Talk:Moldovan language/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Below are discussions made between 14 November 2005 (05:20 UTC) and 16 November 2005 (22:43 UTC).

Why did you revert?

Node and Mikka - PLEASE CALM DOWN! That goes for Bonaparte and the others too. I am very angry at the moment because all of my points went ignored and Node reverted everything without giving an explanation. As I said before - I have nothing against Node personally, I've never personally attacked him, but he is really pissing me off at the moment with his behaviour. You all make a big fuss about RfCs and RfA or whatever, and then all of you resort to talking about stupid irrelevant things (see the sections immediately above) that clutter up the talk page and have nothing to do with this issue. Let's constructively debate everything, and until then, this page remains both disputed and NPOV. That's Wikipedia policy. (i.e. it is deceptive that when a new user arrives to read this article, there are no dispute/NPOV tags at all, yet we're here having a huge argument, with people insulting others vehemently, etc etc). Ronline 05:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobody ignored any of your points. Now, you don't seem to realise what the drama here is all about. Perhaps it's because Mikka removed all of the offensive posts. The worst, and most recent, is [1] -- although it doesn't nessecarily have much to do with the article, our attentions were diverted to that while it was ongoing, but perhaps you missed it because it'd been removed already. --Node 08:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I for one am against removal of "evidence" in talk pages, but anyway - I've written to Mikka about the way he's dealt with the blocking. Ronline 08:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You jump to conclusions, my friend. Two things are absolutely not tolerated in wikipedia: vandalism and badmouthing. Simply waving a finger and saying "baaad boys" didn't work. mikka (t) 16:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You mean, not tolerated, except for User:Node ue? I recall that he did just that two days ago, using Russian slang obscenities towards me (see the archived stuff, for details). However, you did not suspend him. Note that I'm not even discussing vandalism here, and that I did not participate in any of the "heated" posts. User:Dpotop

I am not going to track all infractions thru the history. My goal was to kill current badmouthing, continued after a warning on the talk page. If you have complaints as to behavior of some users, the proper place is WP:RFC/USER. mikka (t) 16:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Hm, that was current, by any measure. Frankly, my feeling was you were applying the rules arbitrarily, if not in a biased way. I hope this will not happen in the future, although it took the intervention of User:Ronline for you to even tell User:Node ue to calm down. Not to mention your complete lack of response to my requests to you, as an administrator. And don't tell me about WP:RFC/USER. You didn't seem to wait for that when blocking other users with bad mouths. Blocking those ones, BTW, is a good thing, but only as long as you are applying the rules in a non-partial way. I consider now the issue closed, but I sincerely hope it won't happen in the future. User:Dpotop

When you get a speed ticket you don't tell the cop that the guy ahead of you drove even faster. And I will tell you about WP:RFC/USER once more: this is the place to resolve disputes. I used my admin's authority here for the sole purpose I've already explained: to kill the flame war. I have better things to do than to chase each and every violator or to talk to each one personally to calm down. "He spat on me first"; man we are not in the kindergarten. I said stop it and I meant it. And this will happen in the future. mikka (t) 17:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems that you try to mix me with the rogues involved in this mess. I find this outrageous. Also, it seems that you now changed your "policy". First, it was "no vandalism and badmouthing". Now, it's "no flame war". So, if I just call several users "koncenii" (or any other non-english obscenity) and remove everybody else's text without explanation, it's OK with you. As long as there is no "flame war", and as long you don't feel like blocking. Cool! Aren't you supposed to be impartial when using admin privileges? Oh, BTW, your protege is continuing using obscenities on the forum. Look at the title of his post of 02:13, 14 November 2005 at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldovan_language&action=history . Why don't you block him? :) User:Dpotop

As for node ue, this is ridiculous to think that I was so frightened by Ronline as to rush and spank node ue. Please look into the most recent history and see that node ue has nothing against most edits of Ronline. In the past he was against his replacement of "de-facto state" with "breakaway entiry". Personally, I think that "entity" is OK. After all, USA was a "breakaway entity" in its time. Nevertheless I can explain why I did this only now. The first thing is to force people to calm down and to return to civilized way of dispute. When people shout, they don't hear each other. mikka (t) 18:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it't a fact that you only told Node to stop only after Ronline frowned at you two. :) User:Dpotop

Note that I didn't say your contributions were not good. After our (civilized) discussion, you certainly did a lot of excelent bibliographic search (starting, probably, at the link I gave you during the discussion), and added a lot of good content on the Russian and Soviet influence. Also, we did reach -- through a lot of negotiation -- a commonly aggreed formulation for some article parts. This is good collaborative work. The problem was that Node fully reverted our changes, and you did nothing to prevent it, which is why I am angry in the first place. User:Dpotop

Now, I shall explain my changes:

• Moldova --> Republic of Moldova in the intro - to disambiguate the fact that Moldovan is a Republic-of-Moldova language rather than a Romanian-region-of-Moldova language

• • That's quite fine.

• de-facto state --> breakaway - Transnistria is a breakaway entity. That's how it's referred to in the media, that's what it is. An entity that has broken away without international recognition from the Republic of Moldova. It must be explained that Transnistria is an illegal entity.

• • I'm not sure why you insist on this, and I find your assertion that it's referred to that way in "the" media quite laughable. Which media? TVR? See de-facto again. "de facto independent" means that, while it may be _illegal_ (your word), it functions in that capacity -- in the case of a "de-facto independent state", this applies to areas that have their own government, and are not under the control of any internationally recognised nation ("legal entity" as you might say), even though they "belong" to a certain country legally (much as Abkhazia "belongs" to Georgia, or the independent parts of Tamil Eelam "belong" to Sri Lanka...

• • • No, not TVR :) But many English sites - [www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/bcr3/bcr3_200411_524_2_eng.txt], [www.calguard.ca.gov/ia/Events/Transdneister%20tensions.htm], [jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/12715.htm], etc. To be honest, this isn't a change I insist upon. I just think that "de facto independent state" implies a sort of acception of the fact that it should be independent, though I admit that breakaway entity is probably POV in the opposite way. Ronline 08:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Inclusion of Historically, Moldovan had always been considered to be an accent or dialect of the Romanian language. It was elevated to the status of a separate language for political reasons, when Moldova became part of the USSR, in order to proclaim a Moldovan identity separate from that of Romania. - This is very relevant because it shows that Moldovan is a language renamed for political reasons, which is very significant and must be placed in the introduction.
  • That's trash, and you should know it. Read the "romanizators and originalists" section -- Moldovan nationalism and cultural sovreignity _predated_ the USSR. Many Bessarabians did not support a union with Romania, and preferred to maintain independence. But, they did not get to choose -- instead, it was chosen by a council which they did not elect. The concept of a "moldovan language" is not centuries-old, but it's certainly not as recent as the beginning of the Soviet era. Most Romanians prefer to think that, and want to say that Moldovans all were "forced" into nationalism by the USSR -- in fact, Moldovan nationalism already existed. Many Moldovan nationalists were actually _deported to gulags_ because the policy at the time was to hope for reunion with Romania, and a policy of merging to Romanian ideas was enforced. This is all documented in the article, and well-referenced. --Node 08:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Look, I don't know if it's trash or not, but I think it's important to mention that the USSR imposed a separate Moldovan identity on the Romanians living in Bessarabia, including by the conversion of the language into Cyrillic and the official proclamation of the Moldovan language as separate (and fundamentally different in terms of language family) from the Romanian language That's a significant change from a grassroots movement that tried to make Moldova separate from Wallachia (rather than the rest of Romania) at a time when the state of Romania was still new. Ronline 08:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
      • This is exactly what was added by me. So please don't jump to conclusions who is against what. I am here onlay against extreme incivility, no matter what the loud-mouthers say. mikka (t) 15:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• "In schools, the language is called Romanian and it is taught with textbooks from Romania. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  "

I have given references above! However, they are in Romanian? Is it really suitable for Wikipedia to give references in Romanian? If yes, then I will insert them.

• • Yes, it is. References in any language are acceptable, though English references are preferred. It also helps to give a translation on the talkpage or something, so that people who don't understand that language may inspect the source (although they still have to trust you to a certain degree). I don't particularly mind since of course I understand what the original said.
    • OK. I've done that. (The translation is a bit irrelevant on the talk page, however) Ronline 08:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• "In the countryside, many people over 30 — especially peasants — are barely literate at all in Latin, and prefer Cyrillic. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› " - you've reverted that, either maliciously or by mistake. But you haven't provided a source next to it. You've given me a link - fine, I've given you a link for the above. Yet, for the "pro-Romanian" statement, you've demanded a source, but when I demanded a source for the "pro-Cyrillic" statement, you reverted that demand. Why are the two cases treated differently? In any case, I've sourced your claims, they are legitimate. Just understand that the statements you tagged with "Citation needed" are also legitimate and have sources.
  • Probably by mistake, though I'm not sure exactly which marks you're talking about.
    • I'm talking about you re-inserting the template that a citation is needed for the textbook statement. There's nothing wrong with that per se - what I didn't like was the fact that you removed, at the same time, my insertion that a citation was needed for the over-30 Cyrillic statement. Anyway, both of those have credible sources now, so that's fixed. Ronline 08:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• UPDATE: I've just read your reply on the textbook issue (it was hard to find...), and I have made my statement more NPOV by saying that some Moldovans learn from Romanian textbooks. There are 4 sources to back this up. The Romanian textbooks can be used to teach Moldovan history up until 1945, when Moldova was either independent or part of Romania (Moldovan history up until 1945 is taught in Romania, with personalities such as Ştefan cel Mare, etc.)

Thanks, Ronline 05:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Yes, but certainly not after 1945. --Node 08:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, solved now :) This is the way disputes should be resolved. (I admit that the extreme-Romanian goon squad is very counterproductive). But, as I said before, it's better to react to extremism with constructive logic rather than extremism (i.e. blocking) Ronline 08:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism to user pages

Some anonymous user is posting a long rant about this page and the revert war to various User Talk pages. I have blocked the IP address from editing temporarily, but I thought I would call attention to the fact that the user isn't making any friends for his argument this way. Much of the rant seems to be addressed at administrator Mikkalai and user Node. If either of these users want to see what was posted, please leave me a message on my talk page and I'll pass it along. If there is in fact a registered user hiding behind an anonymous IP to rant on userpages, such behavior will result in blocking and possible banning from editing Wikipedia. It looks like there is an attempt here to find reasonable consensus. If a user has a major problem with the content of this page that can't be handled here, I recommend requesting a peer review or arbitration. Don't take your case to random admin talk pages. Cheers. 23skidoo 15:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

No wholesale reverts

Node, I noticed that you are reverting the whole contributions of opponents. Please leave usefull parts.mikka (t) 16:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The same concerns Anitts, by the way. Accidentally or not, you reintroduced false information into the language table: SIL: classified as Romanian, while in fact Ethnologue clasified it as a dialect of romanian. mikka (t) 16:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand that was a result of angry reverts. But now, after some heat is gone (I hope), please be more careful in the discussion and discuss disagreed statements one by one, in the talk page, rather that by whole contributions. Also, there is a useful tag, {{dubious}} to be placed at separate dubious statements, instead of tagging the whole article. mikka (t) 16:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Ronline, at this moment IMO it is improper to tag the whole article as totally disputed. The only total dispute is that whether moldovan langauge exists at all, which is clearly a nonsense issue. It does exist officially, not to say that the term is in wide use, hence the article should be here. The second issue of dispute is whether Moldavian is identical to Romanian. This is clearly a local dispute and also it is a matter of linguistic opinion, and I have nothing against of inclusion of this extremalist position, provided that references to reasonably reputable linguists are provided (but not politicians and definitely not blog posts).

therefore I suggest to remove the heavy tag you placed and localize the disputed parts. If someone is against this, please list here the serious objections that invalidate the whole artice, rather than separate issues. mikka (t) 16:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the article back to your page. --Anittas 16:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was not exactly "my" :-) And I did not say that it was a malice from your side. All I was saying to both of you that thoughtless revert war may easily lead to deterioration of the article even in its correct parts. mikka (t) 18:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Romanian as mother language

Guardianul says:

", iar 40 la suta din cetateni au declarat ca "romana este limba lor materna".

This contradicts to what our article says. Please comment. mikka (t) 18:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, where is the link to the census data? I've seen it somewhere here some time ago. mikka (t) 18:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, 40% declared "Romanian language" and 33% declared "Moldovan language", (in all 73%) the rest Russian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Gagauz, etc. I don't see the contradiction. bogdan | ^Talk 18:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Please read the intro of Moldovan language carefully. mikka (t) 19:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh my -- quite true! That means that 33% of all citizens of Rep. Moldova declared "Moldovan", and 40% declared Romanian; that is 73% in total. That means that it's really very far from "1/3rd". Of all people who speak "Limba Noastra", 45.21% claimed "Moldovan", and 54.80% claimed "Romanian". So, really, it's much much closer to half. This makes quite a bit more sense than before, to me. --Node 01:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Speaker count

Somebody made these numbers out of their head, so I removed them, until someone looks into the census (I've seen a reference to it here; no one bothers to restore it)

According to the 2004 Moldovan census, about 1.2 million (roughly 33%) people in Moldova (excluding Transnistria) declared "Moldovan" as their native language, while 2.4 million people said they speak "Romanian".

CIA gives the following numbers: Population of moldova: 3.36 mln, Romanians/moldovans: 65% , i.e., 2.2 mln. (Which contradicts wikipedia; so who is more correct: CIA or wikipedians?)

OK. Here it is for you: 2004 cenus. Do the rest yourself. mikka (t) 01:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

He-he. CIA got it wrong. (or preliminary census data are wrong: 3.39 mln; 76.1 + 2.1 = 78.2% moldovans + romanians.

• Now, where did %% of languages come from? The prelim data tables don't have this info. Were any additional press-releases?
• 33% of "moldovan speakers" (was in this article) + 40% "romanian speakers" (reported by Guardianul) is 73%, off by 5.2% mikka (t) 04:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Current percentages (the ones I added) are derived from ratio of Moldovan speakers to Romanian speakers (as reported by G-ul) -- 33/73 and 40/73, rather than over 100. --Node 08:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I failed to find any language percentages at the Statistica Moldovei. It can be in Moldova în cifre (2005, în limbile moldovenească), but I don't want to spend 102 lei for it. I am retiring from this page. Good luck. mikka (t) 04:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You're retiring from this page? Please, please, no.

I figured why you failed. :D Because on that site it is stated that the language is romanian. On this site one can choose the page translated in 3 languages: as follows: RO - ROMANIAN, EN-ENGLISH, RU-RUSSIAN. You should thank me and now you own me because I didn't let you to say lies.

Please sign your posts. And, try to make a bit more sense -- "now you own me because I didn't let you to say lies"?? --Node 20:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

hora

Since there is a bunch of Romanians here, please help to expand Hora. mikka (t) 19:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Please, don't be rude! Your country has surely some traditions, why you curse on them?

Hora was the unification symbol between Moldova and Tara Romaneasca. Now tell me what is your problem? I wait a serious explanation.

What is your problem? I asked for help with another article. mikka (t) 18:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Moldovan does not exist only in the mind of soviet people

• All this article is wrong from the beginning. Such a thing does not exist. It should be state from the beginning that is a latin, identical with romanian language. Some examples are needed in order to be better understood this thing. I will look for examples. And by the way do you know that these days was formed a political party in Moldova whose first aim reunification of Moldova with Romania?
• Why do you all think that is this happenning? I will try to answear for you: because of the same language, same traditions, same religion, same people. This is one of the most important aspect that must be taken into consideration.
• I don't know if it was ever done this, but I have a suggestion: why not to redirect this direct to romanian?
• The majority of the people recognize that is about romanian the language they speak, then it was allready named as official language but after the Transnistrian war it was blackmaled by the Russia to admit and to change to moldovan.
• I am a professor of romanian language in Chişinău and I can say that we study after the same books from Romania, our writers, poest and so on, were all romanian of course.
• If you think I lie or something I invite you all to my highschool at a romanian teaching hour.

BRAVO! BRAVO!!! --Anittas 19:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but such thing does exist or existed. On the other hand, I seriously doubt that you exist. Therefore important is not what you say, but what is printed in reputable sources. Also the habit of suppressing minorities (i.e., those who don't belong to the "majority of the people recognize that is about romanian the language they speak") is really disturbing. Now, since you are professor, please tell me when Cyrillic alphabet was first used in Moldavia? Our article does not say this. mikka (t) 20:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'm misunderstanding something here: isn't he saying that Moldovan is identical to Romanian? And aren't you supposed to agree with that, Mikka? --Anittas 23:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you do. He is saying "such thing does not exist". This approach is good for a priest, but not for a professor. Let's not go in rounds here. mikka (t) 00:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

SMS/IM revised

In Moldova, various diphthongs and diacritical characters, such as ş and ţ, are replaced by other letters in IM, chat, SMS and other such purposes by young people. In it, "ca", "că", "chi", "cî", "cu", "che", and "co" all use "k" rather than "c" or "ch"; official ţ and ş become "tz" and "sh", respectively, and diacritics are left off of ă and î. This also occurs, to an extent, in the Romanian language.

Node_ue, please explain why this belongs to this article and not to the Romanian alphabet, since it's a common feature.

BTW, why to "to an extent" in Romanian? It's a rather common practice when you have no diacriticals around. We even had three Romanians that had their names with "tz" that edited this talk page: Gutza, Mihaitza and Danutz. (see the archive) :-) bogdan | ^Talk 00:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It's quite obviously more common in Moldova. Despite the huge difference in internet users in Rep. Moldova and Romania, the numbers in usages of these online are not so different. Also, "y" often replaces î in rep moldova, and I don't think this is true in Romynia ;p. --Node 08:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm removing it as original research. bogdan 16:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Why? --Node 20:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Can I be the one to explain on why I think he said that? But only if Mikka promises to look the other way. --Anittas 00:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Daco-Romanian

Please someone write the Daco-Romanian article. Now it is a redirect to Romanians, which is not correct logically. mikka (t) 00:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Moldovenii din Romania

The term "Moldovan" is also used to refer to all Romanian-speakers from the former Principality of Moldavia (including those in Eastern Romania; for those in Moldova, see spoken language below).

Node_ue, what do you think it's wrong with that? [[bogdan | [[User talk:Bogdangiusca|^Talk]]]] 00:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

"Moldovan language" refers to a language, NOT a group of people. If you have a problem with the fact that moldovan redirects here, then edit that article, not this one. --Node 08:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The local variety of the Romanian part of Moldova is also called "Moldoveneşte" (-eşte is a suffix that indicates a language, like in Româneşte, Englezeşte, Ruseşte, etc.), just like other varieties ("graiuri") are Ardeleneşte, Munteneşte, Olteneşte, etc. bogdan 10:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

That information belongs on Moldovan or Moldovan dialect. How many people in Iasi refer to their speech as "limba moldoveneasca"? --Node 20:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Image of Romania and Moldavian ASSR

Romania (which includes most of today's Republic of Moldova) and the Moldavian ASSR (1924-1940), which includes most of today's Transnistria

Node_ue, you removed this image, could you mind telling what's wrong with it? The article discusses about Moldavian ASSR, if you haven't noticed. [[bogdan | [[User talk:Bogdangiusca|^Talk]]]] 00:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The article discusses many other things, as well. This image is not nessecary to illustrate the concepts of the article. We could have a map of the USSR, the Ukrainian SSR, Bessarabia, Romania, also we could have an image illustrating Moldovan alphabet, a person using SMS, and everything else mentioned here. But, it is not illustrative of the article concept itself and just clutters the page. --Node 08:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course, but the "Moldovan language" concept and the Moldovan alphabet were created in the Moldavian ASSR. I don't think it's out of context showing what was the Moldavian ASSR. bogdan 16:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

No -- they were created in Bessarabia. The concept of a Moldovan language existed before the USSR. --Node 20:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

References, please. I know this myself, but I am not adding this because I don't want to do further research on the topic. I also know that cyrillic alphabet was used way before any Russian occupation, but again, this is not my area of expertise. mikka (t) 21:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Not. The Moldovan alphabet was created in the Moldavian ASSR and it is derived from the Russian alphabet, unlike the old Romanian alphabet used in Wallachia and Moldavia until early 1800s. bogdan 22:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

reference: Language Policy in the Soviet Union, by Lenore A Grenoble (2003) ISBN 1402012985 (found with Google print)

Quote: "The Moldavian Autonomous SSR was created in 1924 [...] The politburo [ of Ukraine ] was given charge to develop the national Moldovan language. Quite possible with that goal in mind, the Cyrillic alphabet was introduced for written Romanian in a symbolic gesture distancing this new Moldovan language from Romanian and at least visually bringing it closer to Russian and Ukrainian." [2]

Bogdan, that is not true, as showcased in the article itself. I believe the appropriate reference is Negru E., "Introducerea shi interzicerea grafiei latine in R.A.S.S.M", though I might be wrong. It speaks of Romanizators and Originalists, in a conflict that existed prior to the emergence of the Soviet Union. Also, it should be kept in mind that at the beginning of the Soviet Union, and for many years in the interim, the Latin alphabet was promoted in Moldova because Stalin wanted a future union with Romania. In fact, people who used Cyrillic alphabet were deported, or killed (disappeared mysteriously). It wasn't until later that it was switched to Cyrillic; not nessecarily based entirely on the Russian azbuka but supposedly an overhaul of traditional Romanian cyrillic alphabet. Not sure if that's true, though... --Node

No, I think you did not understood what it was in that reference. Here's a succint timeline: bogdan 23:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

1924: MASSR created and with it the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet was created and became official script.

1933: Switch to the Latin alphabet (the one used in Romania).

1938: MASSR gets back to the Moldovan Cyrillic and all those who implemented the switch to Latin were killed.

1940: MASSR disbanded.

Well, that's the problem with you guys. You are not reading questions carefully and misunderstand each other. I am repeating my phrase "I also know that cyrillic alphabet was used way before any Russian occupation"; and you, bogdan know that too. And I also know the place where Pater Noster in Romanian is written in Cyrillic letters. And that Cyrillic was used until mid-19th century in Moldavia. You are so blindfolded by anti-Sovietism. "Originalists" were not "Russificators"; they claimed return to the ancestry. mikka (t) 00:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The old Romanian Cyrillic alphabet is not same with the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet. The first one was derived from Bulgarian and was created in 14-15th century (for example ă was Ъ) and in the second one was derived from Russian and was created in 1924 (ă was э). bogdan 12:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it was a simplification/overhaul of the previous Cyrillci alphabet. --Node 15:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. They would have kept at least some of its characteristics, but they just wanted an alphabet that is closer to Russian Cyrillic than to Bulgarian Cyrillic: like exchanged Ъ with э, replaced ending "й" with "ь", Ѣ with я, Ѫ with ы, etc. Only the "core" Cyrillic letters are the same. It's not just a "simplification". bogdan 16:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. The reason for that is that such letters were archaic, and not used anywhere anymore. They couldn't be found in most printing presses anymore, for example. So, rather than use the exact same archaic alphabet based on old Bulgarian, they replaced a few of the archaic characters with others. Use of ь instead of й is because they're two different sounds. --Node 03:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Bottom line: no characteristics were kept from the old 'archaic' alphabet. It was simply an adaptation of the 'modern' Russian alphabet, the similarities with the old alphabet are just a, b, g, etc, which are also common to all the Cyrillic alphabets. There are 15 differences in all!

PS. Ъ is still used in Bulgarian to represent the sound ă. bogdan 10:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I second that. In fact, a better map would be that shows all "Moldavias": Principality of Moldavia, Romanian Moldavia, MASSR, Current Moldova & Transnistria, overlayed in one map. mikka (t) 16:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Mikka!

Do you count Moldovan to be a part of Romanian, or not? You keep adding and removing stuff and calling things for false. Can you please make up your mind? Because the Romanian language is composed by all the Romanian so-called dialects, including: Moldavian, Wallachian, and Transylvanian dialects. That's what the Romanian language represents! Do you understand what that means? --Anittas 01:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It does not matter how I count. Officially it is a language, luinguistically it is a dialect. Why is it so difficult to understand that I may be a software engineer and a chess champion at the same time? Things are not black and white. Also there is such thing called "history", which makes other things change. mikka (t) 01:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't call Moldovan a dialect of Romanian for the simple reason that Romanian, as mentioned above, is a language that includes all the "Daco-Romanian" dialects; thus, Moldovan is already included in that definition. You can, however, say Moldavian dialects, Wallachian dialects, Banatian dialects, etc., but that would be to take it too far. --Anittas 01:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

OK in this political struggles it is easy to lose track. I've already replaced the word "dialect" by "variety" in order not to go into complex explanations in the intro, but it got reverted. Historically there was an attmpt to create a new language based on some local dialects. The attempt failed. Today there is a strong drive to revert that process. What's the problem? mikka (t) 02:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Uhh... please see language. There is no way to discern a dialect from a language. Aromanian is considered a dialect by some and a language by others; some consider Bosnian a dialect of Croatian or Serbian, while others consider it a language. By most measures, Bosnian is about as differentl from Croatian, as Moldovan is from Romanian (in spoken forms) -- realistically, there are more phonetic differences in Mo-Ro actually. If you include high procentage of loanwords, it's more difference still. --Node 08:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I know that. But you are putting this in a simplistic way. See language yourself and also read some other books. There are many things where it is impossible to draw a strict boundary. What is the difference between river and creek? between hillock, hill and mountain? and so on. This does mean that, e.g., a hill and a mountain is one and the same thing: something that sticks high above. And this does mean that in some cases it is only a matter of convention to call a certain heap of dirt and rock a "hillock", a "hill", or "mount". Not all people agree with certain conventions.

That's why the NPOV policy of wikipedia to treat such murky cases is to describe all representative and well-documented opinions with attribution which kind of people has this opinion, rather than to revert flip-flop. mikka (t) 18:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting web site

Here is a very interesting web site, dealing with exactly the same problems as this page. After the quarrels of the last days I recalled it exists: http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/europe/moldavie.htm The data is not completely accurate (probably added from different sources), but the text is quite complete and the links interesting. User:Dpotop

Uhh... it doesn't deal with those problems. It just states one of the two usual quotes, that Moldovan = Romanian. The other usual quote is that Moldovan is not the same as Romanian, as either a dialect or a separate language. --Node

My coming to this page

Hello to everyone – I came here in response to some messages posted/pasted on my user page. Frankly speaking, right now I do not have very deep idea about the exact nature of the issues. However, I would surely try to study the matter, and if possible would offer my comments. --Bhadani 15:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

What I've learned from Administrator Bhadani

Administrator Bhadani has a good heart. With his permission I will try to cite him. His all text can be found on his talk page. I think we need here another approach and another administrator. No offense for anybody, but in the moment when you are not dealing properly you should go and find something else where you can give the best. Look the way he is dealing with users, it is a good examples for everybody:

"My dear friends,...., I apologize for responding late. Actually, in my opinion, the issue was to a great extent about .... and I am sure all are welcome to make edits even anonymously. It is a different matter that making edits with a user name is more helpful. And, I have a suggestion too: we all must refrain from personal slurs and never use of derogatory words about others – in real life as well as in digital life. And, yes I do agree that all edits must be taken in totality. However, we are here to build an encyclopedia, and not a record of personal opinions. If we work together, we shall accomplish more – the spirit of wikipedia is surely the team spirit, and we all must remember that, and abide by the simplest rules of civil behavior. Further, I am sure that wikipedia is an interesting place to work together, and one should never go away with disgust. Life is a flow, and we must learn to flow with it, not drift like dead wood. I may be philosophical, but I am telling from my experience. One thing more, wikipedia is wikipedia not on account of admisnistrator-editors, but thousands of other editors like Gurubrahma, and several others who make it a point to keep a vigil on the contents – it is not policing, it is simply endeavoring to protect the credibility of wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Now, cheers, let us come closer to contribute to the best of our knowledge and abilities. --Bhadani 13:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC) "

Very nice isn't it?

It may not be directly connected with the page in case, but I doubt if not this is splendid example of the things were to go. Time will prove the direction...

MANIFEST

People have died for having the right to say the truth. Remember the black and evil years of communism in all the Europe not only in Moldova.

People were send to jail.

People were said that they don't have brothers.

People were said that they don't have sisters and mothers.

People have sacrificed all for ideas.

People have been killed for thier ethnicity.

People were killed for their language.

People were slaughtered for their beliefs

People were forced to russification

People were tortured and frighten to death

People were manipulated.

People became slaves.

But they didn't gave up!

They kept fighting. Blood does not disappear.

1. "Moldovan language" does not exist - it is romanian

2. There are two Romania like (DDR& West Germany) or (Korea& P.R. of N. Korea) with the same people and language

Enemy is among us. We know it and we feel it. They try to say that we are different. That we speak another language. They try to take our history. And to forget our brothers and sisters. That we should obey them. That we are slaves. Their slaves. Oh GOD no! This will not happen. Because there allways be one among us who will rise and stop them! There allways be one of us who will say: THIS IS A LIE! My parents have died for this, my ancestors have been murdered by the enemy. The fight is not easy and short! We have to be united, good prepared, because the enemy is among us.

Don't worry they cannot fight forever, they will not win.

The truth will allways win!

Blocked

user:205.241.33.10 blocked for vandalism of article: removal the whole section. mikka (t) 18:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you block the greatest vandal of them all? I won't mention his cursed name. We all know who it is. --Anittas 21:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

What, you mean Willy on Wheels? I think he was permanently blocked a long time ago. --Node

Basarabia will reunite with Romania

Many analyst believe that Republic of Moldova will reunite with Romania, in less than 15 years, while Transnistria goes to either Ukraine or Russia. I keep hearing that Russia wants the same, since they want Transnistria. They have sent delegates that have expressed similar ideas. RoM doesn't have the resources to function as a country combined with the Romanians there regaining their lost national identity; plus that Romania will be in the EU and richer -- the union will be enviable. Enemies to the Romanian state and her people should look out! ;) --Anittas 01:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I think Moldova will probably become more Romanian in identity, especially once the Communists are voted out, but in terms of it actually uniting with Romania, I don't know the probability of that. Firstly, Moldovans are Romanians russified to an extent, and I think union with Romania may cause ethnic instability, not to mention that Romania would have to carry over all of Moldova's significant economic and political problems. If Moldova's 3.5 million people join Romania, that will be an extra 16% of population, which can have a significant effect on Romania's political and economic stability. For that reason, I think Moldovan union with Romania is worse for Romania than for Moldova. Ronline 04:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't care what the cost will be. Fraternity is more important than money. Obviously, you're not Moldavian. I'm thinking that you're Wallachian. You always prioritate money first. Well, if you want Moldavia, you will have to have it all. Afterall, we created Romania. Things are going well for Bucharest, but none of that would have been accomplished without our union. And didn't Basescu say that Republic of Moldova will probably unite with Romania in 10-years time? --Anittas 05:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, the problem is probably more complex than both Anittas and Ronline would have it. It's not just a Moldovan and Romanian problem (economic, national, and other), but also an European and international problem. I will comment a bit the different aspects:

* For me, it is obvious that Romania is now in the process of redefining its identity. The classical national model does not function any more, the game being mostly driven by economic interests. The problem is that the switch to the new model is not fully completed in Central and Eastern Europe, so that attention needs to be given to these "national" aspects. I am thinking here at all the dubious unspoken quarrels between Romanian nationalists and their Hungarian, Ukrainean, or Bulgarian counterparts. I am also thinking at the "regional fierties" ("Ardeleanul e mai destept/curat/muncitor decat Moldoveanul", "Bucurestenii sunt hoti/tigani", "Banatul e fruntea" etc.). All these subjects re-surface regularly in these last stages of transformation, and can be easily exploited by populist and nationalist politics (e.g. Romania Mare, UDMR, etc). What is funny is that such themes are mostly exploited to economic ends.

* Under these conditions, talking about "Unification" is irrelevant. Instead, "nationalists" should talk about "economic integration" and "social integration". Social integration is under way. Just look at the number of Moldovans in Romania, at the number of Moldovans having Romanian citizenship, a.s.o.

* Economic integration is the real problem. And here we get into the game of the big powers (EU, Russia, and the US), which can easily tip the balance in either way. And there is a single, simple measure for "tipping the balance", which is EU integration. If both Moldova and Romania integrate into the EU, then unification becomes irrelevant. If not, Moldovan and Romanian social and economic structures will diverge even more.

* Just a small remark to Anittas: For Moldova, giving away Transnistria is not so simple. Much of the Moldovan industry has been concentrated there, and the political power is also highly linked to Transnistria, given that most of the soviet leaders of the RSSM, and much of the soviet bureaucrats were from the (safer) Transnistria. This is why splitting the two entities is a very long and painful process. In addition, Moldovans already gave up so much. Northern Bukovine, Southern Bessarabia, and the access to the Black Sea are irremediably lost. User:Dpotop

Hold on. Romania was the one to lose Northern Bukovine and Southern Bessarabia - not those Moldovans across the Prut. And that's why I want us to reunite: we've already lost too much. If Russia wants a reunion, then a reunion can happen - and it is in their interest to have a reunion, for then they gain Transnistria, while Russian businessmen gain access to the EU market - plus that Russia will have a strategic point like the one in the Baltics, where they border both the EU and NATO. --Anittas 16:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow... you're surprising me with your endless... knowledge. 1) AFAIK Ronline is from Ardeal region. 2) It seems unlikely to me that Rep. Moldova would unite with Romania. It's very impractical -- economic woes of RM are at the forefront, then there are the political differences between the two. Current Moldovan parliament would overturn any such attempt. Now, what %age of Moldovans do you think will go for such a move? I mean all Moldovan citizens here, even whose parents are from Moskva or Kyiv. Remember that just 73% of Moldovan citizens are "Moldovan-Moldovans". The remaining would almost certainly oppose such a move. It would cause ethnic rioting and regional instability. The whole reason for Transnistria issue is because Russian and Ukrainian there feared a union with Romania would happen soon, so they split away. That has already caused so much trouble... it would cause tons more if there were a serious attempt at uniting the two nations. And what about the remaining 73%? Idealism and insanity aside, it is quite likely that many of these people do not want union with Romania, despite "fraternity". Now, you said "enemies to the romanian state and her people should look out". That makes it seem to ME that you believe that once Greater Romania is achieved, all of a sudden her army will send out assassins to kill all so-called "enemies". That would cause international outcry, and likely military action against Romania. Now, you seem idealistic and perhaps think Romania would win in a war against all other nations. But let me tell you, although Romania can dominate some nations, there are huge ones such as Russia and US that she still can't take on. If you think I'm an enemy of Romanian ppl, and that assassins will come kill me, perhaps you should remember that I am born in the US and a citizen here. So, if Romanian military kills me, and other ppl worldwide, a military retaliation or backlash of popular opinion is inevitable.

Besides, what on earth does any of this shit have to do with the discussion here? --Node 07:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Node, this is my first reply to you. You sweared at me in the past, but I tried to ignore you. You use a dirty language and are probably the cause of all the recent problems of this page. And now, you wold like to shut everybody up on a talk (discussion) page? Why the hell don't you mind your own business as a contributor, if you don't feel like contributing in a constructive way? We are not here for you to throw your teenager anger at. You know, there are people here that genuinly want to write an encyclopedia online. Instead, it seems to me that you behave more like the bullying boy on the playground. Maybe you are the living proof that wikipedia cannot work in the long run, not for relatively unimportant and disputed subjects where only few admins are around. User:Dpotop

I do think Moldova and Romania will be one country in the future. But the first step will be EU integration. Something like the Greek Cyprus or/and East Germany with Germany. Romania will join EU at 1 st January 2007 and probably Moldova in 2013 once with Macedonia and Serbia.

By the way you shouldn't even look at Mark Williamson, he's a kid. He is still "entitiy made of pure energy" that's why he can course everybody and he will not be punnished, or maybe he touched Mr. Mikka...

Better ignore him, he will shut up his mouth soon.

Node, can you read? I was guessing what he was by saying "I'm thinking...". And who cares of the remaining people? The majority rule in a democracy. If Russians and Jews don't like the idea, they can leave our land. It's that simple. No one is forcing you to live on our soil! Oh, and your country, Israel, is killing children and other civilians, and what does USA do? They just give you more money. Don't worry, Node, I don't want to committ genocide on anyone. But if we take a certain person out, no one will go against us. ;) --Anittas 16:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you read? I spoke of ethnic instability. Regardless of it being a democracy, this is still a probability in such a situation. Such a large portion of the population means that if Moldova were to unite with Romania, riots would be likely in major cities like Chisinau and Tighina. As regards Israel, it's not "my country". I am staunchly anti-Israel. Israel's history and human rights record are absolutely abominable and I do not support it. Also, you're coming very close to threatening me with bodily harm, something you should avoid on WP. --Node 19:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

How many of you speak (or even understand) Romanian and/or Moldovan?

I see on this page lots of very established oppinions about Romanian, Moldovan, a.s.o. I am just curious, how many of you actually speak (or understand) this language? Please, detail what you mean by "understand/speak/write" and "not understand...". For instance, I know both. I am native Romanian, and I can speak Moldovan, as well as read and write it in both Latin an Cyrillic script. What I mean by "read and write" is that I easily read Moldovan (I even read some Moldovan history books from before 1989 in the original cyrillic), and that I can also write in cyrillic (easily on a computer, less easily in hand writing, for I have not practiced a lot). By "speak" I mean that I have been to Chisinau and had no problems of communication. I also have relatives there, and never had any problems communicating with them. I also had Moldovan colleagues during university, and no problems either. The accent is different from that of Bucharest, but not much different than that of Iasi. User:Dpotop

I agree and find your request very good. But I also belive that Mark Williamson does not and will not speak romanian ever. He is too young, only 16 he is not yet a man. He is a kid for the moment. About Mr. Mikka he is russian and he doesn't speak a latin language yet. But coming to your question which I personally find very pertinent I speak romanian and I say it is identical with the one spoken in Moldova.

Each person willing to take place in this poll should only speak for his/herself. User:Dpotop

I'm a native Romanian from the Botosani county. I don't understand Cyrilic, nor do I want to. I speak with a slight Moldavian accent, but I disagree that our accent is not much different from those across the Prut. Those across the Prut are exagerating in their speech. There's too much Russian influence there, when there shouldn't be. --Anittas 16:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm American but engaged to a Moldovan. I've spoken Romanian in my home for the past three years. I also speak German and French. I am currently conducting research into the development of multicultural literature (or in the case of Cernăuţi the 'deëvolution' thereof) in Bessarabia and Bukovina. I can read Cyrillic and understand and speak enough Russian to get by when the Maxi-taxi driver is a soi-disant Russian.

There are no dialects of Romanian that I know of, but rather accents. A dialect is distinguishable from an accent by changes in the pronunciation value of vowels and can be defined as a different language when many of the consonants change. What you have in Republica Moldova at the moment is a pastiche of Romanian and Russian argot. I reject the assertion that ,,Moldovan Romanian" is somehow a separate language from that which is spoken in Romania. I have many friends here at my university who are from Iaşi and the surrounding area. Their accent is identical to that of my fiancée (who by the way doesn't use Russian words with Romanian). I might add that all references to "Rumanian" or "Moldavian" are European or Russian changes to the accepted spelling and pronunciation: "Romanian" and "Moldovan." The same goes for French: (old)la Moldavie/(new)la Moldova and German: (old)Moldawien/(new)Moldau. --Vkxmai 23:32, 16 November 2005 (GMT -5:00)

"A pastiche of Romanian and Russian argot"... this reminds me of arguments people used to use against Tok Pisin, saying "It's just bad English...", or with Haitian Creole that "they're just speaking broken French...", or for Metis "well it's just an unsophisticated pastiche of Cree and French...", whereas they have been evaluated as languages once people undertook more serious research about them. There are certain rules to "moldavskii limba". You can't just mix any Russian words with any Romanian words. Consonants do change in Rep Moldova from in Bucureshti. Obviously most of these are shared with neighbouring area of Romania, but does that means that there is separate language in Romania too? You said it means a separate language if many consonants change... well many consonants do change between Wallachian and Moldavian speeches. But I don't assert that the speech of Iashi and the speech of Bucureshti should be considered different languages because they are perfectly mutually intelligible. However "moldavskii limba", what you like to call a pastiche, is not intelligible to a Muscovian nor to a man from Iashi. When I said "tu eshti koncenii" to Dpotop, he was just confused until he looked up what "konchenij" means in Russian. But he was offended then, which is funny, because given the nature of language use in Moldova, "koncenii" has a much lighter meaning than in someplace Russia. The popular speech of urban and suburban (but certainly not rural) Moldova is the Moldovan equivalent to Trasianka and Surzhyk in Belarus and the Ukraine. Neither have been able to entirely escape the linguistic influences of Russian, and the same is certainly true in Moldova. If you go in Chisinau or Tighina (or Bender as young people call it -- yes, it's a Russian name, but that doesn't stop ppl from using it even speaking Romanian/Moldovan), you will meet lots of ppl who speak mostly just Russian, and you will see lots of ssigns which are in Russian and Moldovan together. Current intellectual situation in Moldova means that so far, there has been little formal study of the new speech variety which has formed from contact with Russia. The same is certainly true with Belarus and Ukraine, most intellectuals scoff at these speeches and studying them is largely taboo. Most webpages on them are written by non-linguists, and most of the little literature that is available is written by foreigners. In Moldova, it's used in the underground music scene in Chisinau, although using normal Russian is also common; in Belarus and Ukraine they use their mixed speeches in comedy and humour mostly. Now, I do not argue that the official langauage of Moldova and that of Romania are almost identical (in Moldova, technical terms are often calqued from Russian and would be confusing to Romanians), this is certain. But, I do think that in Moldova, the official language is an artificial foreign import based mostly on Wallachian forms, and ignoring the linguistic character of Moldova. Also, ppl like Anittas and Bogdan seem to want to pretend that "moldavskii limba" (or just "moldoveneshte", or "moldorusski" sometimes) just doesn't exist, and hide it completely from this page. If I said something in that, chances are Anittas would not know what it meant, despite his claims that it's just the identical to Romanian. --Node 15:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I find it quite interesting that you made such edits to the article. Some of them defy logic. There are minor vocabularic differences between the dialects of Ardeal, Wallachia, Moldavia, Maramuresh, etc., also some differences in other areas (for example some area might say "eu is foarte" in a dialectal way). Your assertion that Romanian has no dialects, nor is a dialect continuum, is entirely wrong and you have shown no reason why anybody should believe you. --Node 03:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Prime Ministers of Romania and MOLDOVA Declaration about Moldovan (Romanian) language

This statement was made today, 16. November 2005.

This is an official act between two independent countries.

It may be found on the offical site of Romanian Guvernment. See link:

http://www.guv.ro/presa/afis-doc.php?idpresa=43047&idrubricapresa=2&idrubricaprimm=&idtema=&tip=&pag=&dr=

Declaration was done by Prime Minister of Romania, Calin-Popescu Tariceanu and Prime Minister of Republic of Moldova Vasile Tarlev:

Prime Minister of Romania:

"Dl. Călin Popescu-Tăriceanu

Astăzi este un moment deosebit pentru că ne întâlnim cu fraţii noştri moldoveni, cu care împărtăşim nu numai limba comună dar şi istoria şi tradiţiile comune. Începând din perioada de după ‘90 avem aspiraţii comune, legate de integrarea europeană. Este unul din subiectele pe care le-am discutat cel mai mult, atât în întâlnirea privată pe care am avut-o la început, cât şi în întâlnirea oficială dintre delegaţiile celor două Guverne.

Translation in english for those who dissaprove that is about one language:

(Today is a great moment because we met with our brothers moldavians, with them we share not only the same language but also the history and same traditions)....

România are totală disponibilitate în a acorda sprijinul său Republicii Moldova, în a împărtăşi experienţa sa ca viitoare ţară membră a UE către Republica Moldova. I-am propus, de altfel, domnului Prim-ministru Vasile Tarlev ca un grup de specialişti care lucrează în momentul de faţă în arhitectura instituţională de integrare europeană din România să înceapă să lucreze cu colegii noştri moldoveni pe proiectul de integrare europeană, acesta fiind cel mai concret sprijin pe care îl putem da pentru obiectivul de integrare europeană al Republicii Moldova. I-am explicat Primului-ministru Tarlev cum funcţionează la noi această arhitectură instituţională, care este bazată pe câteva coordonate esenţiale: Ministerul Integrării Europene, Secretariatul Permanent al Afacerilor Europene, care lucrează pe lângă Cabinetul Primului-ministru, modul în care realizăm monitorizarea, evaluarea acţiunilor de integrare europeană. Pe baza experienţei noastre, sunt convins că vom putea da un ajutor substanţial Republicii Moldova. Am dat, de asemenea, un răspuns pozitiv şi cererii părţii moldovene de a furniza toate documentele care deja fac parte din aquis-ul comunitar şi de care au nevoie pentru a-şi accelera procesul de asimilare a aquis-ului european.

Am discutat despre o serie de proiecte comune în domeniul economic. Proiectele cu cea mai mare semnificaţie în momentul de faţă sunt cele legate de infrastructura energetică, interconectarea reţelelor de distribuţie a energiei electrică, astfel încât România să poată furniza energie Republicii Moldova, în caz de nevoie. Iar după cum am văzut în ultimi ani şi anul trecut, Republica Moldova a avut nevoie de energia furnizată de România. Avem interesul să interconectăm aceste reţele care să poată funcţiona şi să transporte cantităţile de energie necesare. De asemenea, am discutat despre conducta de gaze care ar urma să permită României să se aprovizioneze cu cantităţi suplimentare de gaz din Federaţia Rusă. Toate aceste proiecte vor fi supuse aprobării pentru obţinerea finanţărilor europene, în cadrul proiectelor de cooperare transfrontalieră. Probabil chiar astăzi, la prânz, vom semna o scrisoare comună adresată Comisiei Europene prin care vom cere finanţare pe aceste proiecte, care vor avea, dincolo de componenta strict economică, menirea să consolideze securitatea şi stabilitatea în zonă prin îmbunătăţirea cooperării dintre ţările noastre.

translation: (Romania can give electricity for Moldova in case of need)- (short commentary: this came because of the BLACKMAIL of Russia in the case of TRANSNISTRIA negotiatons, Russia said they will stop giving electricity if USA, EU and Romania will join the negotiatons concerning the future of the "frozen conflict region" known also as Transnistria)

Am discutat şi despre alte proiecte comune. Ne-am declarat disponibilitatea de a continua schimburile economice şi de a întări pe viitor, la nivelul schimburilor din domeniul educaţiei, relaţiile care există între cele două ţări. Avem toată disponibilitatea de a primi în continuare elevi şi studenţi din Republica Moldova la studii în România. În acest sens, va trebui să reluăm protocolul de colaborare care a funcţionat până în anul 2001.

Am discutat, de asemenea, despre un alt punct foarte important pe agenda relaţiilor bilaterale, dar şi din perspectiva europeană: acela al necesităţii întăririi securităţii frontierelor, al prevenirii traficului de droguri, traficului de carne vie, a prevenirii reţelelor de crimă organizată.

În ceea ce înseamnă domeniul vizelor lucrurile sunt foarte clare. Având în vedere perspectiva integrării României în UE, noi vom fi obligaţi să introducem vize pentru cetăţenii ţărilor din spaţiul extracomunitar, deci implicit şi pentru cetăţenii Republicii Moldova, dar vom întreprinde toate demersurile în aşa fel încât formalităţile să fie mult simplificate şi acest regim de vize să nu constituie o piedică în calea relaţiilor pe care noi le avem cu Republica Moldova sau o piedică pentru cetăţenii moldoveni de a veni în România pentru schimburi comerciale sau pentru scopuri turistice.

Astăzi, întâlnirea s-a desfăşurat într-o atmosferă extrem de caldă şi de prietenească şi acest lucru va continua cu ocazia dejunului de lucru care îl voi oferi în cinstea Primului-ministru al Republicii Moldova. Mă bucur că relaţiile noastre cunosc în momentul de faţă o tendinţă ascendentă. România este în continuare preocupată de problemele cu care Republica Moldova se confruntă, cu problemele economice, plan în care considerăm că este datoria noastră ca fraţi să le dăm o mână de ajutor. Problema transnistreană este una care preocupă în mod deosebit atât România cât şi întreaga comunitate europeană. Noi plecăm de la premisa că soluţionarea problemei transnistrene trebuie să aibă ca punct de plecare principiul respectării suveranităţii şi integrităţii teritoriale a Republicii Moldova. Aceasta va fi poziţia noastră, care este în concordanţă cu interesele Republicii Moldova.

Translation: (we consider as our duty as brothers to give them help), This will be our position, in accordance with the intereste of Moldova.

Sunt convins că prin eforturile comune se va putea ajunge cât mai curând la o soluţionare pozitivă, menită să rezolve acest conflict îngheţat care este un element de preocupare deosebită pe agenda politicii externe a Republicii Moldova, a Ucrainei, a Federaţiei Ruse dar şi a României şi a UE.

(I am convinced that by our efforts it will soon get to a pozitive solution, ment to solve this frozen conflict, which is an element of concern on the extern political agenda of Moldova, Ukraine, Russia but also on Romania's and EU )

Domnule Prim-ministru, vă urez în continuare o şedere cât mai plăcută, cu toate că este foarte scurtă şi aştept să ne revedem cât mai curând.

Am să vă propun, de altfel, să vin cu atât cu o delegaţie politică cât şi cu una economică la Chişină, în prima parte a anului viitor, prilej cu care vom putea să avansăm noi proiecte comune în beneficiul celor două ţări şi popoare."

Prime Minister of MOLDOVA, Vasile Tarlev

Dl. Vasile Tarlev

Doamnelor şi domnilor, stimaţi prieteni,

Mai întâi de toate aş dori să mulţumesc domnului Prim-ministru Călin Popescu-Tăriceanu pentru invitaţia de face această vizită oficială la Bucureşti, în România.

Deoarece Primul-ministru al României a reflectat majoritatea problemelor discutate, doresc să confirm că am avut o discuţie extrem de prietenească sinceră, pragmatică, atât la nivel politic, economic, atât la nivel bilateral, cât şi regional şi internaţional.

În acest moment apreciem pozitiv dialogul politic şi dinamica dezvoltării relaţiilor bilaterale între Moldova şi România. Aş dori să confirm că avem scopuri comune, avem aspiraţii comune: este vorba de integrarea în UE. Cu regret, Moldova la acest capitol are mai multe restanţe decât România. Ne-am dori foarte mult să păşim împreună în 2007 în UE, însă Moldova mai are multe de făcut. Suntem nespus de bucuroşi şi doresc astăzi să mulţumesc conducerii României, în special domnului Prim-ministru, pentru susţinerea din partea României pentru Moldova în vederea implementării standardelor, deja europene, existente şi implementate în România.

(we wish to join together in 2007 in EU but Moldova has still a lot to work)

Noi vom depune toate eforturile ca acest proces de extindere a hotarelor UE cât mai curând posibil să fie continuat după hotarele Moldovei.

De asemenea, am discutat despre problema transnistreană. Aceasta este un pericol atât pentru Republica Moldova cât şi pentru UE şi pentru toată lumea şi doresc să mulţumesc părţii române pentru poziţia constructivă. Sperăm că această poziţie de susţinere în soluţionarea problemei transnistrene pe cale paşnică se va menţine şi pe viitor, atât în cadrul OSCE, cât şi în cadrul UE. Sperăm că acele decizii deja adoptate la acest capitol, inclusiv introducerea începând cu 1 decembrie a unui contingent din partea UE pentru securizarea şi monitorizarea hotarului moldo-ucrainean, inclusiv în segmentul transnistrean, va stopa traficul de fiinţe umane, droguri, contrabandă cu armanent, mărfuri şi evident că va impulsiona procesul de soluţionare a problemei transnistrene.

Am avut discuţii lărgite pe capitolul economic. Dacă în domeniul politic deja avem o experienţă şi rezultate extraordinar de bune, la capitolul economie, cu toate că s-a înregistrat o creştere în primele nouă luni de zile ale acestui an, s-a înregistrat o creştere de aproape 40% a rapoartelor comercial-economice între Moldova şi România. Este însă un enorm potenţial nevalorificat. Iar Republica Moldova oferă posibilităţi şi susţine intensificarea acestor relaţii. Comunitatea oamenilor de afaceri consideră că este necesară impulsionarea relaţiilor bilaterale şi Guvernul Moldovei are disponibilitatea să creeze condiţii necesare.

Doresc să mulţumesc părţii române pentru susţinerea implementării unor proiecte comune, atât în domeniul energetic, al infrastructurii şi pentru impulsionarea colaborării în cadrul celor trei euroregiuni. Sunt recunoscător pentru demersul privind semnarea acestei scrisori comune de cei doi Prim-miniştri adresată Comisiei Europene pentru finanţarea construcţiei liniei electrice la Bălţi şi Fălciu Goteşti, care va spori eficacitatea sistemelor noastre energetice moldo-române. La acest capitol mai putem menţiona construcţia gazoductului Drogea Ungheni - Iaşi şi implementarea proiectului de electrificare a căi ferate Iaşi - Tighina.

Consider că întrevederea de astăzi va impulsiona relaţiile bilaterale şi suntem ferm convinşi, după confirmarea venită din partea Primului-ministru al României, că odată cu ajustarea şi implementarea standardului european, introducerea sistemelor de vize nu va fi politizată şi nu va crea noi bariere birocratice în relaţiile dintre cetăţenii noştri, ci va fi implementată cu chibzuinţă şi eficacitate majoră.

Totodată, folosindu-mă de această ocazie, aş dori oficial să confirm invitaţia mea adresată domnului Primului-ministru al României Călin Popescu-Tăriceanu de a efectua o vizită oficială în Moldova într-un timp convenabil posibil pentru domnia sa şi pentru delegaţia română.

Domnule Prim-ministru, doresc să vă mulţumesc dumneavoastră, colegilor noştri din Guvernul României şi întregii ţări pentru ospitalitate, pentru acea binecuvântare, pentru acea susţinere pe care noi o înregistrăm pe parcursul acestei vizite şi nu numai.

Sperăm să ne revedem cât mai curând la Chişinău.

What does that have to do with this page? You're littering up the talkpage. That was extraordinarily long. According to Dpotop I don't know Romanian, but that's not true, because I understand these two letters. They're intresting. But they don't belong here. --Node 18:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It said here thatour brothers moldavians, with them we share not only the same language but also the history and same traditions), statement of the Prime-Minister of Romania. And belongs here because here it is argued that there are not identical. Are you Mark W. going to send the Prime-Minister a letter of your stupid beliefs? Are you ready to confront the Prime-Minister of Romania? Do you want an official letter from the Government? Are you so sure that are not identical? Have you really read the statements above? Are you sure you are not totaly wrong? Are you not going too far with this? How far in your lie are you willing to go?

Dialect of Romanian Language

I am Moldavian from Tighina i do speak Romanian but i practically never used it in my native town, only in rural arias i did speak Romanian, all other times i spoke Russian. There is no such thing as “Moldavian language”. “Moldavian language” is a term wich was invented by Russian in Period of russification of Moldova. After occupation Russians divide Romanian nation on Moldavians (Romans who live in Moldova) and Romanians (all others) there was huge Anti-Romanian discrimination against Moldavians (at that time Romanians) who declared themselves to be Romanians or they language was Romanians instead of widely adopted communist policy as Moldavian Nation- Moldavian Language.

“Moldavian Language” use the same words and the same pronunciation as in Rumanian, it sound identical but in “Moldavian Language” there are few more Russian adopted words but is not enough of them to declare it a separate Language. Russian adopted words are not used in official language only in a slang or “jargon” to make it sound cool. That practice happens only in urban areas in rural arias they still use old fashion Romanian (maybe plus some Russian technical words) example:
поезд (ru: Poezd) instead of tren(ro) (English: train) but again it doesn’t have any patterns sometime the same person choose to say poezd sometime the same person choose to say tren it is not regulated it is depends on the mood and again it will be a slang!!! For each adopted Russian word there is easily available Romanian one. Speaker choice to make substitution depends on there mood, sometime Romanian word will sound cooler some time Russian word will sound better. It is a dialect but is not a language!!
More examples:

Germany and Austria – language German

Argentina and Mexico- language Spanish

Moldova and Romania- Language Romanian

Are you with me now?

Conclusion: “Moldavian Language” is a phrase to describe a dialect of Romanian Language.
EvilAlex 16:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

...And also declared state language of Moldova. Anyway, you are fighting with windmills. The main dispute is against extremists that deny the existence of this article. Please read this discussion in your free time. In may places in the world the distinction betwenn langaue and dialect is purely political, Even if tomorrow Voronin declares State language Romanian, this article will change just a tiny bit: instead of "is the official languiage of Moldova" it will say "was the official language of Moldova". If you think that any particular sentences in the article are false, let us discuss. mikka (t) 17:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Excelent argument! Alex has the most right to judge this and to give an opinion. He said the real truth about the identity of between them. I agree with him when he said that Moldavian is carbon copy of Romanian. You may call it as you wish as long as it is recognized that they are identical. Go away russians from here! Go home!

Dear Mikkalai the phrase “carbon copy” is widely used in civilized world to highlight striking similarity between two or more things. IT IS NOT A SLANG!!! Have a look at the dictionary: “A person or thing that closely resembles another.” [[3]]
This phrase will give readers full understanding of the issue of “Moldavian language”. Have you ever asked yourself a question why 53% of Moldavian citizen call they language Romanian!??? I will be changing this back until you give me a more valuable argument for removing it!!! EvilAlex 22:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with EvilAlex he made this point very clear, and I fully agree with his point of view. We should let like this.

I agree with the use of this term. It describes very accurately the relation between the two languages. --Anittas 22:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

the most accurate for is "almost identical". "Carbon copy" is a figure of speech, a metaphor, good in informal speech, but not in an exact text. NOt to say that it may be misunderstood, as I explained below. mikka (t) 02:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem with this article that it dose mislead readers with the false understanding of word “language”, we should make clear at the beginning of this article that: “Moldavian language” is a copy of Romanian there are only one language Romanian with two different names due to political goals, we should make sure that reader understand this vital fact from the beginning!!!
“almost identical” is not good enough- sound like tow different languages :((
In its official form “Moldavian Language” identically copy gamma, words and the pronunciation of Romanian language. There Grammas books are printed and imported from Romania. Think again!?!?! There should definitely be a word copy-> “Carbon copy” is the best way to describe it.
If I will follow your twisted logic then any word can be figure of speech or a metaphor. It is a purely political decision and it depends on what side you are!!!
EvilAlex 14:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

"Moldavian" is carbon copy of Romanian

Very good arguments on this page were added recently.

1. The first one is the statement of the Prime-Minister of Romania in the today meeting with the Prime-Minister of Moldova. Romanian Prime-Minister said that "we have the same language, history and traditions".

(For the russians this is a kick directly in the nose (or node)! 'cause they don't accept this thing)

2. The comparasion given by Alex: indeed "Moldavian" is carbon copy of Romanian and I am supporting this argument.

Expresions like "carbon copy" do not suit encyclopedia. Not to say that it is false: carbon copy is not identical with the original; I don't think that you wanted to say that Moldovans speak inferior version of Romanian mikka (t) 22:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Mikka you lie. It is very good to use the expression "carbon copy" because it is correct!

  Moldavian is 100% Romanian, and please will you stop reverting the edits? You are annoying everybody! If you have an issue start an RfC, otherwise keep it for yourself!

Romania, Moldova, romansimul, moldovenismul

These are some issues that must be taken into account.

Romania a big, latin country will be the 7th in EU after joining in 2007. NATO member.

Moldova, after will solve the conflict in Transnistria will have to choose between (Romania - EU) and the cold winter of Russia.

Romanismul is growing everyday in Moldova, by TV, Newspapers, Internet...In Moldova the removing of russian elements from the language is in the process. After 45 years of communism Moldova survived by with great loses. Many people with education have been killed or transfered to Siberia. Even in Kazachstan there are a lot of romanians (5%).

Moldovenismul has no chance, Romania's influence is becoming stronger and stronger. Such thing cannot be stopped.

This is not chat board

Accoroding to wikipedia rules of article talk pages, I will remove all future political rant that does not discuss the improvement of the article. What remains here clearly shows the attitudes, and any more of that will be waste of time of editors who work seriously on the improvement of the text. mikka (t) 22:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC) Don't be such a forum-nazi. Loosen up, a little. --Anittas 22:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)