Talk:Moldovan

Olahus...

The amalgamation of "Moldavians" as the native population of the entire Moldavia and "Moldovans" as an ethnonym (a stupid ethnonym, if you will, but an ethnonym nonetheless) is evidence of WP:SYNTH. If it's meant to be crafty, it's not. In fact, if you stop and think about it, the only effect of such a reasoning would be to unwittingly validate the claim according to which Moldavia and Moldova both have a majority non-Romanian ("Moldovan") population, exactly the contrary of what your "crafty" POV pushing is trying to do. Furthermore, adding the "Soviet" issue in the mix is nonsensical (it is also the sound of a falling tree, since neither the positive or the negative were ever proven by the Romanian/Moldovan users who claim it or its opposite); it is nonsensical because the question is begged: "what else did you expect?" It is also nonsensical because it ignores the plain fact that, right or wrong, recorded data from those countries shows that some people (the majority until proven contrary) have defined it and adopted it as a ethnonym. I know the article in question was hijacked by the nationalist Romanian POV and turned into something exactly as dubious as a Moldovenist article (only backwards), but its existence is no proof of anything.

The notion about the term being rendered as "Moldavians" and the statement about this being done "rarely" are neither POV nor OR. They simply acknowledge the simple fact that English sources may use both variants for that term, with roughly the same frequency they may refer to Moldova as Moldavia.

Please, no more sophistry: equivocation serves no purpose, and it damages even your POV. Dahn (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And how exactly did you reach the conclusion that Moldovans are recognised as an ethnic group just in the former Soviet Union? The only know we know for sure is just that it isn't recognized in Romania. The rest is just ORXasha (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Moldavian dialect

I see pointed out "Moldavian dialect (speech/variety), one of several varieties of Romanian language". After the specifications from Wikipedia's English "Dialect" page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialect): "Where a distinction can be made only in terms of pronunciation, the term accent is appropriate, not dialect." And Moldavian wouldn't be a dialect at all, unless you consider English having dialects too (US English dialect, British dialect, Canadian English dialect, the dialect of New Zealand's English, etc.)! But I never heard of English's splitting into dialects! Those who speak the so-called "Moldovan" will never experience difficulties in understanding Romanian language (me having the Republic of Moldova's citizenship myself).

I am therefore assuming responsibility for changing the "dialect" term for Moldovan into "accent". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micron rt (talk • contribs) 10:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: It may be acceptable (at most) the term "subdialect" (for the it's current interpretation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micron rt (talk • contribs) 10:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The differences between standard Romanian and the vernacular of the Romanian part of Moldavia account to more than pronunciation, even more so when we talk about the differences between standard Romanian and vernacular Moldovan. English does have dialects, lots of them, American and British being not just simple dialects, but families of dialects (as romantic nationalism never had a major influence in the Anglo-Saxon world, they have no problem calling even minor language variations dialects). As for "subdialect", those who use such concept in relation to Romanian also consider that Aromanian is a dialect of Romanian, notwithstanding that Romanians have a much easier time understanding standard Italian than Aromanian.Anonimu (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)