Talk:Daco-Romanian

Untitled

This stub adds no useful information to that in the article on the Romanian language. Romanian language can mean one of two things:

• the Daco-Romanian dialect spoken in Romania and some other countries, and

• the group of all four Eastern Romance languages.

As Romanian language gives information particularly on the Daco-Romanian dialect, I don't see any point in having this stub here. Unless there is no opposition, I will turn the stub back to a redirect. --AdiJapan 06:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It's supposed to be a "NPOV-ing" page for Romanian and Moldovan "languages", but I don't think it is needed as it's a consensus in linguistics that Romanian = Moldovan, so I agree with that. bogdan 09:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Usage of Daco-Romanian

Linguists use the name "Daco-Romanian" to disambiguate "Romanian" when are also discussed other Eastern Romance dialects/languages south of the Danube (Macedo-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian, Istro-Romanian). It is always a perfect synonym for "Romanian". bogdan 17:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree.--Bonaparte 17:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No it is not. 30 years ago there was Moldovan language, regardless artificial or not. If there is a term, there is an article that explains its usage. It is a common way in wikipedia to create smaller articles from large ones, not to merge everythin into a single big one. mikka (t) 18:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Is more than a synonim. Is identical.--Bonaparte 19:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No its is not. mikka (t) 19:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like some references. bogdan 19:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Please take a look into the history section of Moldovan language. Please don't forget that with langauges what is true today, could have been different yesterday. mikka (t) 19:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Mikka you have to prove that Daco-romanian is not romanian!--Bonaparte 19:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it is you have to prove that Moldovan language never existed. So far you failed. mikka (t) 19:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Every linguist I ever read put an equal sign between Romanian and Daco-Romanian. Daco-Romanian is simply another name for Romanian and that's it. bogdan 19:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No we won! You failed.--Bonaparte 19:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Bonaparte, please stay out of this, you're not helping. bogdan 19:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Even if the usage is identical (here I am inclined to agree, since "moldovan language" linguistically is a variety of Romanian), still, this article makes sense in that it may contain explanation why and when the term was introduced. Deleting an existing article into a redirect is a political move that has nothing with encyclopedia purposes of providing information. mikka (t) 19:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I still haven't seen your references. bogdan 19:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I still haven't seen what is false in the artile. I only see that the article is a still stub: it does not explain who introduced this term and why. I amd very puzzled why you think that this information is so uninteresting that it may be completely dismissed. I also basically agreed that they are identical linguistically. But for political purposes there historically existed officially separate ro: and mo: languages. And my reference is Moldovan language. mikka (t) 19:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

There are few things wrong like The latter term was introduced in the Soviet Union based on regional varieties local to the territory of the Soviet Union., but this is not the problem.

I see no point in having this article, it's a duplicate of Romanian language. bogdan 19:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I will agree for a redirect only if the term is explained in full in Romanian language: why the term was introduced etc. Only then this will justify the redirect. Otherwise it is just a political action. mikka (t) 19:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. The article should contain a "Classification and related languages" section that should discuss this. bogdan 20:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Article deletion

Deletion of articles without votes of deletion is not allowed in wikipedia. We have smaller articles and on a more trivial issues than this one, like, bung and stopper. mikka (t) 19:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

another proof of BIAS edits

Again you make bias edits Mikka, this is another proof of your bias edits.--Bonaparte 19:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not making any edits. I am restoring your deletion of information. mikka (t) 19:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

page protection

G'day guys,

I note that this page was protected, "to deal with vandalism". The thing that every edit warrior forgets is that his opponent is not a vandal, but another good faith editor who happens to feel just as passionately as he does. Edit warring is not vandalism, it's edit warring. And it takes two to war. I see no vandalism here.

Mikkalai, I'm very concerned about the way you protected this page. You have clearly been very deeply involved in this article, and we are not meant to protect in such circumstances except in cases of simple vandalism. Of course, if the nascent edit war continues, the page may need to be protected again anyway ... but it won't have anything to do with vandalism, and both you and User:Bonaparte will end up blocked. Have a nice day. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 19:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I am very deeply involved with Bonaparte, who deletes information. Anyway, thanks for reminding me the policy. mikka (t) 19:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Clarification

First of all, Daco-Romanian IS NOT A LANGUAGE, it could be a term similar to other romance languages to clasify a group of languages shuch as Gallo-Romance languages or Ibero-Romance languages. So, the correct term I think it should be Daco-Romance. In the case of Romanian it is rarely used because technicaly THERE IS NO GROUP TO CLASIFY because it is only one language of Roman and Dacian descent and that is Romanian.

Actually, there are more languages "Roman and Dacian": Daco-Romanian, Macedo-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian. It's just that for each, the name is derived from the region where they live (Dacia, Macedonia, Meglena and Istria). In a linguistic treatise which discusses all four, simply "Romanian" would be ambiguous. bogdan 20:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Now you could all start again for the n-th time and argue that there is also Moldovian, but that is a political separation and not a linguistic one to which the term Daco-Romance could be used. One could use it to maintain a symentry betwen the clasification of western romance languages and eastern romance languages. About languages spoken South of the Danube, I doubt they sould be categorised in the same Daco-Romance category. --Orioane 20:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all, this "clarification" only deserves a separate article, since this is exactly what encyclopedia is about:clarification of things, rather than sweeping them under the carpet according to certain political agendas. And I am not "starting again"; I never denied that mo: was a political schtick. Please see my only contribution to the topic, Moldovan language#Romanizators and Originalists. mikka (t) 20:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about being a little bit aggresive, it runs in the family. :D. I try to express myself better thist time after a little brainstorming. So here it is: My opinion is, that the term Daco-Romanian is wrong. It is never used in Romanian, and I think it originated from a wrong translation of a protolanguage from which Romanian originated, called in Romania Daco-Romană to simbolise the simbiose of the Latin spoke by roman colonists with elements from the Dacian language. A better translation would be Daco-Roman. So MY opinion is that this article should be renamed to Daco-Roman to emphasize this fact, and another article Daco-Romance languages may be created. Hope to be more clear now, if not, that is why the Talk Pages are. --Orioane 20:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• All the more the article should sit here, to explain what's this word about. When you replace it by a redirect with nothing else written, you assume that the word is OK. mikka (t) 04:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Actually, Elementa linguæ daco-romanae sive valachicae was published in 1802 and Samuel Micu used this word even earlier, in 1780s. mikka (t) 04:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the Soviets actually used this term, "Daco-Romanian". From what I recall, they put Moldovan in Eastern Romance languages, with Romanian. bogdan 20:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

While we are at this, the issue here and at Romanian language is certainly a mess. The latter one says that Istro-Romanian etc. are dialects of Romanian (in sect. "Classification and related languages"). So what? Istro-Romanian is a dialect of Daco-Romanian (which is you say =Romanian)? mikka (t) 04:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I changed it back. They are sometimes named dialects, especially in 19th and early 20th century works. Nowadays, usually they are named "languages". (You know, many of today's "languages" of Italy were also "dialects" back then) bogdan 05:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, what about "limba romana comuna" (protoromanian)? It looks like political bickering is much more fun for some people tahn to describe their own language. mikka (t) 04:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

See Proto-Romanian language. bogdan 05:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, midnight; bad for brain. Need a break. mikka (t) 05:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

How's this:

• Daco-Romanian is a term used for the Romanian language spoken to the North of the Danube, the region that contains the former Roman province of Dacia, to make a distinction between the Eastern Romance group of languages spoken North of the Danube and those spoken in the Balkans when the term Romanian is used to classify the entire group of languages.

If you (Mikka and Bogdan) agree with it we should add it to the page.

--Orioane 08:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

All Moldovan topics aside here, there is the fact that "used for the Romanian language north of the danube" implies quite strongly that to the SOUTH of the danube, Romanians are speaking the same language, which is no longer the opinion of most experts. --Node 01:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

You did not read carefully to the end. The sentence ends "...when 'Romanian' is used to classify the entire group...", so there is no contradiction to your "most experts". mikka (t) 04:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no objections. bogdan 09:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

My only objection was against vigorous deletion of this page without giving any explanations what the heck it means. mikka (t) 09:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Still, is anyone willing to describe the usage of this term in 18-19th centuries? mikka (t) 04:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, the story goes like this. With Romanian nationalism also appeared a pan-romanian movement. The Romanian state (before 1918, and after) helped Romanians abroad, and the word "Romanian" was considered in a broad sense. Not only those speaking Romanian proper, but also Aromanians (also called Macedo-Romanians), Megleno-Romanians, and Istro-Romanians. At the same time, linguists chose to consider that the Romanian language includes Macedo-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian, and Istro-Romanian as dialects (they are quite close, even if not really mutually intelligible). Therefore, they needed a name for proper Romanian, and chose the name "Daco-Romanian". That's all. The name "Daco-Romanian" is today's "Romanian". Some notes: Many of the Macedo-Romanians (Aromanians) immigrated to Romania, and many were settled in Dobrogea and the Cadrilater (there may also have been population exchanges, but I am not sure). If I'm not very mistaken, Toma Caragiu and Hagi the football player are of Aromanian descent. Also, you must know that the Romanian state keeps even today some ties with these "Greater Romanian" communities. User:Dpotop

Daco-romanian as group

Please comment on the correctness of the following phrase:

In formal classifications (disputed) that list Romanian and Moldovan as separate languages, "Daco-Romanian" is used as a supergroup for the two.

I am pretty much sure that Soviets didn't classify so, but I've seen something like this on web. To what extent it is correct? 00:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC) signed by User:Mikkalai

Can you, please, give me the source? I'd really like to read it. Then only I can comment (until now, I never saw such a classification). User:Dpotop

Note I am not saying it is correct or notably accepted. Well, first of all I was wrong about Soviets.

C. Tagliviani, Le origini delle lingue neolatine. Bologna, 1952. (?) М.С.Гурычева, Сравнительно-сопоставительная грамматика романских языков. Итало-романская подгруппа. М., Наука, 1966 These two girls proposed called "substrate-based" classification, and I don't know who of them said that Daco-romaninan: Romanian, Moldavian & extinct Dalmatian language.

In Russian: http://etheo.h10.ru/roma01.htm Looks nonstandard to me.

Indirect: http://www.farsarotul.org/nl25_5.htm says "he also published on practically all the languages of the Balkans, especially Albanian (including both Shqip and Arvanitika), Daco-Romanian (including Moldavian)" implying Mold as a sep lang.

It is quite possible that this theory is thoroughly obsolete, so that there are no traces on web. I don't see big contradiction: If Soviets created a new language, it would be only natural for them to devise a supergroup, which looks totally plausible bearing in mind insignificant difference between mo: & ru: mikka (t) 11:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I read the two links (the first one using the automatic translator of Altavista). The second only says "Romanian (including Moldovan)". This expression can also be interpreted as "including Moldovan readers as Romanian". More interesting is the first link, which first states the same "Moldovan is Romanian", but then composes Istro-Romanian with Romanian to form the "Daco-Romanian group". This is not without justification, given that Istro-Romanian is the closest to Romanian of the other three Eastern Romance languages/dialects. However, I feel uncomfortable accepting this in the "Daco-Romanian" article, as it seems to be a "research-related" use of the word (and again, there is no mention of the "Moldovan language" as a separate language in any of the two links). I do not have acces to the printed references. Therefore, my oppinion is to preserve the status que for the article. User:Dpotop

Also my opinion is to preserve the status quo of this article. Bonaparte talk & contribs 15:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Separate article?

I said (at the top of this talk page) that this article doesn't give any useful info in addition to the article Romanian language. Now, after many enriching edits, it does. However, in my opinion it still doesn't deserve a separate article. I believe that the generally accepted way of doing things on Wikipedia is that articles should define concepts rather than terms. If this is right, then read again:

Daco-Romanian [...] is the term used to identify the Romanian language in contexts where distinction needs to be made between the various [...] languages or dialects [...].

So the article is about a term, and admits that the concept considered is the Romanian language. I would say it is obvious that it belongs there. --AdiJapan 13:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

We have enormous number of articles about "terms", starting with really huge one "fuck", which is about a yet another term for sexual intercourse. The article in question clearly shows that the usage of the term does not always coincide with "Romanian language". Also, the article conains elements of the history of the term, with potential for expansion ( e.g., this talk page hints at it possible usage in Soviet linguistics; Not to say I see a ridiculous lack of interest in Romanian wikipedians here in Romanian linguistics: it took an "irridentist chauvinist communist anti-Romanian anti-Semitism vandal" to dig out the Micu reference). mikka (t) 18:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It is in wikipedia policies to delegate topics out of bug articles into smaller ones, not vice versa. For example, we have separate Romanian grammar, Romanian phonology, etc. mikka (t) 18:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I got your point. Cool, we can keep it here. (And by the way, you know how to pick your examples...) --AdiJapan 19:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mikka. This article should exist. Dpotop 20:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)