimrod (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

You did get an answer, it just isn't the answer you wanted. I will not be drawn in this strawman argument any further. Aristeus01 (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Romanian_language&diff=1118843269&oldid=1118814714

I see you recognized what does mean "east" and "west" in the map of the Roman Empire, so it was something approved in that "strawman argument".

This is your cited source, page 1:

https://books.google.ro/books?id=DlrPPUCQmk4C&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Which is a quote from Rosetti in that source, Romanian linguist from 1986!, which is typical Romanian national-communist POV from Ceaușescu times. I see you feel you need to put the disputed Daco-Roman theory, a POV from 1986 from Ceaușescu times in the first line of the topic in the English Wikipedia in 2022. It is not a strawman argument, you state in the first line of the topic that the "Romanian language was without interruption spoken in Dacia, in Pannonia c.2000 years long" However there is no evidence that Romanian was spoken in Transylvania (Dacia) before the first record in the later medieval times from the Vlachs in the region. This is most absurd that Pannonia (which is today west Hungary) the Romanian language was spoken by any population without interruption, this is nonsense and simply not true! Even today there is no Romanian-speaking population in west-Hungary, and it was not any Romanian-speaking population 100 or 1000 years ago in present-day west Hungary. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

No Romanian population in west Hungary? What about this? And Pannonian Romance? Uninterruptedly means there's no gap between Latin and Romanian stages, but of course you'd be thinking about Romanian population location in Dacia, that's all you think about when discussing the language. Rosetti was a nationalist-communist? Where does that leave us with the majority of Hungarian sources? You know what, no need to answer that, I'll take it from here. Aristeus01 (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

"No Romanian population in west Hungary? What about this?"

Your linked Pannonia Inferior located west from the Danube, and this Romanians in Hungary#/media/File:Walachians (Romanians) in Hungary, census 1890.jpg we can see no Romanian population in the same area west from the Danube. You can also see the Romanian population in today's Hungary increased in the recent 20 years from 8000 to 35000, and not in west Hungary.

"Pannonian Romance?"

How do you know that Pannonian Romance from 1500 years ago is the same as the Romanian language? Even it was around Keszthely which was in Pannonia Superior, but this is quite blurry, what is the source for that spoken languages, and which area exactly? Could you show me who spoke with Pannonian Romance in the previous 1500 years continuously, or any texts? Follow your logic, the Spanish and French languages = Romanian language? Follow this logic you could write "the Romanian language was uninterruptedly spoken in Spain until today".

"but of course you'd be thinking about Romanian population location in Dacia, that's all you think about when discussing the language"

You lsited the locations where you think Romanian was continuously spoken 2000 years long, "in Transylvania, in west Hungary"... But what is the evidence for that?

I talked about that you think you need put a source from 1986 to the lead section. 1986, Romanian academy, this is from the national-communist Ceaușescu times, we know well that many fringe things were published by this regime. Do you remember Romananian historical maps when Romania or Dacia country in medieval times 800-1300 until the Tisza river? https://tortenelemportal.hu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/roman-9-13-sz.jpg Reality: Europe 1190 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_mediterranean_1190.jpg (international map, non Hungarian one, but Hungarian historical maps are the same, but I know you named all Hungarian sources "unreliable" OrionNimrod (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Dispute between Aristeus01 and Gyalu22, 29 October

Hi Aristeus01. I bring this debate into the talk page as I don't fully understand your recent reverts of my changes.

1. If I understand correctly, you expect me to list linguist to back up the fact that Izzo is not the only denier of the Daco-Roman theory, but you only need one source to back up that the majority of linguists say what you do.
2. You took out the greatest question in the history of the Romanian language from the introduction of the History of the Romanian language, first saying that it's represented in another part (this is like taking out that water has oxygen from the start and putting it into the details), later falsely saying that it's represented in the introduction.

Am I being right? Gyalu22 (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

No, Gyalu22, you are not being right.

1. I am more than happy to list all the sources that list Thraco-Dacian as substratum in the recent studies: Schulte, Sala, Brâncuș, Dindelegan. Izzo wrote his study 34 years ago.

2. Either we say Romanian was spoken in Dacia but the thesis is not universally accepted, or we say the venue of Romanian formation is uncertain. Saying both completely eliminates the topic of Romanian being spoken north of the Danube which is bias. Do you want a biased article? Aristeus01 (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

1. That's not my point. I went through WP:Citing sources#When and why to cite sources and haven't found any reason why plenty of citations should be provided for the fact regardless of writers' viewpoint that the "Thraco-Dacian" originating of ro isn't universally accepted, and not only by Izzo. I told you to visit Origin of the Romanians#Linguistic approach, but you want me to unnecessarily list the sources from there.
2. I suppose you meant ...which is bias for the article without the topic of Romanian being spoken north of the Danube.
   1. If you did, why would mentioning the greatest question in the history of the Romanian language make it bias?... just because it says that this is a debated topic? If you don't want it to be represented why did you claim that it is at 17:00 and 18:57 yesterday?
   2. In case you didn't, why would eliminating a bias thing make the whole article bias? You are talking about Romans in History of Transylvania during the Migration Period.

You left me with even more questions. Gyalu22 (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Let's not mingle things.

1. The terminology to describe the substratum should not be presented anachronistically. For example the phrase from the article you invite me to study says: "The substrate language has been identified as Thraco-Dacian, Thracian, or Daco-Moesian, but the origin of these words—Albanian, Thraco-Dacian or an unidentified third language—is actually uncertain". It lists Thraco-Dacian as a recent term (cited by sources written after 2000) but then casts a shadow of uncertainty over it with a reference to a work written in 1951 (!). Normally this is done the other way around, and the rule from wiki you are looking for is:

WP:AGE MATTERS. This is why we should name those "others", otherwise we sort of imply there are reliable contemporary sources agreeing with Izzo which is false. Also, Izzo's Illyrian substrate origin theory is pretty marginal to the best of my knowledge, I haven't seen this particular term used in recent studies. To me it seems you want to put this "others" on an equal footing with the wider used phrasing. Again, this is inaccurate.

2. "We don't know where X originated and also we debate where X originated" is pleonastic phrasing, both parts say X's origin is debated. "We think X originated in Y location but the issue is debated" points at the debate directly as opposed to a consensual view. How is this bias? You want to mention that particular article? Put a link to one of the words in the paragraph. In the most respectful way possible, I don't think you understand what bias means in this context: we have plenty of reliable sources that generally credit the north of Danube theory as primary. The very source we debate says: "The thesis of ‘continuity’, according to which Romanian continues the Latin of Dacia (a Roman province from 107 to 275 ad, when it was abandoned by Aurelian), is not universally accepted. Some scholars hold that Romanian was formed wholly or in part to the south of the Danube, and that the current location of Romanian is the result of internal migrations." It literary says "some" next to "wholly or in part" which means by one academic standards the way we place equal weight on the theories is incorrect. Still, we do that because that's how editing consensus works. If they did they would say : two opposing views exist.

3. Romans in the Age of Migration in Transylvania: this are the results of archeological studies so far. Why wouldn't we speak of them? Isn't that the whole point of the article? Aristeus01 (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

1. In my opinion, you're a bit exaggerating WP:AGE MATTERS by saying that sources before 2000 aren't reliable. Izzo's cited book is from 1986, and there are other studies that give more weight to the Illyrian elements than to Thracian ones. However, as per WP:Citing sources#When and why to cite sources, they don't have to be listed regardless they are from before 2000 or not. Engel, Makkai, Szász, Vékony, Schramm, von Puttkamer, Arens, Malcolm are examples of them, but more are mentioned for instance by Boia in 2001, and Miskolczy in 2021.
2. The text you deleted (super simplifiedly) says "We don't know where X came from, they could be from Y, but this is not for sure". I don't see the problem with that. It doesn't say both main theories, only the more accepted one, as it should according to WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. The solution is not taking out the whole thing, because this is relevant.

Gyalu22 (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

1. Looking at the sources you cite none make a case about Illyrian substratum but speak of borrowings from Albanian to Romanian and in general about ethnogenesis from the Balkan area. I am now certain what you are talking about is ethnogenesis and not linguistic substratum, therefore not the topic of the paragraph or article.

2. How can you not see a problem with that phrasing? We don't know... but we think... but we don't know. Is this an encyclopedia or the answer of a student who forgot to read the lesson? Aristeus01 (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

1. They follow a similar logic as the studies you support: give more weight to the Illyrian elements (proving this with comparison with Albanian which they (along with most of linguists) consider late Illyrian) than to the Thracian ones, just as e.g. Sala (R.I.P.) also didn't deny that Romanian could develop south of the Danube, but still counts as a supporter of the Daco-Roman theory (let's not argue about that here) in my opinion because he gives more weight to the Daco-Romans than the Admigration theory which binds the survival of them to the south to north migration of Latinized peoples. I doubt that Izzo meant exclusively just the Illyrians, denying the Balkan sprachbund.
2. Okay, what about not mentioning the debate in the introduction, only completing/clarifying the first sentence of the article with the accepted view that Romanian formed north of the Jirecek line. The debate about where the language formed more precisely will not be included in the lead. What do you think?

Gyalu22 (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, for the late reply, I was reading the sources.

As much as I would like a consensus, saying that Izzo "and others" theorized an Illyrian substratum is non-factual. None of the other authors make this claim specifically, Boia for example list the proposed theories criticizing each accordingly. Again, most of this authors are historians not linguists and do not use linguistic terminology. They generally speak of ethnogenesis, not language formation.

For the second part, I'm not sure I understand exactly what you want to add. In any case you might want to ask Borsoka as well since it's her phrasing. I find the current phrase appropriate and neutral. Aristeus01 (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm also sorry for making the edit before you agreed, I thought that you've sort of did looking at your other argument with OrionNimrod.

The explanation you gave for tagging that as dubious was a question ("Linguists specialized in the topic or just scholars in general?") that shows that clarification is needed about who are the others, not proof that there are others (I gave proof nonetheless), meaning that the "dubious" part can't be deleted anyways. So let's say scholars in general with many of them being specialized in linguistics and history, not just history, and speak about language formation, not just or not ethnogenesis. I gave you examples of these people. I don't think that statement can be dubious in any way.

I modeled the phrase after the Origin of the Romanians article, where it stands for years without questioning. I'm sure it is good. Gyalu22 (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it can by WP:FMSP. A historian is not a linguist. What we are doing with that phrasing is in contradiction to Wiki editing rules.

If you modelled the intro, why do you want to change it? Aristeus01 (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

There are linguists who claim that Romanian developed from Illyrian.

I've never said I want to change that Romanian language originates from north of the Jirecek line. Gyalu22 (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Who are those linguists?

Then why are we discussing this? Aristeus01 (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why are we discussing this. I've told you some people already and even gave works which contain more. Your only comment on that was that they speak of Albanian linguistic relationship and migration from the Balkans, not specifically from Illyria. This is not true, they speak of migration specifically from the region and surroundings of Macedonia, proving that with comparison to Albanian which they think have formed around there and isn't a Carpian descendant. Unfortunately, Gábor Vékony's book is not with me right now so I can't show you his map of migrations. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

You are badly confusing history of ethnogenesis with the study of the language if you believe those examples are language studies. Clearly, all you want is to push the thesis of immigration perhaps because you find the phrase Thraco-Dacian as somehow supporting continuity. This is the wrong context since Thraco-Dacian is an umbrella term for the language spoken by Thracians and Dacian, a population group that inhabited a very large area and is not used to strictly signify Dacian Kingdom or Roman Dacia. Does this clarify things in any way? I don't know how to explain it any better. It seems now you opened the "dispute" for the sake of disputing. Aristeus01 (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I've started this section to give you what you made this dispute for, but you're not willing to close it even if you have what you want it. The chapter from the book I'm talking about is all about the Romanian language, showing its spread from age to age.

Gábor Vékony (December 15, 1944, Csengőd – June 10, 2004) was a Hungarian historian, archaeologist and linguist

You have nothing to object. Gyalu22 (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Then I will add Vekony instead of "others" and close this thread. Aristeus01 (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you bring any argument for reverting the edit to your favorite? Or should I consider this an edit war? Aristeus01 (talk) 09:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to start again this discussion from the beginning. You've acted unaccording to our conclusion and I've fixed that. Just because I came up with Vékony as an example that doesn't mean he is the only. I say for the last time: visit Origin of the Romanians#Linguistic approach if you still need to make sure for yourself, but I won't spend my time on introducing more people to you. Don't tell me your problems with the "others" again, I've already listened to them and spoke about them with you. Gyalu22 (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

And you weren't able to come up with any example of linguists besides Vekony. Simple question: what linguists use or used Illyrian as the name of Romanian language substrate? Aristeus01 (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I said I'm not gonna repeat myself. I gave enough examples for you already. Gyalu22 (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Asked for 3rd opinion Aristeus01 (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I gave you 8, plus 2 books and a link containing many more. If you make me write down the whole conversation again you still have to read it. Make my job a bit easier, it costs nothing for you. Gyalu22 (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

You gave me 8 names, 5 are historians: Engel, Makkai, von Puttkamer, Arens, Malcolm; Schramm does not state Illyrian substrate but speaks of borrowed words from Albanian, Szasz doesn't ring a bell (full name perhaps?), and we are left with Vekony. Of the two other you say: Boia - historian, Miskolczy - surprise, again historian. The phrase we are debating clearly speaks of linguist's research. Did any of this people at least, minimum-minimorum, published a list of substratum words in Romanian? Aristeus01 (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

István Schütz's albanologistic and balkanistic study Fehér foltok a Balkánon from 2005 gives a good overview on the situation. The Thracian substrate theory's supporters clearly appear to be the big majority, but as the History of the Romanian language article says, the small number of known Dacian, Illyrian or Thracian words excludes the systematic comparison of these idioms. That's why the Illyrian substrate theory fraction has to be mentioned fairly. What about this phrasing?: Most linguists like Kim Schulte and Grigore Brâncuș use the phrase "Thraco-Dacian" substratum,<ref> while some others, in particular Herbert J. Izzo argue that the Eastern Romance languages developed on an Illyrian substrate.<ref>

Again, Shütz, 2005 for examples.

Map from his work: http://mek.oszk.hu/03500/03577/html/6.jpg Gyalu22 (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

What you are asking to do is original research, Gyalu22. We cannot make this sort of judgment calls here, linguistics is a much more strict science than history, it does not allow for such interpretation. As you said, Schutz gives an overview. We cannot add him to Izzo and call it others. I haven't fully read Vekony, but so far he doesn't seem to swing one way or the other, he just presents the theories in a critical way. So if you drop the others from the phrasing, I'm ok with it.

Please, in the nicest and most honest way, do not bring mek.oszk as a source. Nationalistic POV sites, even if backed up by academic sources and professional historians, are not the way we want to go. There's half a dozen of Romanian ones claiming Dacians were some grand civilization and every Romanian is a little Decebal, some with university professors among the editors and writers. Obviously this is nationalistic, fringe speech, and it does not belong on Wiki. Aristeus01 (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Schütz (linguist and not in the slightest way biased, speaking under the title Împreună în trecut, împreună în viitor for the Romanian-Hungarian reconciliation in the radio) goes through the ancient Balkans with his own eye and reviews the sources about it too. The debated and mysterious characteristic of the Romanian substratum and the sufficiency of scholars who originate the Romanian language from Western Balkan/Illyrian land gives enough reason for the other possibility to be said in the same way as the Thracian/Thraco-Dacian.

I don't understand your claim about MEK. It's the most popular and a reliable online library created by the OSZK. It contains fringe works, yes, but also very reliable works. Every library contains works not for WP. Gyalu22 (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok, but does he state Illyrian as substrate of Romanian?

You said it, MEK contains some fringe work. The site also synthetizes material adding pov, doesn't just present what published authors say, like a library. They are not a reliable source. Aristeus01 (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

For the reason that the Illyrian language is largely unknown (see chapter 2.3.11.), he prefers calling it Thracian, however he doesn't reject the Illyrian origination. He likes and carries on Radoslav Katičić's theory (who believes in the Illyrian substratum) in chapter 2.4.9., theorizing that the substratums of Dalmatian and Romanian are two dialects of the Illyrian language, a northern and a southern, divided by the Balkan Mountains. He also traces back many-many Romanian words, including some toponyms such as Târgoviște to Illyrian.

Are you an undercover agent or how do you know this? Why would a national library do that? Gyalu22 (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

So even Schutz uses Thracian as the term for substratum. Noted.

Yes, I am an undercover agent. Only they can see the thick nationalistic tone and bias in the sute you cite. I have no problem citing the authors independently, from their own published books, but claiming the synthesis done in the source is reliable source is out of discussion. Aristeus01 (talk) 09:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

But you have another linguist instead of him: Katicic. You really can't be dissatisfied now.

MEK is owned by a national library, stop these false accusations. Gyalu22 (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Katicic literary says: "The Thracian and Dacian substratum has also left some traces in the vocabulary of modern languages of the area. Research on Dacian substratum words in Rumanian, in spite of the many controversies it raised, has brought forth such important relations of correspondence that it has to be taken seriously." - Ancient Languages of the Balkans - page 151.

Clearly you are not able to source material without bias if you say he is supporting Illyrian as substrate of Romanian, and I think the same applies to your view on MEK.

Please stop trying to interrupt, modify or delete my editing without strong arguments. You brought forward 12 names claiming to support your synthesis and only one sort of agrees with it. I will not go through the entire literature to clear improper synthesis. This discussion is over form my point of view. Any further disagreement on this topic you can take it to 3rd opinion or any other avenue you feel like is appropriate, but I will not be wasting my time debunking false claims. Aristeus01 (talk) 12:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Then I don't really understand chapter 2.4.9., maybe he referred to Dalmatian only but then why did he say both Dalmatian and Romanian in the first sentence? Anyways, my bad that I became a blatant nationalist in your eyes, probably in the future I'll have to bear irreverent tone on me. I see even a national library you discredit because of my mistake. Sorry. Gyalu22 (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Anchronism

The period for Proto-Romanian is between 6th and 11th century max. The influence of the Slavic adstratum starts in 9th century. We have parts that speak of events in the Proto-Romanian section that are in the wrong timeframe:

-the example of the borrowed word "plug" - in C.Rom the word was "arat" as inherited in Aromanian. Aromanian separated early from and was not influenced by Slavic in the same manner, therefore that part cannot be included in the common body

-the endonym: the attestation of the endonym is in the 16th (!) century. We then have information about the spread of the word Vlach in Middle Ages?? Again, wrong timeframe

-next two paragraphs speak of the border-period between Proto-Romanian and Daco-Romanian and don't add any information on why and when Proto-Romanian stage ended. They are a better fit for introducing Daco-Romanian than concluding Proto-Romanian

Posting here for @Borsoka to express her opinions since she disagrees with my changes. Aristeus01 (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

(1) The terms "plug" and "arat" are mentioned in note 45 in section "Pre-literary Romanian". 2. And? The first extant Romanian text was written in the early 16th century. Consequently, linguists cannot study Common/Proto-Romanian based on contemporaneous texts. What is clear, the endonym is borrowed from (Vulgar Latin). 3. Of course, the causes of the separation of the Balkan Romance variants should be mentioned at the end of section "Proto-Romanian". Borsoka (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

And it is all anachronistic. No linguist speaks of these features and events in the section we put them. Why adding them in the correct section is a problem? We are not deleting or modifying the text, we are simply re-organizing in the correct manner. Aristeus01 (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Could you refer to a single reliable source analysing Proto-Romanian based on texts written before the 16th century? Borsoka (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you even know what you are saying? By definition proto languages are reconstructed, not attested. What you are asking is complete nonsense. And they are not re-constructed by some random dudes in the back of their garden, it is a scientific process led by researchers. What is your point here? Aristeus01 (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

You mentioned that the endomyn which is first attested in the 16th century should not be presented in section "Proto-Romanian" because it would be anachronistic. I asked why the date of first attestation is important, and drew your attention to the fact that linguists cannot study Common/Proto-Romanian based on contemporatneous (Proto-Romanian) texts. You repeated your statement about anachronism. If my understanding is correct, we can forget your remark about the endonym, because its first attestation is not relevant in this respect. Borsoka (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The form rumân or român is not a Proto-Romanian word, which was maybe something like rumăn or romăn. The "â" vowel is part of Daco-Romanian phonetic, not Proto-Romanian. The text cites the particular form as Proto-Romanian which is incorrect. It's not about dating texts, it's about the rules of language development and their timeframe. Romanian became an individual language after the 12 or 13th century, words in Romanian form cannot be presented as Common Romanian words since they are not identical with Aromanian for example. Aristeus01 (talk) 12:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is clear, but the article does not state or imply that ru/omăn is a Proto-Romanian form. It clearly says that it was first attested in the 16th century. Borsoka (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Which alone should be enough to have that part either with Pre-literary Romanian or Old Romanian, the stages correspondent to the century. Let me ask you this: where would you mention examples of the diphthongization of i in English during the Great Vowel Shift? With the Modern English part or with Middle English? To which one is it more representative? And more: would you use examples of it in the Old English section? Aristeus01 (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It is not an example of Common Romanian. The two sentences only mention two facts: 1. the endonym is of Latin origin; 2. it was first recorded in the early 16th century. Borsoka (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Then what is it doing in than section? Aristeus01 (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

When presenting the external history of the Romanian language, we must mention that its speakers were known under the exonym at the end of the Proto-Romanian period. Ignoring that the Romanians preserved the term "Romanus" as an exonym during the entire history of their language would be an unusual approach. Borsoka (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

No one is ignoring it by adding it in the right timeframe. That's an invalid argument. Not to mention the 3 paragraphs say almost nothing about the language, speaking in general about people... I see, it's because it speaks about Romanians. So this isn't about the language, it's about when and where the people show up in history. Ok, no need to continue this discussion, there's obviously no way we can agree on an outcome. Edit: asked for 3rd opinion Aristeus01 (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Borsoka

Can you point at where does Schramm expands his theory of majority Slavic and Hungarian agricultural terms? I can only find the one line in "A Dam Breaks", without any references or numbers, and I have 3 other linguists saying the contrary. Aristeus01 (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

It is not about one linguist's opinion. "Your" three linguists interpretations based on the same pool of words differs from the interpretation of other linguists also cited in the article (Nandris, Schramm, Vékony). Borsoka (talk)

@Borsoka please do not close the option to reply if you want to take part in conversation. There is only one pool of words, only one language. They should not be "my" linguists, they should be yours as well if we are really looking to be neutral. Not to mention their review is more recent and extensive. I take from your answer Schramm does not have such a list, at least I can't find one. Aristeus01 (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

And? According to the Index, Schramm studied at least two works with strong emphasis on Romanian vocabulary: Haralambie Mihăescu's and Petrovici's monographies. You still do not understand what is the problem with your edit: you described studies as "more extensive" referring to the same studies. You cannot share your impressions about studies in WP as per WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi I came here from the third opinion listing, however I am not comfortable what-so-ever in providing my third opinion. It's a bit too technical for my understanding. May I suggest listing this dispute on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages, you may attract the kind of people capable of helping. The one thing I can say is that WP:OR does not apply to talk pages. Pabsoluterince (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Pabsoluterince thank you for your suggestion. You are right, WP:NOR does not apply to talk pages, but editors are not allowed to share their views about books cited in an article in the article's text as per WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Not unless those views were shared by and cited to relevant literature, yes. Pabsoluterince (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Borsoka (talk) 04:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look at this topic! I will follow your suggestion and seek help from the linguistic community here on Wikipedia. Aristeus01 (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Inscription

Hi @Borsoka

What or who's POV that inscription present? Aristeus01 (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry? I wrote that the inscription is irrelevant. Borsoka (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Why is irrelevant? And why is the map that's been on this article for so long suddenly POV? Aristeus01 (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

What is the connection between an inscription from England and the development of the Romanian language? Borsoka (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Dacians. Aristeus01 (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

And? Why not an Albanian text from Germany? Borsoka (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Borsoka Dacians writing in Latin, around year 200. I have no problem escalating this to dispute resolution, do you? Aristeus01 (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Why not Illyrians or Thracians writing in Latin? Borsoka (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Why not both? Aristeus01 (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It could be a solution: they could explain the uncertainty about the venue of the formation of Proto-Romanian. Borsoka (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The earliest inscription from Oescus in memory of Resius Chronius, liberated slave of centurion Resius Albanus from legio V Macedonica, dated to 9 AD, Pleven Regional Historical Museum, Bulgaria (40759077814)

OK, here is one:

Trajan Column? Do you prefer the map before that? Aristeus01 (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Why do we need Trajan Column? Borsoka (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

What image you would find suitable for the introduction to article? Why not Trajan's column? Aristeus01 (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Which references describe the two-stage model of palatalization before /j/?

I'm working on a new article on Palatalization in the Romance languages, and I've found several sources that take the point of view that Romanian palatalizations before /j/ occurred in one stage (e.g. Barbato 2022).

It does seem more parsimonious to view changes like *tjesta > *[ts]esta as occurring simultaneously with puteum > putju > pu[ts]u; likewise for cases like labiovelars (sanguem > *sange > san[dʒ]e) and the palatalization of original velars.

I couldn't see exactly what references the two-stage model in this article is based on; can anyone give me a pointer? I see that there's a statement that this chronology can be inferred from the outcomes of original -l-: "At some point, Latin intervocalic l developed into r. From the evolution of certain words, it is clear that this happened after the above-mentioned palatalization, but before the simplification of double consonants (as ll did not rhotacize) and also before i-palatalization." But I'm not sure I follow this proof.

Is the idea that intervocalic -l- > -r- must postdate an original wave of palatalization, because otherwise mulierem would end up as something like *"murere"? I'm not sure this is the only possible explanation; if mulierem had by this point developed a consonant cluster /lj/, then the /l/ would no longer be intervocalic, and so it would make sense for it not to be subject to rhotacism even if /lj/ had not yet merged into a single palatalized consonant. Urszag (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Urszag! thank you again for your great work on Palatalization in the Romance languages and sorry for not seeing this message earlier.

The reason why there is a "two stage" palatalization in article is because the editor(s) went too far in time when considering the Romanian language or Eastern Romance languages, to a very early stage of Vulgar Latin and palatalization discussed first might have reached the region already in place. As Barbato playfully wrote the first palatalization is more of a non-palatalization, and by that he means that in the continuous Vulgar Latin-Proto Romance of the area cj and tj, and j(yod) reached the sounds tj and j and stopped there. Even more, C and G before front vowels did not palatalize. Compared to Western Romance languages this is clearly a stunted development, if any development at all. To put it plastically they came in probably already made and just froze in place.

Later on, likely during Slavic adstratum influence ie sometime between 8th and 10th century, a second (and true) palatalization occurred. In the example you gave *tɛsta (recosntructed form from Proto-Romanian, not tjesta) where ɛ stands for stressed /e/ pronounced slightly more opened than unstressed e, and that ɛ latter diphthongised to jɛ/je, which resulted in a tjesta then țesta, now țeastă. Likewise, for sangue(m) the Romance stage of the region had to delabialize, which happened later than palatalization of cj and gj, to sange then sangje, now sânge.

The ll intervocalic in a postonic syllable was "deleted" or more correctly dissimilated from l into a /u/ and the former became /r/. So we have stella>steauă>stea but molis>moră>moară. I imagine muliere>muʎere>muere>muiere is close to correct evolution.

I recommend Marius Sala From Latin to Romanian for this topic and many more related to it regarding Romanian language, if you can find an English or other language version. A Romanian version is here, if it helps.

Keep up the good work! Aristeus01 (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer! I will take a look at Sala's book to try to find what it says about palatalization.--Urszag (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)