This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Megleno-Romanian language article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I dispute the above, especially the part that says that Aromanians were split from the Romanians, based on the essay of Helen Abatzi, The Vlachs of Greece and their Misunderstood History [1].
The article makes the very broad claim that Megleno-Romanian "contains" Dacian and Thracian words that have cognates in Albanian. Contains suggests that we don't know if they are borrowings or not. Which they must be if they are of Dacian or Thracian origin. But how do we know they are? This needs citation. "Cognate" is a technical term for material that is inherited by different languages. Therefore, the article implies that Albanian is Dacian and/or Thracian, which is not a fact rather one of many possibilities that have been suggested for the history of Albanian, none of which there is any evidence for. This piece needs citations and clarity about how little is known about some of these topics.
The suggestion that Megleno-Romanian has ever been in contact with Bulgarian is questionable. Certainly Standard Bulgarian hasn't been spoken on the territory that Megleno-Romanian is now spoken. I don't care if whoever you are object to 'Macedonian' to describe the relevant East South Slavic dialects, but don't use junk. Say South Slavic or explain the situation.
I've just overhauled the English of the article, but two passages were rather obscure, and my recasting might have changed the intended meaning. Could those involved have a look at the new version, and let me know whether or not I've understood the original text correctly? If I haven't, I'd be grateful if you could explain what was actually meant, and I'll go back and correct my revision. Thanks. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I rest my case. :-) bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 16:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Need I say more? Sentences like these just don't belong in an encyclopedia. It is utter bullshit that calling a certain variant a dialect of another language consitutes any claim of their ethnicity. Linguists are politically neutral and when the cold-hearted truth is that Megleno-Romanian is extremely similar to Daco-Romanian, well, you can't do anything about it. Which fact does not essentially make them Romanians, of course. Another ethnic identity does not automatically consitute a different language. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 10:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the title should be changed to MEGLENIAN language, because it represents better the reality. The term Megleno-Romanian is a misleading one. It gives from the start the impression that the language is a dialect of Daco-Romanian. It is true that there are different points of view about its origin, but as they are only theories, it can be discussed in the ’’ origin & history ‘’ section . Taken into consideration the geographical area, where the language is spoken and the low level of mutual intelligibility with the modern Romanian, the title should be : Meglenian language ! We can not continue with theories of the XIX-th century, when all Eastern Romance languages were considered dialects of Daco-Romanian. Verginia's star ( talk) 00:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• COMMONLY used, in RELIABLE sources! Which sources are reliable? The “scientific studies” done by Romanian scholars in line with the nationalist propaganda?! Commonly used by whom? By the same “Professionals”! Verginia's star ( talk) 17:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
During the last month, Verginia's star has made a huge number of edits to this and related articles, many of which have been improvements. The problem, however, have been that those edits mostly have been without proper sourcing. Also, the lack of edit summaries have made it hard to follow what has been going on. In many cases, the additions have taken the form of commentary, giving it a look of original research. I have tried to follow up the Aromanian language article somewhat, among other things with tagging of unsourced additions. The sheer volume of edits have made it impossible for me to follow up more.
In the early hours today (UTC), the user made a number of large edits to the article, among them some major changes in the lede. These were reverted by Drmies with the edit summary "These edits are neither explained nor verified." Verginia's star reverted immediately (for once including an edit summary: "which edits, specifically?") and continued editing. I have now reverted this last bout of edits to the article. It is necessary to take a time-out for some discussion.
The changes to the lede include:
Some of these changes may be correct, others are definitely wrong, none of them are sourced. They need to be discussed and sourced before re-entered. Suggested reading for participants: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS. -- T*U ( talk) 14:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
1) The name of the language used by its speakers is Meglãneshte or Moglãneshte and not Vlăheshte !
Vlach, Vlãheshte, ta Blaxika, Vllaçe, etc. are all of them EXONYMS! No one among Romanians, Aromanians, Meglenians, describe themselves or their language as Vlach! The ENDONYMS are: Romãn, Armãn, Meglen!
2) Maybe the two alternative names (Meglenitic and Moglenitic) have been in the article for years, but they are WRONG!
Both terms are Greek and are used only by Greeks in order to describe the language!(ta meglenitika or ta moglenitika) The general term is MEGLENIAN or MOGLENIAN language!
3) The name for the speakers is not mentioned in the article Megleno-Romanians, but that doesn't mean that it does not exist!
Have you asked yourselves where the title of the language comes from? And don't tell me that it comes from Megleno-Romanians, because the second component of the term is an INVENTION of Romanian scholars, the same like Macedo-Romanian, Istro-Romanian, Proto-Romanian...According to them everyone in the Balkans is Romanian and speaks Romanian! Anyone in Albania, Greece, Macedonia, Bulgaria call them MEGLENS or MOGLEN people and no one calls them Megleno-Romanian!
4) I didn't remove any info about the area where they live, I just put them in an order. Verginia's star ( talk) 17:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
≠About sources: First of all I don't need to give any source regarding the EXONYMS and ENDONYMS!Those are well known! Who has provided sources about meglenitic/moglenitic? Regarding the general term, I mean the English term![ex: Romanian-Românește; Aromanian-Armãneashti; Istrian-Rumârește; Meglenian-Meglāneshte;] The fact that you can't find the term in google search is due to the fact that until now all pages about Eastern Romance languages have been a real mess, only Romanian propaganda! Verginia's star ( talk) 21:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC) - Regardind the info from the lede, you are right! I removed it by mistake when I was trying to rewrite the section. Verginia's star ( talk) 21:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Megleno-Romanian language article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I dispute the above, especially the part that says that Aromanians were split from the Romanians, based on the essay of Helen Abatzi, The Vlachs of Greece and their Misunderstood History [1].
The article makes the very broad claim that Megleno-Romanian "contains" Dacian and Thracian words that have cognates in Albanian. Contains suggests that we don't know if they are borrowings or not. Which they must be if they are of Dacian or Thracian origin. But how do we know they are? This needs citation. "Cognate" is a technical term for material that is inherited by different languages. Therefore, the article implies that Albanian is Dacian and/or Thracian, which is not a fact rather one of many possibilities that have been suggested for the history of Albanian, none of which there is any evidence for. This piece needs citations and clarity about how little is known about some of these topics.
The suggestion that Megleno-Romanian has ever been in contact with Bulgarian is questionable. Certainly Standard Bulgarian hasn't been spoken on the territory that Megleno-Romanian is now spoken. I don't care if whoever you are object to 'Macedonian' to describe the relevant East South Slavic dialects, but don't use junk. Say South Slavic or explain the situation.
I've just overhauled the English of the article, but two passages were rather obscure, and my recasting might have changed the intended meaning. Could those involved have a look at the new version, and let me know whether or not I've understood the original text correctly? If I haven't, I'd be grateful if you could explain what was actually meant, and I'll go back and correct my revision. Thanks. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I rest my case. :-) bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 16:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Need I say more? Sentences like these just don't belong in an encyclopedia. It is utter bullshit that calling a certain variant a dialect of another language consitutes any claim of their ethnicity. Linguists are politically neutral and when the cold-hearted truth is that Megleno-Romanian is extremely similar to Daco-Romanian, well, you can't do anything about it. Which fact does not essentially make them Romanians, of course. Another ethnic identity does not automatically consitute a different language. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 10:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the title should be changed to MEGLENIAN language, because it represents better the reality. The term Megleno-Romanian is a misleading one. It gives from the start the impression that the language is a dialect of Daco-Romanian. It is true that there are different points of view about its origin, but as they are only theories, it can be discussed in the ’’ origin & history ‘’ section . Taken into consideration the geographical area, where the language is spoken and the low level of mutual intelligibility with the modern Romanian, the title should be : Meglenian language ! We can not continue with theories of the XIX-th century, when all Eastern Romance languages were considered dialects of Daco-Romanian. Verginia's star ( talk) 00:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• COMMONLY used, in RELIABLE sources! Which sources are reliable? The “scientific studies” done by Romanian scholars in line with the nationalist propaganda?! Commonly used by whom? By the same “Professionals”! Verginia's star ( talk) 17:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
During the last month, Verginia's star has made a huge number of edits to this and related articles, many of which have been improvements. The problem, however, have been that those edits mostly have been without proper sourcing. Also, the lack of edit summaries have made it hard to follow what has been going on. In many cases, the additions have taken the form of commentary, giving it a look of original research. I have tried to follow up the Aromanian language article somewhat, among other things with tagging of unsourced additions. The sheer volume of edits have made it impossible for me to follow up more.
In the early hours today (UTC), the user made a number of large edits to the article, among them some major changes in the lede. These were reverted by Drmies with the edit summary "These edits are neither explained nor verified." Verginia's star reverted immediately (for once including an edit summary: "which edits, specifically?") and continued editing. I have now reverted this last bout of edits to the article. It is necessary to take a time-out for some discussion.
The changes to the lede include:
Some of these changes may be correct, others are definitely wrong, none of them are sourced. They need to be discussed and sourced before re-entered. Suggested reading for participants: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS. -- T*U ( talk) 14:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
1) The name of the language used by its speakers is Meglãneshte or Moglãneshte and not Vlăheshte !
Vlach, Vlãheshte, ta Blaxika, Vllaçe, etc. are all of them EXONYMS! No one among Romanians, Aromanians, Meglenians, describe themselves or their language as Vlach! The ENDONYMS are: Romãn, Armãn, Meglen!
2) Maybe the two alternative names (Meglenitic and Moglenitic) have been in the article for years, but they are WRONG!
Both terms are Greek and are used only by Greeks in order to describe the language!(ta meglenitika or ta moglenitika) The general term is MEGLENIAN or MOGLENIAN language!
3) The name for the speakers is not mentioned in the article Megleno-Romanians, but that doesn't mean that it does not exist!
Have you asked yourselves where the title of the language comes from? And don't tell me that it comes from Megleno-Romanians, because the second component of the term is an INVENTION of Romanian scholars, the same like Macedo-Romanian, Istro-Romanian, Proto-Romanian...According to them everyone in the Balkans is Romanian and speaks Romanian! Anyone in Albania, Greece, Macedonia, Bulgaria call them MEGLENS or MOGLEN people and no one calls them Megleno-Romanian!
4) I didn't remove any info about the area where they live, I just put them in an order. Verginia's star ( talk) 17:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
≠About sources: First of all I don't need to give any source regarding the EXONYMS and ENDONYMS!Those are well known! Who has provided sources about meglenitic/moglenitic? Regarding the general term, I mean the English term![ex: Romanian-Românește; Aromanian-Armãneashti; Istrian-Rumârește; Meglenian-Meglāneshte;] The fact that you can't find the term in google search is due to the fact that until now all pages about Eastern Romance languages have been a real mess, only Romanian propaganda! Verginia's star ( talk) 21:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC) - Regardind the info from the lede, you are right! I removed it by mistake when I was trying to rewrite the section. Verginia's star ( talk) 21:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)