Talk:Romanian language/Archive 4

no original research

Hi, I have removed the following from the article, pending citation of credible sources in accordance with No Original Research policy.

Contemporary Romanian - highlighted words are French or Italian loanwords:

Toate fiinţele umane se nasc libere şi egale în demnitate şi în drepturi. Ele sunt înzestrate cu raţiune şi conştiinţă şi trebuie să se comporte unele faţă de altele în spiritul fraternităţii.

Romanian, excluding French or Italian loanwords - highlighted words are Slavic loanwords:

Toate fiinţele omeneşti se nasc slobode şi deopotrivă în destoinicie şi în drepturi. Ele sunt înzestrate cu cuget şi înţelegere şi trebuie să se poarte unele faţă de altele după firea frăţiei.

--Node 20:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

There might not be credible source specifically cited, but I fail to see how that makes it original research. It's not improbable (actually, I think it likely) that the first one was actually the official romanian translation. I've asked user:Bogdangiusca to come and have a look at it. Circeus 21:00, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

In fact, the 3rd one is the official one (the one without loanwords). The other ones are original research, as those translations don't appear elsewhere. Thus, I am re-removing it since, by Bogdangiusca's logic, it is original research. --Node 05:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It was taken from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which credits it as being the translation made by the "United Nations Department of Public Information". bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 21:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

So the original first of the three is the "official" one, right? How about the word replacements? I personally found the final result fascinating, and would like it to be restored, if possible.Circeus 21:32, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

The words were chosen by etymology using the dictionary published by the Romanian Academy. Anyway, as I said in Talk:Moldovan language, this is an example, and not an original theory. An example is something that supports or illustrates a theory and they are used throughout Wikipedia. See English grammar for a lot of examples. :-) bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 21:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Hum... Never having read moldovan language thoroughfully, and having removed it from my watchlist in the middle of the semi-revert war, I wasn't aware both pages used the exact same example. Circeus 21:46, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Huh? That example was not on Moldovan language page, AFAIK. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 21:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Node, I've been trying to sympathize with you, but your edit pattern actually makes you look more and more like a person with a political agenda. I sure hope that's not the case, and I'll try to keep a balanced opinion about your interests -- just wanted to give you some sort of feedback. --Gutza 22:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I must say, the edit patterns of most people make them look like they have some sort of political agenda. If you look at the edits of you, Bogdangiusca, Danutz, Critzu, etc, it appears that you are all pushing for a Romanian side of the story. I'm one of only a couple of people here advocating for the other side -- that's a balance of POV. Just because you and all your Romanian buddies come and say that what I say is POV and what you say is NPOV, that doesn't make it true. --Node

The DEX will show that there are no loanwords in the third example, and that there are loanwords in the first two. Just punch each one into the DEX Online's search engine [1] (correctly type the word in the Cuvântul section, no need for diacriticals, just correct spelling; then press Cautǎ) and it will indicate the etymology. There is no original research there. Decius 04:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Bogdangiusca claims it's an example, to illustrate a point which itself is not original research. What is it an example of? I see it listed under "sample text", not "different sources for loanwords". It's not anywhere near anything that talks about anything like that. The replacement of words with other words is original research since the end result doesn't appear in any respectable source. And, as Bogdan said... Wikipedia doesn't want it if it doesn't already say it somewhere else. --Node

That's not how Wikipedia defines Original Research. Decius 07:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, the section is called Language sample, and is giving a sample of 1) the language as it is generally currently written/spoken (loans, etc.) 2. The language as it would be with Slavic loans rather than Italian or French loans; 3) the language as it would be without loanwords. It is not "Original Research". Decius 08:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

And by the way, the first sample is not necessarily an accurate representation of current Romanian in all cases. Many Romanian writers, including journalists, often consciously omit Slavic loans in their written Romanian and move as close to Sample 3 style writing as possible without being awkward or archaic. The three samples are also useful for non-Romanian readers who want to understand the language more, which is the whole point of the article. It does not meet the criterion of Original Research. Decius 08:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It is no more "Original Research" than it is to give the sentence: "He went into his house to find his gun." as an example of an English sentence with no Latin loanwords. Decius 08:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

In this vein, how were any of my edits to Moldovan language original research? In the past, Soviet scientists have spewed loads of crap about Moldovan having Slavic roots with just a lot of Romanian influence, and overly exaggerated reports of phenomena of linguistic contact in Moldova. To be sure, contact varieties and a wide range of phenomena did arise, as they will in any situation where two languages are in such close contact, but certainly the Soviet reports were exaggerated (the contact phenomena are restricted in their usage, they are not the new language of the people of Moldova, although they are slowly having a ripple effect on popular language usage). Obviously, many of the people here will say that any Soviet source is by default not a credible source. HOWEVER, this is an unfair premise -- each source should be judged by its individual merits , not its country of origin. I will remind you that Knozorov found what was arguably the key to the decipherment of the Mayan glyphs, but due to the Cold War, these were seen as invalid and foolish claims in America and Western Europe because they were made by a Soviet man, so the exchange of ideas stopped. Surely, some of the best information about minority languages of the former USSR comes from during the Soviet era -- most information on or in, say, Nivkh (formerly Gilyak), comes from between the 1920s and the 1980s, as is the case with, say, Dung'an, Chuvash, Tatar, Abkhaz, or even arguably Livonian or Crimean. While parts of these works have a clear political motivation (for example, in dictionaries you will find an abundance of Stalinism-related words you'd not see in a modern publication, or there might be a couple of paragraphs which give bogus evidence to support some Soviet policy towards minorities), the vast majority of them is good linguistic material. So certainly, material written by Soviet linguists about Moldovan and its past and future which they proclaimed were more Russian than Romanian, is largely a pile of bullshit, but much of the data, examples, and the like, if not the sociopolitical rhetoric, are very valid and informative.

As to my examples, I actually found them in usage. They are a transcription of two separate conversations. It's not clear who each person in the conversation is, but it appears to be a husband and wife with opposite languages, although possibly a son more fluent in Romanian, speaking to his mom who is more fluent in Russian. There are more sentences in each conversation, but I didn't see the point in giving that many examples.

"crasavic" was also found in actual usage, "tu dor eşti crasavic, nu?" is but one example. Another good example is "Bla... da vseotaki eu m-am inervat". Both of these are from kids whose mothertongue is Romanian. --Node 14:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to say your two quotes are invented by you, but they do qualify as Original Research, because, unlike the loanwords and absence of loanwords in the three language samples (which can be immediately verified by DEXOnline), your quotes are not verifiable by an acknowledged outside written source AFAIK. Such usage of additional Slavic loans among some speakers does not make the Moldovan vernacular a new language, any more than Californians' use of Mexican words makes Californian a separate English language (comprende?). Decius 14:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Inner-city Los Angeles whites who live among Hispanics, for example, often use Spanish words such as frajo (cigarette), mota (marijuana), cervesa (beer), quete (gun), heina (girlfriend), which are incomprehensible to other whites unfamiliar with the terms---so I guess they are speaking a separate English language?... Decius 14:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Whatever happened to the terms vernacular, regional, and dialect? Why must any difference in vocabulary be seized upon to declare a fictional new separate language? Maybe you should reconsider your position, Node Ue. Moldovan is not a separate language from Romanian, nor is it recognized as separate by the overwhelming majority of linguists. Decius 15:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

What's real weak about your first example is that, you said it yourself: one of the speakers was more fluent in Russian, so obviously mixed vocabulary would be passing between those speakers. That example is frankly worthless. I can go down the block and record the conversations that my Irish friend has with his Mexican girlfriend, and submit that as evidence of a codified Spanglish language being spoken among inner-city whites (or record myself hurling insults at my neighbor in Spanish as another example). Decius 15:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

What is happening in Moldova is what happens every where else. Moldovans, who speak the Romanian language (the Moldovan vernacular of it which is grammatically identical to Romanian and which is Romanian and which most native speakers and linguists acknowledge to be Romanian), are accruing more & more Slavic words and phrases because of their cohabitation with speakers of Russian and Ukrainian. Likewise in America, Romanians often speak "Rominglish". "Vrei sǎ go shopping?" (Do you want to go shopping?) is such a "Rominglish" phrase. These kind of things do not make a separate language. Decius 15:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

On the point mainly being discussed, I believe that the removed passage is a useful example for those with moderate but not fluent English, is not original research in the sense disparaged by Wikipedia, and should be in the article. On "Rominglish": I don't think it has yet become a language, nor is particularly likely to, but there is much linguistic controversy over whether in some areas the similar Spanglish is becomeing one: there are significant numbers of people for whom Spanglish is arguably their native language. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Differences in vocabulary (that is to say, more Slavic loans) noted among some (not uniformly among all) speakers of Moldovan are normal and to be expected. There are no differences between Moldovan and Romanian to make any respectable linguists view Moldovan as a separate language. If you want to convince at least people in Wikipedia, you need to bring much more evidence than just vocabulary differences among some speakers you or someone else recorded. The "vocabulary differences" are sporadic among some speakers, not uniform at all, so it's not enough evidence for claiming a "creole" language, as you claim. Decius 02:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Decius, I'm a bit surprised by your sudden outburst of anger and subsequent flurry of postings. Perhaps you could attempt to compact all of those disconnected thoughts into one response? It's a bit difficult to follow when you have so many different responses.

Anyhow the chief claim I wish to respond to is this: you say that I am using different vocabulary as evidence for a separate language. I am not. I am saying that one of the differences between Romanian (ie, the speech of Romania) and Moldovan (ie, the speech of Moldova) is that there is somewhat frequent code mixing among people of all heritages, but even more frequent is the use of Russian words by young people when speaking Moldovan, where their counterparts in Romania would not be using these words.

It does seem to me like all of the Romanians here are foaming at the mouth in the sense that anything at all that makes Moldova even a little bit from Romania, must be false or if it's true it isn't relevant to the article or it's not credible or needs to be suppressed. I wish Ronline could comment on all of this, he is usually much more neutral than you guys, and he usually provides a mostly objective view of such topics. If you say there is no Moldovan-Russian creole, please see John Holm's An introduction to pidgins and creoles, a wonderful introduction to contact linguistics, which gives a good overview of the sociolinguistic environments in which pidgins, creoles, and other contact phenomena arise. Clearly, language-mixing used for intercommunication between two ethnic groups is a jargon or a pidgin. If it's codified and uniform, it's a pidgin; if it varies vastly it's a jargon. However, when children hear this jargon or pidgin (as have children from mixed marriages), they subconciously give it regularity and substance, making it a creole. So, while there are no more than a few thousand native speakers of this creole (maybe as few as 50 or 100), it would of course be understood by most Moldovans.

Another phenomenon Holm discusses is the simplification a language undergoes in some contact situations, usually when a minority is linguistically absorbed, such as Brazilian Portuguese (absorbed slaves from West Africa speaking African languages, Native Americans, and later other groups as well) or Dominican Spanish (to a lesser degree than Brazilian Portuguese; also due to absorption of a huge slave population). Moldovan is slowly undergoing this process, as is Russian in Moldova. In fact, some would argue that Russian in Moldova is slowly losing its substance, being taken apart word by word and replaced with Moldovan words, and being grammatically simplified to a certain degree. There is also the formation of a Russian-Ukrainian koine, similar in some respects to the Russo-Ukrainian koine of Eastern Ukraine; however this is extremely limited in scope as most Ukrainians speak Russian and Romanian too. --Node

Well, I shot off those responses as I wrote them. They're not "disconnected", just not stitched into one response. Now, what you have said above amounts to: Moldovan is not a creole language, but mixing of the vocabularies is occuring among a number of speakers ("jargon"), but I have yet to see evidence of anything approaching the idea that Moldovan has become a creole. And a sporadic admixture of new Slavic loans and phrases does not make it a separate language.

No-one said Moldovan became a creole. It was said that it spawned a creole. French didn't "become" a creole, it spawned a huge number of creoles. Same with English. And, as I said before, "Anyhow the chief claim I wish to respond to is this: you say that I am using different vocabulary as evidence for a separate language. I am not." All I said is that there are some differences between Romanian and Moldovan, obviously this doesn't make them separate languages.

Maybe you should further research the actual situation in detail, rather than echoing the claims made by certain discredited individuals in Russia. You do not seem to be objective in any fashion: rather, it appears you have made up your mind that Moldovan is a separate language as some Russians claim; therefore, Romanians "must be wrong", and they must be "politically motivated" against this supposed "fact". First of all, demonstrate that what you support is anywhere near a fact, and not an opinion. ---Decius 10:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Echoing the claims made by certain discredited individuals? I found examples in live contexts, not in BOOKS. My claims are from experience. In fact, I have only ever heard of the claims made by Russian scholars, I have never actually read them. I think it would be quite interesting and quite amusing to read them, but I have been unable to find them. --Node

Varieties

Recently added claim that Romanian and Moldovan "are varieties of the same language". Is there a linguist you can cite for that? I continue to believe that official Romanian and official Moldovan are exactly the same language, not varieties. I have seen no evidence to the contrary cited. The fact that there are (small) local variations is neither here nor there: there is no evidence that the differences on the two sides of the River Prut are any larger than those found on other comparable geographic basis, and in any case, they are tiny compared to the variations found in most European languages. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:56, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, I'm not sure I'd say they're varieties, at least not in the official form. They are pretty much identical, with the exception of a few spelling differences which are not universally enforced. Mihai makes it sound as if only Moldovans use the other country's spelling rules some. However, see Moldovan language, which includes a few newspapers and the like in Romania, which use î/î rather than â/î.

In the spoken form, there are variations, although the differences increase and decrease from person to person (similar to, say, Singlish, where some people speak a form very close to English, and others use a form very far from it). For example, Russian words are often used in slang, most of them won't be understood in Romania. Mihai, Bogdan, and other Romanians like to pretend that such things don't occur, but the fact is that they do. I have heard people say those things, and read them. They have also tried to say that only Russian heritage people use them. However, this is certainly not the case, there are many examples of someone of Romanian heritage using Russian words for slang, using Russian idiomatic calques, and the like.

Also, a sort of "Bazaar Moldovan" (or if you prefer, "Bazaar Romanian", although it's pretty much unique to Rep.Moldova) has developed in contact between Russians and Romanians, a sort of linguistic compromise.

People of Russian and Ukrainian heritage have also caused some broad grammatical simplifications of the colloquial language, similar to the changes undergone by Brazilian Portuguese (but not to that extreme degree!) when it assimilated speakers of African tongues and later Italian, German, Yiddish, etc., or the things which are currently happening in French and German as a result of the absorption of Turkish and/or Arab immigrants. However, such changes are very minor (and don't affect written language), although they may increase as the children of immigrants assimilate to Romanian culture with an often imperfect bilingualism -- they are usually spoken to in Russian or Ukrainian by their parents, learn Russian in school (Romanian requirements are pathetic in Russian-language schools), and only learn Romanian through largely informal linguistic contact (they may have friends who speak it; it obviously appears in newspapers and signs and the like; when they get older they might take a job where they need to use Romanian.) I refer to children of immigrants because most of the immigrants themselves, and those of their children who were born and raised during the Soviet era, rarely bothered to learn more than the most basic Romanian, and lead lives largely isolated from Moldovan linguistic situations. --Node 07:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The written language used officially in the two countries is absolutely identical. (excluding the â/î spelling issue).

"Varieties" is however a pretty vague term: of course there are a few regional words throughout Romania. For example, in Dâmboviţa, less than 100 km of Bucharest, I can think of two words that are not in standard Romanian:

• "păuză", meaning "stick used as support for growing plants", while in standard Romanian it is "arac" (< Gr. "haráki")
• "hudă", meaning "narrow road", while in standard Romanian it is "uliţă" (< Sl. "ulica").

You may argue that the language spoken in Dâmboviţa (with the two additional words) is a variety of Romanian. :-) bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 07:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

"You may argue...": but not very fruitfully, in my view. By this standard, many neighborhoods of New York City have their own varieties of English. Even the bland Seattle English -- so generically American that scholars debate whether there even is a Seattle accent, let alone a dialect -- has a few distinctive words, like "can food" rather than "canned food", or "You betcha" for "You bet".

Bogdan, you seem to be straddling the issue at hand: do you think the article should say that Moldovan and Romanian are "varieties" of the same language, or that they are the same language? I'm pretty sure you don't have an axe to grind, so I'd be very interested in your opinion. If you think "varieties" should stay, I'll drop the issue. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:39, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, "canned food" vs "can food" can't really be heard in pronunciation; "you betcha" is hardly unique to Seattle. Certainly though, English in some parts of the US is undergoing changes as a result of language contact. In the SRPMIC (Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, in the Phoenix metro area), people will say "gohatt!" instead of "go ahead!", often use compound verb forms in nonstandard ways, and have a very distinctive way of talking that distinguishes their speech from that of those living just across the street from them. In Phoenix, you will find that most Mexican immigrant children can speak English well, but it has some distinctive features, and if they are speaking it to other immigrant children or adults, they will often mix Spanish in. Similarly, Spanish in Arizona has undergone some minor changes. In Mexico, they say "seguro" for 'insurance' (meaning literally "secure"), in Arizona we say "aseguranza", a calque of the English "insur(e)-ance" from the verb "asegurar", to insure. People often say "carpeta" to mean "carpet", when in Mexico it means "folder". There is also "cada otro dia", which is a calque of the English "every other day", rather than the Mexican "cada tercer dia". Or, "dar para atras"/"llamar para atras" from the English "give back" and "call back", rather than the Mexican "regresar"/"devolver la llamada". Such variations occur in any language as large as Romanian, especially in a situation where a huge immigrant population is being assimilated --Node

Variety is a very vague term: two varieties may or may not have mutual intelligibility and therefore this term is not making the article any clearer. bogdan | ^Talk 21:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

If I may give my opinion on the matter. What he was trying to say was that Moldovan and Romanian are just as different as the example he gave with the two words used in the Dambovita. Yes its true there is the â/î thing but it's hardly enforced in either country. What basically happened is that Moldova adopted the Romanian spelling when Romania was still using the "î". Then in 1992 Romania changed the spelling to "â". Moldova didn't bother to. It’s like the Canadian "colour" and the American "color". In reality many people in Canada spell it "color and the same thing goes for Moldova: newspapers like Jurnal de Chisinau, Accente, Moldova Azi, etc. etc. spell words with an "â". Saying that Romanian and Moldovan are almost the same is like saying that the Canadian language and the American language are almost the same. Ask any Moldovan(except Node Ue who pretends to be Moldovan) and they will tell you the same thing :) It should read that they are the same language. Mihaitza 20:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Many of the Moldovans besides myself on mo.wiki would disagree. --Node

Don't worry, Node does not speak Romanian. The articles of Moldovan Wikipedia were transliterated articles from Romanian wiki or otherwise translated with an automatic program. :-) bogdan | ^Talk 21:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Bogdan do you have proof of the accusation that I don't speak Romanian?

I couldn't find a proof that you speak Romanian. :-) Oh, and BTW, in Romanian the name of the alphabet is "chirilic"/"кирилик", not "chiriliţa"/"кирилица" like you wrote on the Commons. bogdan | ^Talk 21:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the articles on mo.wiki are mostly (not all, but mostly) just transliterations. only about 1/4 of them were even created by me. If the Moldovan Wikipedia gets to be very big, then perhaps we will write some original articles. However, it's so small now, it only makes sense to transliterate articles from ro.wiki... --Node

Can you point to me the original articles ? I looked at a dozen or so and they were all transliterations. bogdan | ^Talk 21:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Bogdan then we should change it. It's really absurd to say Romanian and Moldovan are varieties of each other? The term is really vague and I would go as far as to say that it's incorrect as well. They are the same language, and Romanian in Moldova is called "Moldovan" for political reasons. This case is somewhat similar to Flemish in Belgium which is none other then Dutch, called Flemish by some for political reasons.Mihaitza 00:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

In fact Mihai, Flemish and Dutch are more different than Romanian and Moldovan. There is also the "West Flemish", which is very very different (closer to Zeelandic), but it's not what people usually mean when they say "Flemish". "variety" may be stretching it, I would use the term "ausbausprache" which applies in a case like this -- official forms of language(s) are nearly identical or identical, but officially they are named differently and may (not always) have minor differences, however since they are easily comprehensible and by some measures even the same language, they are probably only separated for political purposes. This includes Dutch/Flemish/Afrikaans, Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian/Montenegrin, Filipino as a different language from Tagalog, Swedish/Norwegian, Icelandic/Faeroese, Turkish/Azeri, central asian turkic languages, Tajik/Dari/Farsi, and possibly Hindi/Urdu. Of these, the only case that's really comparable is Tajik/Dari/Farsi -- Farsi and Dari are identical, with the exception of some minor differences of pronunciation. Dari used to be called Farsi, this changed gradually with political landscape. Speakers of Dari and speakers of Farsi can understand each other perfectly. Many people who are officially Dari speakers (Afghan-born Persian speakers) will tell you they speak Farsi rather than Dari. Yet, they are considered separate as Ausbau languages. They are even identical in their official written forms, moreso than Romanian and Moldovan (they don't have spelling differences or variations) --Node 07:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Node, I am touched by your deep concern for the finer points of language classification. I was wondering if I could draw your attention to this article: Tsakonian, which claims that Tsakonian is a mere regional dialect, not a separate language. Hope you can help, as this actually is a legitimate case of false classification. -- Decius 07:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

You are so obviously concerned with Moldovan for political reasons... Decius 07:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Decius, do you have anything of substance to contribute to this discussion? Or are you going to go around being sarcastic and mocking me? If you wish to post a detailed response to my most recent post, that's good, but if you're just going to sit around making posts like you just made, there's really no point at all. --Node 01:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Again I would like you to have a look at Dari vs Farsi. (see Dari (Afghanistan)). Although that page is heavily biased since none of the contributors were Afghans (all of them are Iranians, and it represents a very distinctly Iranian point of view)... it is accurate to say that in many, if not most, international contexts, Dari and Farsi are considered to be separate languages, despite the 100% identicality of their official written forms (while official Romanian and Moldovan differ in â/î and sînt/sunt). Neither Dari nor Farsi have ever been written in a different script (while Moldovan was, during USSR occupation, written in Cyrillic), yet in widely-translated documents they are often separated into two different translations, even though there are literally _no_ differences in the written forms. This case is even a little more extreme than Romanian/Moldovan, yet the views of the world are a bit different. Perhaps that's because with Dari, Iranian nationalists aren't running around everywhere saying using the name "Dari" is evil and hateful, and calling people "idiots", "fags", "communists", "terrorists", and "stalinists"?? --Node 01:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Decius and bogdan you guys are right. Node is concerned with Moldovan for political reasons. Moreover if you go onto the Moldovan discussion page, you will see that he has a certain negative conception about Romanians which will obviously make his point of view a non-neutral one. I will make the appropriate changes. Mihaitza 01:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Decius and bogdan you guys are right. Node is concerned with Moldovan for political reasons. Moreover if you go onto the Moldovan discussion page, you will see that he has a certain negative conception about Romanians which will obviously make his point of view a non-neutral one. I will make the appropriate changes. Mihaitza 01:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Again I would like you to have a look at Dari vs Farsi. (see Dari (Afghanistan)). Although that page is heavily biased since none of the contributors were Afghans (all of them are Iranians, and it represents a very distinctly Iranian point of view)... it is accurate to say that in many, if not most, international contexts, Dari and Farsi are considered to be separate languages, despite the 100% identicality of their official written forms (while official Romanian and Moldovan differ in â/î and sînt/sunt). Neither Dari nor Farsi have ever been written in a different script (while Moldovan was, during USSR occupation, written in Cyrillic), yet in widely-translated documents they are often separated into two different translations, even though there are literally _no_ differences in the written forms. This case is even a little more extreme than Romanian/Moldovan, yet the views of the world are a bit different. Perhaps that's because with Dari, Iranian nationalists aren't running around everywhere saying using the name "Dari" is evil and hateful, and calling people "idiots", "fags", "communists", "terrorists", and "stalinists"?? --Node 01:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and how are any of your concerns apolitical? I don't even live in Moldova, I have never been to Russia, I do not believe in communism or stalinism. Yet, you guys all live in Romania and are proud patriots, so how are your edits here any different from a Serb's edits on Srebrenica? You hurl insults and putdowns at me. That's not what Wikipedia is about. It is about discussion and cooperation, and trying to reach agreement without attacking each other. --Node 01:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Seriously speaking, I find that your text is quite interesting, but you are arguing on the wrong side of the argument here. ---Alexandru 03:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

That's not a very convincing response. If you're going to revert my changes, please respond to my points on this talkpage rather than tell me that I am interesting but wrong. --Node 03:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, your views are either 1) held by a fringe minority of highly questionable scholars; 2) or they are original research. They are also 3) incorrect. Seems like a good case against your edits. --- Alexandru 04:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Decius, please respond to my points if you're going to revert rather than just telling me my views are not widely held, are original research, or wrong. I could say the same about you, but in the end such accusations are empty if you don't participate in the academic discussion. By the way, can you give me some examples of scholars who say that code switching does NOT occur? Apparently you're not well-versed in linguistics: you thought "ausbausprache" meant a language which developed independently, and you seem to think that "code switching" is controversial, both of which are quite incorrect. --Node 06:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

When did I say "ausbausprache" meant "a language which developed independently"? When did I imply that code switching is controversial? Don't make up shit and make accusations to try to bolster your bullshit case. ---Alexandru 06:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

1) You're right, I looked and it was Danutz who said that. I am, like you (hopefully), human, therefore I err. 2) You implied that code switching is controversial by removing the examples of code switching from the page Moldovan language. If I need a source for examples of code switching, you need a source for "the man put the gun in the house". You similarly implied that aubsau languages were controversial when you reverted my addition of it here. 3) You assume, yet again, that I am some sort of evil person who is out to get Romanians, or trick you, or some other malintention. In fact, rather than making up shit and accusations to try to bolster my bullshit case (your words), I made an honest mistake, which I was not afraid to admit. --Node 09:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Please respond to my point and provide a suitable reference for once. Alexandru 06:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I will respond to your point, when you respond to mine. Node 09:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

If you're tactic is "wait till he logs out, then direct personal attacks and wild accusations at him", that is a very unmanly and dishonest tactic. Or maybe you are just slow to respond for some other strange reason. What concerns me here are your references and sources for the text you attempt to include in the article. Alexandru 07:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

1) Attempting to insult another's manhood (or womanhood) is a very immature and unmanly tactic. (in case you can't tell, my use of "unmanly" there is a semi-joke) 2) Not everybody is always logged in and ready to respond to a message as soon as it is posted. I am responding to your messages immediately after I notice them. I do not spend all my time on Wikipedia, thus I only notice your comments every 30 minutes or so. 3a) As is noted in the policy pages, a statement is not considered original research if it is a logical conclusion. If Dari and Farsi, which are completely identical in the official forms with no difference even in the orthographies, are to be considered Ausbau languages, then so should Romanian and Moldovan. In fact, Romanian and Moldovan are a perfect example (albeit a little bit extreme compared to the usual examples) of a pair of Ausbau languages, in fact they fit the definition perfectly -- two "official languages" which are identical or nearly identical, yet are official languages in different nations and are thus considered separate languages for political reasons while in most cases they would be considered dialects or even just accents. 3b) Similarly, that code mixing between Romanian and Russian occurs in Moldova is a logical conclusion, given the sociolinguistic circumstances under which code mixing is known or even expected to occur -- a situation of two languages in contact, where all participants in a conversation are fluent or mostly fluent in the same two (or more) languages. In many countries or regions this is extended to a much more massive scale than just one conversation, since nearly the whole nation is multilingual, for example Singapore where unregulated code mixing became creolised and is now relatively consistent, many Hispanic communities in the US where nearly everybody is bilingual to a great degree, Hong Kong where most people know at least some English and people who are fluent will often mix English words into Cantonese conversation, parts of Ukraine where everybody knows Ukrainian and Russian (which resulted in a mixed language, actually), etc. Based on this logical conclusion (ie, that code mixing does in fact occur in Moldova on a massive scale), examples cannot reasonably be considered original research, as they are a demonstration of an uncontroversial fact rather than a controversial theory. --Node 09:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I was just about to log out, so I'll respond to your conclusions later. Right now I will address this: I do not believe it was a coincidence that you did not respond for hours to my latest post, but soon after I stated that I had logged out on my Talk Page ([2] Logging out. Hold down the fort while I'm gone. Alexandru 06:02 2 August, 2005 (UTC)), you posted a comment which contained personal attacks (though not the worst of personal attacks, they were nonetheless personal attacks) that I would not have been able to respond to had I actually logged off. So, sorry, I don't believe you on this point, and I view your move as dishonest, even taking into consideration that your allegations were mistaken---they were still allegations aimed at me in my absence. And yes, that is unmanly. Alexandru 09:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Why would I do this? There's no point in waiting until someone logs off to "attack" them, as they will be able to respond as soon as they log back on. And why would I be monitoring your talkpage? Do you usually post messages about when you're logging off? I don't care if you don't believe me, because obviously you already have some irreconcilable problems with me. --Node 21:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

No, there is a point to it. Your allegations could conceivably have been there for an indefinite period unchallenged by me. There is no guarantee that I will check back up on Wikipedia the next day---could be the next month---or year---or whatever. Alexandru 22:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see a suitable reference that says that the Romanian and Moldovan are "Ausbau languages". Your original research does not concern Wikipedia, nor do your private conclusions which you deem "self-evident" but are in fact unverified and subjective. Alexandru 20:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Apparently you've never heard of Ausbau languages? Dari and Farsi are 100% identical in their official forms; however, they have different names officially and are considered independent standards despite their complete identicality. They are considered ausbau languages for this reason -- they are identical (ausbau languages must be identical or at least very close), but they are considered separate languages for sociopolitical reasons.

This is decidedly not original research, if you like you're welcome to drag the Wikipedian linguistics community into this (I can give you some usernames), but I would hope that's not nessecary. --Node 21:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

What credible reference can you bring that states that Moldovan and Romanian are Ausbau languages? It is as simple as that. I will not challenge its inclusion in the article if a credible reference states this. On an issue like this, you need to have it in writing. What I wrote earlier was based on the definition of Ausbau languages that I was familiar with ("almost identical"), not the one you claim ("identical but with different official names"). Moldovan and Romanian are identical, not "almost identical" ("thus almost identical with a standard language"---from the Ausbausprache article), and I'm not convinced they are Ausbau languages. Bring a reference. Alexandru 22:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

If you can prove that Ausbau languages include identical languages with different official names, then you will have won your little battle here (and I must say that this would be an exquisitely pointless victory, because I fully agree that Romanian and Moldovan are identical languages with different official names). ---Alexandru 22:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I remind you, Decius, that Ausbau languages are relevant only to the official form. And in the official form, there are minor differences in spelling. Of course, you may object that they are insignificant, but the point is that they are not 100% identical, and this is one of the main components of your argument against them being ausbausprachen. Your English fails you when you read "thus almost identical with a standard language". It means that the concept of "ausbausprache" is almost identical to the concept of standard language.

I similarly cannot seem to find an extra-Wikipedia reference that states that Afrikaans and Dutch are ausbau languages, but they most definitely are, the same with Dari and Farsi. These are things that fall under the category of "common sense", at least if you know much about linguistics, and wouldn't be challenged by experts because they are actually often used as examples when teaching these concepts.

Really Node, I am fascinated by your revelations. I wonder what it is you are trying to achieve here, besides annoying every Moldovan out there. I will be willing to agree that Moldovan and Romanian may be called Ausbau languages, if Ausbau languages includes languages that are identical, but have different official names. So now it is up to you to provide a reference on the definition of Ausbau languages. I will admit that I may have misread that sentence (may have), but that's because I was probably reading what I wanted to read in that case. But at least I'm not a politically motivated ***** like you. Alexandru 09:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not in Moldova or Russia, or any communist country. I do not advocate communism, or the independence of Transnistria. I do not have Slavic heritage (well, I have a little bit of Polish ancestry, but Poles are generally against communism). Tell me how my views are more politically-motivated than yours? You, who are in Romania? You're telling me that I'm annoying every Moldovan out there. What, you're Moldovan? I didn't think so. Is Bogdan? No? What about Danutz? No?? None of these people are Moldovan? Then which Moldovan people am I annoying?

Please re-read my last post and you will see plenty of reasons why I have not provided a reference for a definition of ausbau languages. I'll say it again here just in case: Moldovan and Romanian, in their official forms (since that's what ausbau languages are -- OFFICIAL forms, not how they're actually used by real people), have minor orthographic differences, and thus are not 'identical' per se. You may say (as others have before you) that these differences are insignificant, but then what is significant and what is not is subjective, and the most important thing is: it is a difference, no matter how big or how small, between the official forms. I have already given a definition by example, ie that Dari and Farsi are considered ausbausprachen. If Dari and Farsi, which are 100% identical in official form -- not even any orthographic differences -- can be considered ausbau languages, then Romanian and Moldovan should too. --Node 19:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not "in Romania", Node. Why is it that you assume I am in Romania? The psychology you reveal in your edits on this topic is very bizarre and suspicious, and I have no faith in your honesty or competence, whatsoever. I will detail some of the tendencies you manifest in the future, but right now I can't be bothered. Alexandru 00:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You may not be in Romania, but you do state on your userpage that you are a Romanian, and that you were born in Romania.

And I have no faith in your competence given that you link http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/indoeuropean.html from your userpage. Anyone who knows anything about Indo-European linguistics will know very well that it's basically impossible to trace the original Indo-European homeland ("Urheimat"), which has been proposed in places as far east as Tocharia, and as far west as Spain (or further). How strange that you link to that one particular theory which places its origin in Wallachia... obviously, not politically motivated at all. --Node 07:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

American and British English are different in their official forms, as well. Are they ausbau languages? john k 20:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

They could be considered as such, yes, however 1) American English is not the official language of any country to my knowledge, rather it exists as an unofficial standard; 2) No country names "____ English" as its official language, similarly no country names its official language "Taiwanese Chinese" or "Colombian Spanish", but rather they will say "Chinese" and "Spanish", while in Moldova, the official language as named by the constitution is "Moldoveneasca", this is the official name of the official language, and 1/3rd of Romanian speakers in Moldova claim that as their mother tongue. This is, as I noted previously, similar to the case of Dari and Farsi in Afghanistan and Iran. --Node 21:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough - but whenever I've seen references to Dari, I've normally seen them immediately follow by stating that Dari is Persian. It'll also be noted that Dari (as "Eastern Farsi") and Farsi (as "Western Farsi") are considered separate languages by Ethnologue, as are Danish and Bokmal Norwegian; Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian; and Dutch and Afrikaans. It seems quite notable to me that, given Ethnologue's very loose standards for separating out languages, Romanian and Moldovan are considered the same language. It seems like you're pinning a great deal on the fact that Moldovan law calls the language "Moldovan." john k 03:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

http://www.voanews.com/dari/ -- doesn't mention Farsi or Persian

http://learn.afghanteens.net/dari/ -- claims that Dari is the "mother of" Persian/Farsi, rather than identical to

http://www.bbcdari.com/ -- redirects to BBCPersian, but advertised as "news from Afghanistan and around the world in Dari"

Numerous other pages refer to "dari", but not "farsi" or "persian".

If you're familiar with the term "Ausbausprache", http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2003/CDL(2003)049-e.asp might help illustrate the case better.

I think it's also a bit strange to say that the Ethnologue has lax restrictions for divisions between dialects and languages. It would be better to say that they have absolutely NO restrictions whatsoever -- Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian, while nearly identical, are considered separate languages by the 15th edition, while Öömrang-Ferring, Söl`ring, and Mainland varieties of North Frisian are considered a single language, despite complete mutual un-intelligibility.

And the law isn't the only thing; 1/3rd of all Moldovans (excluding the Transnistria region -- accurate census data is unavailable there due to de-facto independence from Moldovan jurisdiction) claim their mother tongue as "Moldovan" rather than "Romanian". The use of "Moldovan" as an ethnolinguistic term is important to distinguish between Romanian, used as the language of Romania and the Romanians, and Moldovan, used as a language for interethnic communication in Moldova. This isn't to say there's a particular practical distinction; the distinction is largely to avoid associating it with a single ethnic group, and to make it clear that it belongs to all Moldovans rather than just those of Romanian heritage, such as Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Roma ("Gypsies"), Gagauzians, etc. ---Node 07:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Ethnologue is pretty lame - I didn't realize that it sometimes joins languages that shouldn't be joined, though - I've normally seen silliness in the other direction. At any rate, I'm confused as to what we're actually arguing about, in terms of the content of the article. Is there an actual content dispute here anymore, or is it just a bunch of people shooting the shit to no purpose? john k 23:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I think most of the problems with the Ethnologue are due to the fact that they rely on reports from the field, and don't investigate most claims. Thus, while few people would agree that "Moroccan Arabic" and "Algerian Arabic" are separate languages (although perhaps separate from Gulf Arabic varieties as a unified "Maghrebi Arabic", they're really not too different), they probably received separate reports about the two and added them. In the 14th edition, they had "Serbo-Croatian", in the 15th it has been replaced with separate entries for Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian. As to the point of this argument... it's mostly about "ausbausprache", but now that I've dug up some good sources reenforcing my earlier points about sociolinguistic rifts between Bucharest and Chisinau (urban Moldovans prefer Russian to a great degree, even those of Romanian descent; Moldovan spoken language incorporates many words and features from Russian, a sort of amalgamation or jargon, perhaps even a creole, which is used by even Moldovans of Romanian descent; Gagauzians rarely know Romanian, usually only Russian; older Moldovans have difficulties using Latin script, etc), I would like to see my version of the truth re-incorporated since I've found actual supporting evidence from non-Soviet sources. --Node 09:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The basic dispute is whether Moldovan is a different language from Romanian ("variety", "ausbau", "code switching", or whatever reason could possibly make this idea reach consensus because, Node will take a stab at), or whether it is just the Romanian language, renamed by the Moldovan government for political reasons. The most compelling reason why "Moldovan" is the same as Romanian IMO is because it was universally considered as such until the Soviet annexation in the 1940's. The Soviets had an obvious interest in severing as many ties as possible between Moldova and Romania, so they conveniently decided the people in Rep. Moldova were speaking a different language. Why we're still making a fuss over this issue is completely beyond me. --Gutza 09:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Node, do you live in some hick town or communist country where you can't find a decent library? Get yourself some references for once and substantiate your Ausbau claims. I'm not going to get the references for your point, nor will I take your word for it (dear me, be it far from me to take your word on anything). This piece of shit unreferenced Wiki article:Ausbausprache, is not enough (you didn't write it, so it's not a jab at you). It would pleasantly surprise me and perhaps restore a modicum of faith (0.00001%) in you if you actually came to the table with linguistic references, instead of claims. I am not a linguist (I've begun studying linguistics in more depth only recently), so I make no claims of having intimate knowledge of the definition of Ausbau languages and the possible exceptions to that definition. However, in terms of Moldovan I have almost first-hand knowledge, unlike you. ---Alexandru 01:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Cite references on the definition of Ausbau languages and possible exceptions to it. I will make sure it will be noted in the article that the statement that Moldovan and Romanian are "Ausbau languages" is not found in a reference. You stated before that you will bring Wiki contributors who are linguists to substantiate your definition of Ausbau languages. Unless they have references, know that I will give a flying fuck what they think or have to say. --- Alexandru 01:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Respond to my points. I will make sure it will be noted in the article that you never responded to them. I remind you that in this argument, you have resorted to profanity, name-calling, weird things ("some hick town or communist country" -- wtf?), while I have not. Again, you choose to insult me, accuse me of things without any proof, and then ignore my points entirely. --Node 07:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, you know what, I just realized how utterly pointless your quest is, to have Wikipedia say what you want it to say (ignoring the opinion of the majority of linguists on the subject, because you are so bent on your agenda). Who the fuck cares what the fuck a Wikipedia article has to say about anything? Every one knows its articles are not a reliable source, but a big heaping collection of shit, due to the spurious edits of non-objective editors like you. Decius 08:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I do intend to gather references and address your hysterical hang-on-for-dear-life fringe theory later. Decius 08:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)