Talk:Moldovan language/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

splitting the "Romanian vs. Moldovan" section

The "Romanian vs. Moldovan" section is currently a hodgepodge. It includes official positions (Academy of Science, Education, etc), opinions (Grigore Ureche), linguistic positions (Ethnologue), etc. Mixing them makes no sense and confuses the reader.

IMO, it should be divided into three sections:

1. linguistic part -- the view of the linguists
2. official part -- the view of Moldovan official institutions
3. opinions part -- the view in Moldova, Romania, what do Moldovan and Romanian politicians say about it etc

bogdan 23:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, linguistics arguments should come from certified linguistics sources. User:Dpotop

What exactly is a "certified linguistics source"? --Node 15:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I think he meant the Cite reliable sources policy. bogdan 16:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Hindi and Urdu

This situation is paralleled in other parts of the world such as India and Pakistan where Hindi and Urdu are essentially the same language but recognized as two languages for cultural, political, and religious reasons.

Wrong! Hindi and Urdu in their official forms have vocabularies that are quite different. Standard Hindi has replaced all its Persian and Arabic words with Sanskrit equivalents. It would be the same if official Romanian would have purged all its Slavic borrowings and replaced them with Latin words. bogdan 00:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The analogy I presented is not to meant to be exact. It's appropriate enough in the sense that two dialects of the same language are recognized as separate languages in their respective countries. --Chris S. 01:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Not only that it's not exact, it's extremely loose. In some cases, the official Hindi and Urdu are not even mutual intelligible! Of course, the vernaculars are much closer as they are not regulated. bogdan 10:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

If you don't speak the language, how can you know? You rely your opinion based on what Node tells you. No, it's not appropriate to recognize to dialects as seperate languages. What do Americans say they speak? Do they say they speak Americanish? What do the Mexicans say they speak? Do they say they speak Mexicanish? Look at American English: they've introduced many new words into English, and some pronounce the words differently; and some words are written differently. Well, it's still English, isn't it? Go away and take your propaganda with you. You are not eliberating anything. --Anittas 01:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Anittas, you are misunderstanding what I have wrote The issue is not whether or not it is appropriate to label a dialect as a language, the issue is whether a government recognizes that there is a distinct language. The job of an encyclopedic article is to report. I am reporting what the Indian government is doing. They recognize two languages when there is basically one. Do you see the difference? Let's say that one day the United States government suddenly declares that they speak "Americanish." Well, we'd have to mention that in the article that it is essentially English how it is spoken in the United States.

I am not disputing that Romanian and Moldovan are the same language - they are indeed the same language. However, they both have regional distinctions. At the same time, they are recognized as languages on a political level. There is a quote that is frequently attributed to Max Weinreich that goes "a language is a dialect with an army and a navy" - this certainly applies to Moldova & Romania. In any case, I am not sure what propaganda you are talking about. I have no personal stake in the matter unlike the rest of you who obviously do. --Chris S. 02:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I apologize. I mistook you for that Filipino guy whose name also starts with S. He's a friend of Node and he supported him in this, even though he doesn't speak the language. I'm cool with you. Yes, I agree with what you said. --Anittas 05:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I am the Filipino-American guy whose last name starts with an S and who's a friend of Node. I'm confused. Or maybe you are. I dunno. ;-) --Chris S. 00:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

U.S. Department of State

The U.S. Department of State [1] says that Romanian is the official language of Moldova, although this is inaccurate in the sense that, while many believe Romanian and Moldovan to be the same language, the constitution of Moldova specifies "Moldovan" as the official language rather than "Romanian".

Why is it inaccurate? Here's the quote:

Languages: Romanian (officially known as Moldovan)

We have Romanian, officially known officially as Moldovan. Is anyone disputing that? bogdan 15:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

What? No, it says that "Romanian is the official language of Moldova". The US state dep't says that Romanian is the _language_ of Moldova, not the _official language_. --Node 15:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

What's your point? Don't the Moldovan speak Romanian? bogdan 15:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It depends upon whom you ask. Don't ask questions to which you obviously already know the answer. --Node 15:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You're not being helpful in here. bogdan 16:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

In his belligerent way he meant that according to the census a very significant part of population answered that they speak Moldovan. Even if opinion is mistaken, wikipedia is not the place to tell them they are mistaken. mikka (t) 19:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I meant that according to some sources, the Moldovans speak Romanian, and according to other sources, they do not. --Node 03:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a large degree of russian revisionism here

Mikka has bias edits and annoy everybody with his edits. Mikkalai constantly deletes parts of the text, reverts without explanation even when the majority does not approve his bias edits. He supports a kind of russian revisionism and does not justify his edits. He is constantly a bias editor. He does not or will not take neutral points of view, facts, arguments that other people bring.

Please list the examples of bias. I am ready to discuss. So far I see only personal attacks. mikka (t) 19:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Again the same bias edits of Mikka. Will you stop being so rude? what is with all this russian propaganda of worst scenary? It seems you constantly are ignoring everything what other are saying.

Well, bias from administrator User:Mikkalai is well documented in my previous posts, including those that are now archived (see the link in the beginning of the talk page). I am not considering here User:Node, which can only do what he does because he is allowed to. User:Dpotop

Again it is too much russian revisionism here. It was removed.

Again another russian revsionist was stopped. By the way why do not start learning romanian? it is latin language very nice, very similar with italian :).

General characterization of so-called Moldovan language

General characterization of so-called Moldovan language: - There is not a unitary Moldovan language.

Changes

According to wikipedia traditions and rules

• I will not allow any derogatory expressions kind of ""so called" etc.
• I will not allow denial of exsistence of the notion of "Moldovan language".
• I will not allow any wholesale reversion to old versions. There was a significant convergence of points of view achieved and many iseful information added. If you disagree with something, state it here, in the talk page, point by point.
• Next time you delete infobox or other information, you will be blocked for vandalism.

mikka (t) 19:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The reason I deleted the example from language text book was already explained in the talk page: no reference for the text is provided. What is more, even if the reference will be provided, if the textbook is the edition of Romanian language book reprinted in Moldova, it will be rejected. mikka (t) 19:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I think a big part of "deleting" information goes to whether or not the information is factual in the eyes of the person removing it. Yes, removing the infobox wholesale is not constructive as even if you deny existence of Moldovan, parts of it are true (for example, the official language in Moldova and Transnistria is Moldovan). But when I removed the comparison originally proposed by Bonaparte, I removed it because I considered it to be irrelevant and nonsensical. Any source of comparison could be used, some with huge differences (although not nessecarily real linguistic differences), some with 0. It also totally ignores the fact that there are indeed minor terminological differences between official Moldovan and Romanian, as none are used in that sample. And if we allow this sample, we should certainly include an example of "moldavskii limba" aswell. --Node 03:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I hope this rules will apply to you too <foul language removed> <by anon account 172.212.157.94, impersonating node ue, blocked>

Yes they will. I explained one deletion. Ask other questions. mikka (t) 19:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Grigore Ureche

His letopisul is available online. Please give the exact quote where he says what you wrote. His section "Pentru limba noastră moldovenească" does not say this.

By the way, he wrote: "About our Moladovan language", not "About our so called Moldovan language". mikka (t) 19:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

In that works Moldovan and Romanian are used as synonyms. These are all the sections I could found that refer to the language.

• Pentru limba noastră moldovenească: Aşijderea şi limba noastră din multe limbi este adunată şi ne este amestecat graiul nostru cu al vecinilor de prinprejur, măcară că de la Râm ne tragem, şi cu ale lor cuvinte ni-s amestecate.

For our Moldavian language: Like this, our language is too gathered from many languages and our speech is mixed with the one of the neighbours, dispite our origin in Rome and with their (the Romans') words ours are mixed.

• Predoslovie a létopiseţului moldovenescu ce într-însa spune că este făcută ţara den doao limbi, de rumâni şi de ruşi

Foreword to the Moldavian chronicle which tells that the country is made [inhabited] of two languages [ethnicities]: Rumanians and Russians.

• Eu am silit cu nevoinţă de am izvodit dipre acela izvod, pre limba românească această povéste lui Dispot

I was forced by the necessities to translate from that manuscript to Romanian language this story of Despot

• Rumânii, câţi să află lăcuitori la Ţara Ungurească şi la Ardeal şi la Maramoroşu, de la un loc suntu cu moldovénii şi toţi de la Râm să trag.

Rumanians, all those inhabitants of the Hungarian Country, Transylvania, Maramureş "are together" with the Moldavians and all have their origins in Rome.

I see, so this is an indirect conslusion from the whole text. What I asked is the quotation where he puts Moldavians and Wallachians in the same phrase, because the text in our article leaves an impression that it is a paraphrase of Grigore's. If it is not, it must be rephrased to say clearly what Grigore said and what we "read between lines". mikka (t) 21:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, we can always put in a quote from Dimitrie Cantemir: (from Descriptio Moldaviae)

"The Wallachians and the Transylvanians have the same language as the Moldavians, but their speech is 'harsher'."

Oh, and he also goes on telling on the dialectal differences of Wallachian and Moldavian, giving the pronunciation of four "Wallachian" and four "Moldavian" words. (the Moldavian ones have an archaic form and are almost certainly from Bukovina, as the rest of Moldavia lost the ʣ (dz) or ʤ (gi) phonemes) bogdan 23:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Wallachian | Moldavian | Standard Romanian
------------------------------------------
dumnezău   | dumnedzeu | dumnezeu
jur        | giur      | jur
acuma      | acmu      | acum
ahela      | acela     | acela

Please don't use the "---" separators. They are high-level formatting, to cut the whole page, not to separate paragraphs. mikka (t) 21:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Dictionaries in references section

Do we have any reason for which all these dictionaries are in the references section? bogdan 20:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Stati, V.N. Dicţionar moldovenesc-românesc. [=Moldovan-Romanian dictionary.] Chisinau: Tipografia Centrala (Biblioteca Pro Moldova), 2003. (ISBN 9975782485)
• Ильяшенко, Татиьяна Павловна. Языковые контакты : на материале славиано-молдав, отношений. Moscow: "Наука" [Nauka = Science], 1970. (LCCN 78510414)
• Афтени, М.К., Батыр, Л.К., Богач, И.И. (1961). Молдавско-русский словарь. [Afteni, M.K., Batyr, L.K., Bogač, I.I. (1961). Moldavsko-russkij slovar`. = Moldovan-Russian dictionary.] Moscow, USSR: Государственное издательство иностранных и национальных словарей. [Gosudarstvennoe izdatel`stvo inostrannyh i nacional`nyh slovarej. = State Foreign and National Dictionary Publishing House.] (LCCN 62045065)
• Ецко, И.И. (1987). Молдавско-русский словарь. [Ecko, I.I. (1987). Moldavsko-russkij slovar`. = Moldovan-Russian dictionary.] Kishinev, Moldavian SSR: МСЭ [MSE]. (LCCN 88112743)
• Баскаков, Н.А. (1973). Гагаузско-русско-молдавский словарь. [Baskakov, N.A. (1973). Gagauzsko-russko-moldavskij slovar`. = Gagauz-Russian-Moldovan dictionary.] Moscow, USSR: Unknown. (LCCN 73355147)

I agree with you, they are all bias and propaganda tools. They were made to prove the russian imperialism. <unsigned; by 65.127.112.195>

We don't need so many of them. We definitely don't need mold-Russ dictionaries; they are totally irrelevant, and I am deleting them. The first one makes sense. The second one make sense as a source of reference. Whoevenr added it, please explain why this reference is relevant. Especially since it is in foreign language. Otherwise it must be deleted as well.mikka (t) 20:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

They are not required to be RELEVANT. I used them as sources in writing the article. Thus, they belong there. --Node 03:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Please explain how you use Moldovan-russsian dictionaries as sources. mikka (t) 06:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Because they had useful lexicographical information, and talked abit about Moldovan language as well in prefaces and the like. --Node 21:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Creole language

The spoken language of the cities is an amalgamation of Romanian and Russian, which has been called a "jargon" by some, although it could perhaps be called a creole since it is the native variety for some.

Node, do you have any references for that? It looks like original research. I don't think a linguist would call that a creole since we don't have "fully-formed and stable grammar structures" required by a creole. (see: Creole language)

why was deleted the opinion of Anittas? He has the right to ask the kid.

I know that this is a bit off-topic, but I can't stop thinking about it. Mark (Node), I saw your photo. My question: why do you have your finger in your mouth? You seem to suck on your finger. Why?

Most likely it's just plain old code-switching. bogdan 00:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes -- see the book "pidgin and creole languages". I don't have the specific info ATM but I gave it on the archives of thsi talkpage sometime. The grammatical structures of "moldavskii limba" are definitely fully-formed. They are not in a state of flux, so they're stable. They're basically Romanian grammatical structures, with a little bit of simplification. Russian influence is mostly in vocabulary; most Russian words use Romanian inflection. This is evidenced by the examples provided by Ali Noali. --Node 03:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Then, it's just Russian words borrowed in Romanian. I also suspect it's a not-notable opinion, since google says that there are no hits for a linguist named Ali Noali bogdan 10:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a revisionist attitude. "It's just russian words borrowed in Romanian"... see Trasianka and Surzhyk. You have so far provided no good evidence that this isn't happening in Moldova too. Regarding Ali Noali, you didn't find him on Google because his website is in Russian and his name is written in Cyrillic letters. And he doesn't give an _opinion_ -- he gives facts, examples. --Node 21:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, isn't it obvious???!!!it's just RUSSIAN PROPAGANDAin the style of Mark (Mark_the_finger).

Another russian revisionist - Ghirlandajo

Ghirlandajo is another russian revisionist who just reverted text without any kind of explanation. He looks like he was speaking with the other 2 revisionists (Suck_the_finger) and Mr.M.

Persecution and russification

Soviet policy towards the Romanian language changed abruptly in late 1932 and early 1933, when Stalin had already established his firm control over the party and, therefore, the Soviet state. Switch all romanian newspapers, books and publications into Russian and prepare by autumn of 1940 for the switching of schools and instruction into Russian".

The following years were characterized by massive repression and many hardships for the Romanian language and people. Some historians, especially of Romania, emphasize that the repression was applied earlier and more fiercely in Moldova than in other parts of the Soviet Union, and were therefore anti-Romanian; others assert that Stalin's goal was the generic crushing of any dissent, rather that targeting the Romanians in particular.

The Stalinist era also marked the beginning of the Soviet policy of encouraging Russian as the language of (inter-ethnic) Soviet communication. Although Romanian continued to be used (in print, education, radio and later television programs), it lost its primary place in advanced learning and republic-wide media. Romanian was considered to be of secondary importance, and an excessive attachment to it was considered a sign of nationalism and so "politically incorrect".

The major repression started in 1812–1918, when a large group of Romanian intelligentsia was arrested and most were executed. In its place, the glorification of Russia as the first nation to throw off the capitalist yoke had begun, accompanied by the migration of Russian workers into parts of Moldova which were undergoing industrialization and mandatory instruction of classic Russian language and literature. The systematic assault upon Romanian identity in culture and education, combined with effects of famine upon the peasantry—the backbone of the nation—dealt Romanian language and identity a crippling blow from which it would not completely recover.

This policy succession was repeated in the Soviet occupation of Moldova, Romanian was persecuted and a campaign of Russification began. <posted here and into the article by 80.23.53.155>

I deleted this from the article because this chaotic jumping here and there text does not suit an encyclopedia article. Second, the author obviously does not know the correct order of events and when exactly Stalins policy "changed abruptly" and so on. Also, for "cripling blow on Romqanian language" is bullshit. Moldovans continued to speak their language, even if renamed into Moldavian. That the pollution by Russianisms occurred in spoken language, this happens everywhere where population mix. To oppose and protest people mixing in 20th century is a laughable idea. Read how French are moaning and weeping about the pollution of French by Anglicisms and especially Americanisms. But they can do nothing. mikka (t) 17:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not a good argument to delete. Please read one more time. That happend also in Ukraine with the Ukrainian language. There were a massive persecution and russification process. It must be evindenced in this article. Because of that russification process we are still talking here the controversial issues of so called "two languages". You maintain this state.

This is not "argument" but "arguments". You wrote several pieces of incorrect. Please put evidence it in the article after reading historicl books, not Romanian newspapers. We need correct dates and names here. And please put them in historical order, already existing in the article, not just a separate rant. This is not chat room. This is a single, logically exposed article. 17:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not posting both positions?

So, instead of losing so much time here, my impression is that we should write both oppinions in the preamble of the article. It is obvious that my interpretation of the given facts, based on my personal experience, is quite different from that of the users Mikkalai and Node. And the problem is not the acceptation or not of the facts, but rather their high-level implementation. I therefore propose that the preamble of the paper (the very first paragraph) is replaced with something like:

Moldovan language is the official language of the Republic of Moldova and one of the official languages of Transnistria (Forget about "breakaway" or "de fact", you can explain them later).

Two main points of view exist between the authors of this article:

1. The Moldovan language differs from Romanian in small, but significant ways. This oppinion is supported by the users Node, Mikkalai, etc.

2. Moldovan is the Romanian language (its accent or dialect) as spoken in Moldova, and its current existence as a separate language is only due to the post-imperial context existent in Moldova (I will re-phrase this in the future, but it should be essentially this). Oppinion supported by Dpotop, etc, etc.

Then, we will have two separate sections in which each party will explain its position. This seems fair to me. Of course, all statements outside these sections will still have to be edited Wikipedia-style. User:Dpotop

You seem still fail to understand wikipedia's policies about POV/NPOV.

Point 1 is phrase incorrectly. You are trying to over-inflate the opposition. The key is word "small but significant". If this is stated in the article in this way, this must be deleted (I certainly don't support this position), because this is not our business to evaluate whether the differences are small or significant. We just report them. If there are a reputable scholars who say "small but significant", we msut report their published opinion.

Position 2 is fully present in the article, only with the amount of bashing and cursing of Russians insufficient to some extremists. So you are fighting with windmills.

If in literature there are reported differences 1 and 2 as you stete them, you are welcome to write a separate section that present these published positions. But there is none of our business to report my or Node's or your's or 185.38.137.43's position. mikka (t) 17:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Bias edits of Mikka

Again the user Mikka makes controversial edits about the article. This is not the place of russian revisionism.

Please list my contributions that are russian revisionism. mikka (t) 20:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Read what Department of State of USA says: THERE IS ONLY ROMANIAN LANGUAGE. MOLDOVAN WAS CREATED BY SOVIET RUSSIANS. Will you stop this bias edits? If you have an issue start an RfC. Otherwise keept it for yourself!

So you wrote it yourself: ""moldovan was created". This must be described, not deleted. mikka (t) 17:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

"Moldovan language" is a soviet invention. Do you agree with this?

Of course not. Your ignorance in things you are trying to defend is appalling. Please read the article you all are trying to cripple. It existed before Soviets and even before Russians. mikka (t) 20:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

An official standard Moldovan language as such does not exist

• It was added the following material:

• "An official standard Moldovan language as such does not exist: there are however variants of the Romanian language spoken in Moldova; and these are, mainly for political reasons, sometimes referred to as "Moldavian"."