![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Even though the article has made some good information and does contain a lot of information with references, there are a few points which need to be addressed before I can really call it a good article. I'm going to give examples of problems by going through the good article criteria one by one:
I'm going to help out with tweakage over the next few days, but I can't really bring the article up to GA quality with some copyediting. If anyone wishes to renominate the article again, they are welcome to contact me again for a reassessment of the article.
Peter Isotalo 14:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Please note that latin declensions had six cases, not seven as it is said at the beginning of "History" chapter. You can verify it by searching for the latin language rules on Wikipedia.
Ciocionheart 01:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I apologize: on "Latin declension" in Wikipedia it is said that latine had seven cases, mentioning the locative. It is also said that it is marginal, and this is the reason, I guess, for in the "Latin" page it is not mentioned. Ciocionheart 02:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I strongly believe that there should be a list with the most important changes to the grammar rules. I really not up-to-date to the new modifications and I would love to see a list of them. I have added a link that seemed to be quite comprehensive. Please add more links like this one, and if you know enough information about this, then please add it to the article - possibly a new section? But if you add it to the article, please do not decrease its quality.
(in Romanian) [1] Nergaal ( talk) 00:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we're in much need of a classification of Romanian according to
linguistic typology.
The current version of the article deals almost exclusively with
etymology, vocabulary, and similarities with other languages. We do have, however, some info about
word order in
Romanian grammar.
So please, can someone with much more linguistics knowledge than mine, do it?
There is also no word on
t-v distinction. But maybe just a link to the article
t-v distinction will do. --
Disconnect 6 (
talk)
12:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
i think it is obvious that it should be cutie < κυτίον cution "box" (medieval Greek) the Turkish is also from the Greek. -- Lucinos ( talk) 00:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
There are major flaws with the map: an exagerated number of speakers in Timoc and Bugeac. Plus the person that edited the previous version went over the borders, damaging the quality of the map. Dapiks ( talk) 21:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I had the occasion to travel extensively during the last 10 years in the areas of Timok and Bugeac and I can testify that alot of local people are speaking Romanian and alot of people are learning Romanian, especially because it is increasingly a prestigious language to do bussines in and to have acces of higher culture. Especially after 2000, the fast growing economy of Romania and the penetration of the Romanian media in those areas are boosting the number of the local Romanian-speakers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.105.123.228 ( talk) 19:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The IPA pronunciation providing this link might not be a reliable source. Please use a more verifiable reference for this. NHJG ( talk) 01:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
"il lessico latino nella lingua letteraria avrebbe costituito solo il 20%," -- VKokielov ( talk) 20:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The language map is not very accurate - in fact it may be original research. The Romanian speaking population in Timok Valley is not a big mass encompassing cities as well as villages but rather it is formed of scattered villages around cities which are and have historically been populated by Serbian speakers. Also, in the Bugeac, Romanians are rather scattered as well (only 13% of the population). They are concentrated mainly in Reni raion, however on the current map they are shown to include almost half of the Bugeac. I have added bellow an improved version based on the Languages of Europe map as well as the map for Bugeac and the one on Vlachs of Serbia. Dapiks ( talk) 20:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I just wanted to add Sicilian to the list under Classifications. I was unable for some reason. Following is what I wanted to add:
"Idda sempri chiudi la finestra àntica cina. (Sicilian)"
There are of course synonyms that could be used, such as "sirra" for "chiudi", "prima ca" for "àntica" and "pistìa, mancia" for "cina". There is also a variation of "àntica" that is similar to what Romanian shows, that is "in àntica" or "n'àntica".
If someone would add the above phrase to the list, I would much appreciate it. Thank you.
-- M scalisi ( talk) 08:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The article currently says:
I'm a little confused as to what this means. Doesn't /h/ represent an aspiration? How can it not be aspirated, unless it is mute? Grover cleveland 04:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Though "H" is always pronounced, it has dropped from words that are of Latin origin (om, omolog, oră, onoare, etc.). In modern Romanian, "H" always (as far as I know?) comes in words that are not of Latin origin (old Romanian words, either Slavic, borrowed from other nearby languages, or possibly from whatever language was spoken by Romanians before the Romans came). Ssmith619 ( talk) 05:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we have too many maps that are not really useful, for example we have two maps for Vojvodina when in Vojvodina there are only 0.1% of the Romanian speakers of the world. This constitutes under any criteria WP:Undue weight. Also, I don't think it's very relevant to Wikipedia to have a map where we show areas were 1-3% or less than 1% of the people learn Romanian as a second language. Also, the map of "places where Romanian is taught as foreign language" seems highly non-Encyclopedic to me, where are the sources? The author of those maps showed all the traces of ownership and accused me of abusive edits right from the start, even more, he continued that behaviour in my talk page choosing to ignore WP:AGF completely, therefore, I choose not to remove the maps a second time, since this can be interpreted as a personal war, but I'd like to see the opinion of other editors: do we really need two Vojvodina maps in this article? Is it undue weight or not? -- AdrianTM 00:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I know this is an old topic, but I agree that the map that shows where Romanian is taught as a second language is not needed. I haven't seen any such map in any other language article and think it clutters the page. Kman543210 ( talk) 02:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
There's a footnote in the article about "decision of the General Meeting of the Romanian Academy from 1993-02-17, regarding the return to „â” and „sunt”".
The part about â is explained in the article - it's â vs. î.
But what is the alternative to sunt? Was it spelled differently? -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 22:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
There are two letters with a comma below, Ș and Ț, which represent the sounds /ʃ/ and /ʦ/. However, the allographs with a cedilla instead of a comma, Ş and Ţ, became widespread when pre-Unicode and early Unicode character sets did not include the standard form. This is what the article reads, but shouldn't we use commas then with the language examples directly below?! Or is this just a nice gesture for IE6 users (who obviously cannot see the consonants with commas) ;) -andy 92.228.84.169 ( talk) 13:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
In titles, only the first letter of the first word is capitalized, the rest of the title using sentence capitalization (with all its rules: proper names are capitalized as usual, etc.). Names of months and days are not capitalized (ianuarie "January", joi "Thursday"). Adjectives derived from proper names are not capitalized (Germania "Germany", but german "German").
I fail to see how these rules can be considered particular to Romanian, as capitalisation of anything but proper names is only used (correctly) in German and English of all major languages using the Latin alphabet, as far as I know. Devanatha ( talk) 10:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I only want to say that it should be "Lei chiude~~" instead of "Ella chiude" in Italian.
Thanks~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.25.224 ( talk) 02:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
To quote: "In the 20th century, an increasing number of English words have been borrowed (such as: gem < jam; interviu < interview; meci < match; manager < manager; fotbal < football; sandviş < sandwich; bişniţă < business; ciungă < chewing gum)." I'm not sure ciunga and bişniţă should be there as they haven't been really borrowed, more like they are miss-pronounced in some circles.
Oraş comes from Greek or Slavic (Baros) and not from Hungarian -- 82.171.95.220 ( talk) 08:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
In the section on "Legal status in Vojvodina", there is a list of cities where Romanian is officially used. This list currently shows each city's Romanian name, followed in parentheses by the Serbian name (in Latin script). I'm wondering whether, perhaps, it should be the other way around — Serbian name first, followed by the Romanian name in parens — given the fact that we are talking about places in Serbia, where the primary official language (and thus, presumably, the primary official name of each city) is Serbian. I also note that the individual cities' Wikipedia articles are filed under the Serbian names, with the Romanian names being defined as redirects. What do people think about the idea of putting the Serbian city names first (followed by parenthesized Romanian names)? Richwales ( talk) 20:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
There are translation errors in the paragraph starting with
In general, most Slavic borrowings have become well incorporated into Romanian and are no longer perceived as foreign.
I believe the text should read
In general, most Slavic borrowings have become well incorporated into Romanian and are no longer perceived as foreign. In fact, many Romanian words occur as a natural combination of Slavic and Romance elements: devreme ce"since", aşíjderea "likewise", a îmbolnăvi "to make ill", a împleti "to weave", a învârti ...
Devreme means "early", devreme ce is the expression for "since" (in the sense of "because")
A îmbolnăvi is "to make ill" while a se îmbolnăvi is "to become ill". These are minor changes from the point of view of orthography (for lack of a better word) but I do not wish to make them because I do not know the original author's intent thus I am not qualified to decide which of the meanings were intended.
Would the original author please make the corrections?-- 66.11.89.241 ( talk) 19:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Let me ask you this: how much of that entire section is compliant with WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:NOT? Dahn ( talk) 12:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
You are of course quite right. I can't believe I messed that up. I am not in any way an expert in the field and indeed not a usual wiki editor. I don't know how much of the information is correct or verifiable. I just wanted to correct what I as a native speaker (living outside Romania since I was a kid) saw as an obvious error. Since I'm new to Wikipedia editing, I didn't want to change the meaning without asking first. Thank you for fixing it!-- 66.11.89.241 ( talk) 15:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The section is too large and there are some tendentious claims there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.34.230.127 ( talk) 13:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Official and national language Official but not primary language National minority language EU Romanian diaspora
Should these be in different colors? poor sighted users might find the second- and third- last one's hard to read. -- 203.171.192.112 ( talk) 06:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The Italian phrase should be "Lei apre sempre la finestra prima di cenare" Please change this! /Jannika —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jannikaojeda ( talk • contribs) 22:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Lei is wrong, it's used only in the oral form of italian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.179.120.4 ( talk) 14:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The articles said: "Romanian has preserved declension, but whereas Latin had six cases, Romanian has five: the nominative, vocative, accusative, genitive, and dative,", I deletted that because is iincorrect and is contradictory with what is stated a few lines below: "Romanian nouns are inflected by gender (feminine, masculine and neuter), number (singular and plural) and case (nominative/accusative, dative/genitive and vocative)." So, Romanian is considered to have 3 case forms, not 5.-- DaniloVilicic ( talk) 05:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Quote: «Romanian nouns are declined by gender (feminine, masculine and neuter), number (singular and plural)…»
declined by gender is linguistically incorrect. Nouns can decline by case and number because they change in case in number. Nouns do not decline by gender. Nouns have gender. E.g. дом [dom] (house) in Russian is always masculine. You can't decline it into feminine. But you can decline it into dative дому [domu] (to house) or change дом into plural дома [dama] (houses). In any case it remains masculine.
Adjectives can decline by gender according to the noun they modify: большой дом [balshoy dom] (big house), большая улица [bolshaya ulitsa] (big street). большой is masculine (as is дом – house), большая is feminine (as is улица – street). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.78.89.127 ( talk) 16:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Romanian language is an inflationary language that that has three genders for the noun (masculine, feminine, neuter), five cases (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, vocative) and two numbers (singular and plural). —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
89.36.190.155 (
talk)
19:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The world map on this page says me that the EU is a "Romanian-speaking territory"... Could we just change the title of this map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.80.75 ( talk) 23:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry this seems to be a bit "crazy". I checked the referred site and it tells me that there are approx. 8000 speakers in this country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.211.117 ( talk) 00:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The following section puzzles me:
Contemporary Romanian with French or Italian loanwords:
Romanian, excluding French and Italian loanwords, with Slavic loanwords:
Romanian, excluding loanwords:
Are we to understand that these are all equally valid and natural sentences in Romanian? I note that the first sentence uses the term "Contemporary Romanian", which suggests that it is more neutral and natural than the other two. Or are they simply three versions cooked up as a kind of academic exercise to show how some words could be substituted by others?
Could someone explain the significance of the three versions a bit better?
Bathrobe ( talk) 14:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Since the territory blonged to Turkic Cumans for several hundred years it would be an obvious to ask this question.
Quote from Cumans article.
Edelward ( talk) 11:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Not many, 2-3% at most. Mostly Ottoman terms, i.e borrowed during the Ottoman domination. Dc76\ talk 11:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a genuine Romanian friend, besides the fact that google translator is horrible at Romanian to English translations, "is not exist limba moldovenească", she says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.1.84.55 ( talk) 05:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The letter 'e' at the beginning of some words like in 'era' (from to be) is not generally pronounced with short i, this is only in the Moldovan dialect and it is not generally.
The section with pronunciation is a short section with general rules. Only general rules. No stories, no super long essays of linguistics and original research and one's impressions. Using original research of type "generally pronounced" is not allowed in Wikipedia. If it is "generally pronounced" it means by a majority? Nope. This is not true, as I am Romanian and never learned this rule of pronunciation in school and never heard it on TV or on the street.
Also please keep in mind that in that sections are the rules, not the exceptions that are controversial, because this is not helping anybody. You want to say for a stranger of Romania to better pronounce "este" as "ieste" with short "i" to be understood and if he pronounces "este" with no "i" is not understood?
These polemics and things that are controversial are not part of the encyclopedia. Only if you want to write an essay of linguistic you can mention these findings, but they don't have any value to a normal person, it just confuses. Thank you -- Alomado ( talk) 08:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this e pronunciation in a fi conjugation: eram, erau, era is part of the rules.
I mentioned the controversy around e in erai but the details are not relevant for the general rules. Even if there are sources for the "a fi" pronunciation, this is not a rule, it is an exception.
The vast majority of words starting with e like electricitate, educatie, ecologie, ecumenic, eroare, elaborare, etc do not have this ie pronunciation, so we cannot have a rule that words starting with e are pronounced with ie. And the section there is about rules, not about exceptions. Architengi ( talk) 17:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The IPA transcription [roˈmɨnə] (in both the lead paragraph and the infobox) shows stress on the second syllable, but the linked audio sounds to me as if it stresses the first syllable. Which is correct? I assume the audio is more likely to be correct, since it seems less likely that a speaker of Romanian would mispronounce the name of his own language than that an IPA transcription would contain a mistake. But maybe, since I am completely unfamiliar with the language, I'm not correctly detecting the stressed syllable in the audio. Someone who knows, please clarify. Thanks. -- Jim10701 ( talk) 18:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the origin of the word "mișto" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_language#Other_influences )is German "mit Stock"/"ohne Stock" (see http://www.romlit.ro/mito_i_legenda_bastonului ) Căluşaru' ( talk) 22:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be right, I was using my horse glasses when reading that article. Well, at least I found a good source to sustain that word's etymology an learned something today. Căluşaru' ( talk) 00:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
What is the purpose of this sample sentence in the article? Why and how was this particular sentence chosen? Do any sources on Romanian (or on any other language) take such sample sentences to illustrate something? If they do, we should use their samples. This one seems to be trying hard to use only Latin-origin words. — Adi Japan 08:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed the way Romanian pronounces the diphthong ea not as e-a but ea sort of like English "yeah" or "yah" which the vowel corresponds to the Old Church Slavonic yat vowel Ѣ. And Romanian had this vowel for the "ea" diphthong when the language was written in the Cyrillic alphabet. Any thoughts on this? Hypothetical BS ( talk) 07:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
On an sort of off topic note, my opinion is that romanian written in cyrillic looked much more beautiful and unique and would have been the more distinct and unique of the romance languages in europe. It seems that romanian is, or was, by and large a slavo-romance language with a heavy dose slavic vocabulary, morphology and phonology, yet the syntax is predominantly romance. The language could have been just like the Maltese language, which is the only semitic language written in the latin alphabet; which has a heavy dose of italian/sicilian influence but the syntax is basically arabic. Hypothetical BS ( talk) 08:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I find the Balkan sprachbund paragraph very wrong. It first starts saying "While most of Romanian grammar and morphology are based on Latin, there are some features that are shared only with other languages of the Balkans and not found in other Romance languages." Then it says "The shared features include a suffixed definite article, the syncretism of genitive and dative case and the formation of the future and perfect." However the perfect is formed in Romanian exactly like in the other Romance languages (even including two forms of perfect, composed and simple, the latter not being present in other Balkan languages). The situation of the future (va+infintive) is similar. -- Danutz ( talk) 13:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
QUOTE About 300 words found only in Romanian (in all dialects) or with a cognate in the Albanian language may be inherited from Dacian, many of them being related to pastoral life (for example: balaur "dragon", brânză "cheese", mal "shore"). UNQUOTE
"Brynza" (брынза) is a Russian name for a certain type of cheese. So this word is not uniquely Romanian. Offensive ru ( talk) 19:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I took out this statement:
Dacian was probably close to the neighbouring Balto-Slavic branches of Indo-European.
Not enough support for this statement and the article on Dacian itself makes no mention of it. Besides, how can a language be close to two language groups that really have only a few similarities to each other and are rather controversially placed together? Kasnie 07:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm making some changes to this article. The section on the Romanian substratum had to be updated so I'm in the process of doing that. Prior to my new edits, part of the section read too much as if, "oh, those substratum words are Albanian loanwords"---I want it to be clear in the Dacian language section of this article that:
More to come. I know that we have the article Eastern Romance substratum and we have List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin, however we needed a much better summary in the Romanian language article, so I'm working on that. I will post more here to discuss the needed changes. 76.208.178.193 ( talk) 18:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
And yes I know that there were some speakers of Thracian in northern Greece and there were Thracian incursions and settlements of some sort in Albania, however those areas (northern Greece and Albania) were not in any way predominantly Thracian. Albania was by far mostly Illyrian, while in Northern Greece there were Greeks, ancient Macedonians, Paionians (unclear whether they were Illyric, Thracian, or a different group perhaps related to Phrygians), Illyrians, and some Thracians. 76.208.178.193 ( talk) 18:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I have a question: the idea that a significant portion of Proto-Romanian ethnogenesis and language genesis occured in Northern Greece, can we say that nowadays that idea is a fringe hypothesis, and it is given undue weight in the Romanian language article? I know that some material in Wikipedia is passed down from the early days of Wiki (2001 to 2005) when outdated ideas were often placed prominently in articles (and that still happens often) and the material often stayed there in the article for awhile---which may be the case here. 76.208.178.193 ( talk) 19:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I have heard Romanians speak, and <ea> is in fact pronounced /æ/, not /ea/. It may have been that way in the past, but in that case through the course of linguistic evolution they were conjoined into a single sound.
Also, Wikipedia uses a cedilla under t and s instead of a comma, which is highly hypocritical due to how in the articles on Romanian phonology it is stated that the comma is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.27.186 ( talk • contribs)
Bogdangiusca, do you think you could provide some more detail regarding this change? I'm particularly concerned because your deletion of material included the deletion of a source — if it's a poor-quality source, that may be OK, but is there a better source to use in its place? As things stand right now, I fear someone is likely to come along and revert "removal of sourced material" or some such, and I think we'd all prefer to avoid that sort of altercation. — Rich wales 05:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
In Romania, the official language is Romanian.
http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?den=act2_2&par1=1#t1c0s0a1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.126.34.17 ( talk) 06:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
List of countries where Romanian is an official language contains three very short tables, including a two-element list matching its title. It also duplicates information already found in Romanian language. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 09:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Pray where do you get these numbers? Ninety percent Latin words? I don't think the Vatican can lay that claim. -- VKokielov ( talk) 20:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
It is a contradiction with what is written few lines below, where you read that 75-80% of words can be traced to Latin and also it is provided an explanation. Bogdanno ( talk) 21:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. This makes absolutely no sense. I think it should be deleted. Are these figures referenced? Gug 01 Gug01 ( talk) 01:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Gug 01
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Romanian language. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi guys, I am wondering if this source is considered valid. If it is, the article would need an extensive rewrite. I do not know what to make of this source. Gug01 ( talk) 00:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Romanian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
The section on Slavic languages is probably too big and should be summarised here and moved to its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnight Madness ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The article says there’s a difference to the situation on the Germanic lines but I see no clear expectation why, could this be clarified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.72.186.51 ( talk) 20:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Many of the quotations in the Early history section are in Romanian. Most of them were probably not originally written in Romanian, since they are taken from the works of Croatian, Polish, Italian, Saxon etc. authors. I think that this is somewhat misleading. 81.175.244.139 ( talk) 11:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The "Prehistory" section presents the Daco-Roman continuity theory as the only widely accepted scholarly view about the origin of the Romanian language, although this is not the case (for further info I refer to the academic works cited in the Origin of the Romanians). Furthermore, the section claims that the military terms of the inherited Latin vocabulary of the Romanian language could only be preserved in Dacia Traiana because 2 legions stationed in this province to the north of the Danube. However, in the lands to the south of the Danube (for instance in Illyricum) there were more legions and the same territories were under Roman rule for 600 years (while the Romans abandoned Dacia Traiana after 180 years). Furthermore, certain military terms were most probably not directly inherited from the Latin language, but were (re-)borrowed from the Albanian language most probably in Illyricum /for instance, Romanian sat ("village") < Albanian fshat("village") < Latin fossātum ("ditch"), (I refer to works cited in the article History of Romanian/. Borsoka ( talk) 17:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Verginia's star: While I agree to most of your other edits to this article, which are mostly removals of unsourced and/or unnecessary information, I disagree with
this edit. Firstly, the statement that the term "Romanian" is sometimes used also in a more general sense
is supported by a link showing that Encyclopædia Britannica actually does use the term in exactly this way. Secondly, the removal of the sentence leaves the continuation without context: Starting a section with "The four languages" without having mentioned any languages does not make sense. The whole section clarifies that even if the term "Romanian" sometimes is used differently, this article is only concerned with dialects of "Romanian" in the narrower (and more commonly used) sense. --
T*U (
talk)
07:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
This stub adds no useful information to that in the article on the Romanian language. Romanian language can mean one of two things:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Again you make bias edits Mikka, this is another proof of your bias edits.-- Bonaparte 19:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
It is a MAJOR MISTAKE to consider Latin as the basis of all the so-called Latin languages! Here's the reason: https://plus.google.com/u/0/115254974114157068545/posts/fLbMGPTabPb (romanian and english subtitle) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiltis ( talk • contribs) 11:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Still, is anyone willing to describe the usage of this term in 18-19th centuries? mikka (t) 04:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Please comment on the correctness of the following phrase:
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
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)
Also my opinion is to preserve the status quo of this article. Bonaparte talk & contribs 15:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
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:
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)
The changes described are deeper than just phonetic, e.g. surface phonetic [ke] or [ki] to [tʃe] or [tʃi] is presented, but restructuring of /ke/ or /ki/ to /tʃe/ or /tʃi/ reports what gives Romanian its form with regard to those evolutions. The conflation eventually leads to statements such as /ks/ → [ps] (rather than /ks/ > /ps/) and (undifferentiated as to level) e and o → ea and oa, which half explicitly, half implicitly combine to claim that an item such as coapsă is phonemically/structurally/underlyingly (take your choice) /koksa/, pronounced [koapsa] (with no information on stress). The section is actually Phonological changes, and needs re-working by someone who knows both diachronic and synchronic phonology of Romanian. Barefoot through the chollas ( talk) 16:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
All major theories can be presented in the article, but we should respect WP:DUE. The theory which claims that Romanian is the direct descdendant of the Dacian language is fringe. We can edit WP based on reliable sources (primarily on sources written by respected scholars and published in peer-reviewed books). Borsoka ( talk) 00:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
native words used for thousands of years in Dacia. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, the background: we don't directly know the Dacian words, but some Romanian words are thought to be of Dacian origin, because they lack any other alternative etymology and also by comparison with Albanian. These being said, we don't know Dacian words used for thousands of years since Dacians had no writing and therefore there is no evidence to support such claim. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
The source provided in the article: Andreose, Alvise; Renzi, Lorenzo (2013). "Geography and distribution of the Romance languages in Europe". In Maiden, Martin; Smith, John Charles; Ledgeway, Adam (eds.). The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, Volume II: Contexts. Cambridge University Press. pp. 283–334. ISBN 978-0-521-80073-0.
On page 287, we find:
"In contrast, extensive 'neo-Romanized areas are fond north of the Danube. The area of colonization of Dacia essentially correspond to modern Western Romania (Transylvania, Banat, western Muntenia. The thesis of 'continuity', according to which Romanian continues the Latin of Dacia (a Roman province from 107 to 275AD when it was abandoned by Aurelian), is not universally accepted. Some scholars hold that Romanian was formed wholly or in part to the south of the Danube, and the current location of Romanian is the result of internal migrations"
The original information from page 287 is not enough accurately reproduced in the article. We should work on this and find a better version. I'll introduce a tag disputed – discuss up to the resolution. Horea Vêntilă ( talk) 09:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Kateybeck.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Literally the most significant and striking facts about the history of Romanian from a comparative point of view aren't mentioned in the history section and are only touched upon in the lexis section, namely that there was an extremely long period, beginning with the fall of the Roman Empire, during which Romanian largely wasn't used in writing or for official purposes, that Romanian wasn't the official and literary language of the Romanian principalities until the 18th century, and that Church Slavonic was their official and literary language until then. Instead, the section is cluttered by an endless series of quotes that apparently all serve to drive home only one point, namely ... that Romanian speakers existed (no joke, I thought they were just suddenly dropped in Romania by an alien ship). Oh, and, of course, the inevitable message that 'all your Moldova are belong to us'. 79.100.144.23 ( talk) 20:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Even though the article has made some good information and does contain a lot of information with references, there are a few points which need to be addressed before I can really call it a good article. I'm going to give examples of problems by going through the good article criteria one by one:
I'm going to help out with tweakage over the next few days, but I can't really bring the article up to GA quality with some copyediting. If anyone wishes to renominate the article again, they are welcome to contact me again for a reassessment of the article.
Peter Isotalo 14:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Please note that latin declensions had six cases, not seven as it is said at the beginning of "History" chapter. You can verify it by searching for the latin language rules on Wikipedia.
Ciocionheart 01:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I apologize: on "Latin declension" in Wikipedia it is said that latine had seven cases, mentioning the locative. It is also said that it is marginal, and this is the reason, I guess, for in the "Latin" page it is not mentioned. Ciocionheart 02:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I strongly believe that there should be a list with the most important changes to the grammar rules. I really not up-to-date to the new modifications and I would love to see a list of them. I have added a link that seemed to be quite comprehensive. Please add more links like this one, and if you know enough information about this, then please add it to the article - possibly a new section? But if you add it to the article, please do not decrease its quality.
(in Romanian) [1] Nergaal ( talk) 00:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we're in much need of a classification of Romanian according to
linguistic typology.
The current version of the article deals almost exclusively with
etymology, vocabulary, and similarities with other languages. We do have, however, some info about
word order in
Romanian grammar.
So please, can someone with much more linguistics knowledge than mine, do it?
There is also no word on
t-v distinction. But maybe just a link to the article
t-v distinction will do. --
Disconnect 6 (
talk)
12:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
i think it is obvious that it should be cutie < κυτίον cution "box" (medieval Greek) the Turkish is also from the Greek. -- Lucinos ( talk) 00:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
There are major flaws with the map: an exagerated number of speakers in Timoc and Bugeac. Plus the person that edited the previous version went over the borders, damaging the quality of the map. Dapiks ( talk) 21:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I had the occasion to travel extensively during the last 10 years in the areas of Timok and Bugeac and I can testify that alot of local people are speaking Romanian and alot of people are learning Romanian, especially because it is increasingly a prestigious language to do bussines in and to have acces of higher culture. Especially after 2000, the fast growing economy of Romania and the penetration of the Romanian media in those areas are boosting the number of the local Romanian-speakers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.105.123.228 ( talk) 19:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The IPA pronunciation providing this link might not be a reliable source. Please use a more verifiable reference for this. NHJG ( talk) 01:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
"il lessico latino nella lingua letteraria avrebbe costituito solo il 20%," -- VKokielov ( talk) 20:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The language map is not very accurate - in fact it may be original research. The Romanian speaking population in Timok Valley is not a big mass encompassing cities as well as villages but rather it is formed of scattered villages around cities which are and have historically been populated by Serbian speakers. Also, in the Bugeac, Romanians are rather scattered as well (only 13% of the population). They are concentrated mainly in Reni raion, however on the current map they are shown to include almost half of the Bugeac. I have added bellow an improved version based on the Languages of Europe map as well as the map for Bugeac and the one on Vlachs of Serbia. Dapiks ( talk) 20:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I just wanted to add Sicilian to the list under Classifications. I was unable for some reason. Following is what I wanted to add:
"Idda sempri chiudi la finestra àntica cina. (Sicilian)"
There are of course synonyms that could be used, such as "sirra" for "chiudi", "prima ca" for "àntica" and "pistìa, mancia" for "cina". There is also a variation of "àntica" that is similar to what Romanian shows, that is "in àntica" or "n'àntica".
If someone would add the above phrase to the list, I would much appreciate it. Thank you.
-- M scalisi ( talk) 08:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The article currently says:
I'm a little confused as to what this means. Doesn't /h/ represent an aspiration? How can it not be aspirated, unless it is mute? Grover cleveland 04:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Though "H" is always pronounced, it has dropped from words that are of Latin origin (om, omolog, oră, onoare, etc.). In modern Romanian, "H" always (as far as I know?) comes in words that are not of Latin origin (old Romanian words, either Slavic, borrowed from other nearby languages, or possibly from whatever language was spoken by Romanians before the Romans came). Ssmith619 ( talk) 05:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we have too many maps that are not really useful, for example we have two maps for Vojvodina when in Vojvodina there are only 0.1% of the Romanian speakers of the world. This constitutes under any criteria WP:Undue weight. Also, I don't think it's very relevant to Wikipedia to have a map where we show areas were 1-3% or less than 1% of the people learn Romanian as a second language. Also, the map of "places where Romanian is taught as foreign language" seems highly non-Encyclopedic to me, where are the sources? The author of those maps showed all the traces of ownership and accused me of abusive edits right from the start, even more, he continued that behaviour in my talk page choosing to ignore WP:AGF completely, therefore, I choose not to remove the maps a second time, since this can be interpreted as a personal war, but I'd like to see the opinion of other editors: do we really need two Vojvodina maps in this article? Is it undue weight or not? -- AdrianTM 00:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I know this is an old topic, but I agree that the map that shows where Romanian is taught as a second language is not needed. I haven't seen any such map in any other language article and think it clutters the page. Kman543210 ( talk) 02:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
There's a footnote in the article about "decision of the General Meeting of the Romanian Academy from 1993-02-17, regarding the return to „â” and „sunt”".
The part about â is explained in the article - it's â vs. î.
But what is the alternative to sunt? Was it spelled differently? -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 22:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
There are two letters with a comma below, Ș and Ț, which represent the sounds /ʃ/ and /ʦ/. However, the allographs with a cedilla instead of a comma, Ş and Ţ, became widespread when pre-Unicode and early Unicode character sets did not include the standard form. This is what the article reads, but shouldn't we use commas then with the language examples directly below?! Or is this just a nice gesture for IE6 users (who obviously cannot see the consonants with commas) ;) -andy 92.228.84.169 ( talk) 13:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
In titles, only the first letter of the first word is capitalized, the rest of the title using sentence capitalization (with all its rules: proper names are capitalized as usual, etc.). Names of months and days are not capitalized (ianuarie "January", joi "Thursday"). Adjectives derived from proper names are not capitalized (Germania "Germany", but german "German").
I fail to see how these rules can be considered particular to Romanian, as capitalisation of anything but proper names is only used (correctly) in German and English of all major languages using the Latin alphabet, as far as I know. Devanatha ( talk) 10:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I only want to say that it should be "Lei chiude~~" instead of "Ella chiude" in Italian.
Thanks~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.25.224 ( talk) 02:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
To quote: "In the 20th century, an increasing number of English words have been borrowed (such as: gem < jam; interviu < interview; meci < match; manager < manager; fotbal < football; sandviş < sandwich; bişniţă < business; ciungă < chewing gum)." I'm not sure ciunga and bişniţă should be there as they haven't been really borrowed, more like they are miss-pronounced in some circles.
Oraş comes from Greek or Slavic (Baros) and not from Hungarian -- 82.171.95.220 ( talk) 08:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
In the section on "Legal status in Vojvodina", there is a list of cities where Romanian is officially used. This list currently shows each city's Romanian name, followed in parentheses by the Serbian name (in Latin script). I'm wondering whether, perhaps, it should be the other way around — Serbian name first, followed by the Romanian name in parens — given the fact that we are talking about places in Serbia, where the primary official language (and thus, presumably, the primary official name of each city) is Serbian. I also note that the individual cities' Wikipedia articles are filed under the Serbian names, with the Romanian names being defined as redirects. What do people think about the idea of putting the Serbian city names first (followed by parenthesized Romanian names)? Richwales ( talk) 20:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
There are translation errors in the paragraph starting with
In general, most Slavic borrowings have become well incorporated into Romanian and are no longer perceived as foreign.
I believe the text should read
In general, most Slavic borrowings have become well incorporated into Romanian and are no longer perceived as foreign. In fact, many Romanian words occur as a natural combination of Slavic and Romance elements: devreme ce"since", aşíjderea "likewise", a îmbolnăvi "to make ill", a împleti "to weave", a învârti ...
Devreme means "early", devreme ce is the expression for "since" (in the sense of "because")
A îmbolnăvi is "to make ill" while a se îmbolnăvi is "to become ill". These are minor changes from the point of view of orthography (for lack of a better word) but I do not wish to make them because I do not know the original author's intent thus I am not qualified to decide which of the meanings were intended.
Would the original author please make the corrections?-- 66.11.89.241 ( talk) 19:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Let me ask you this: how much of that entire section is compliant with WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:NOT? Dahn ( talk) 12:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
You are of course quite right. I can't believe I messed that up. I am not in any way an expert in the field and indeed not a usual wiki editor. I don't know how much of the information is correct or verifiable. I just wanted to correct what I as a native speaker (living outside Romania since I was a kid) saw as an obvious error. Since I'm new to Wikipedia editing, I didn't want to change the meaning without asking first. Thank you for fixing it!-- 66.11.89.241 ( talk) 15:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The section is too large and there are some tendentious claims there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.34.230.127 ( talk) 13:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Official and national language Official but not primary language National minority language EU Romanian diaspora
Should these be in different colors? poor sighted users might find the second- and third- last one's hard to read. -- 203.171.192.112 ( talk) 06:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The Italian phrase should be "Lei apre sempre la finestra prima di cenare" Please change this! /Jannika —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jannikaojeda ( talk • contribs) 22:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Lei is wrong, it's used only in the oral form of italian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.179.120.4 ( talk) 14:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The articles said: "Romanian has preserved declension, but whereas Latin had six cases, Romanian has five: the nominative, vocative, accusative, genitive, and dative,", I deletted that because is iincorrect and is contradictory with what is stated a few lines below: "Romanian nouns are inflected by gender (feminine, masculine and neuter), number (singular and plural) and case (nominative/accusative, dative/genitive and vocative)." So, Romanian is considered to have 3 case forms, not 5.-- DaniloVilicic ( talk) 05:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Quote: «Romanian nouns are declined by gender (feminine, masculine and neuter), number (singular and plural)…»
declined by gender is linguistically incorrect. Nouns can decline by case and number because they change in case in number. Nouns do not decline by gender. Nouns have gender. E.g. дом [dom] (house) in Russian is always masculine. You can't decline it into feminine. But you can decline it into dative дому [domu] (to house) or change дом into plural дома [dama] (houses). In any case it remains masculine.
Adjectives can decline by gender according to the noun they modify: большой дом [balshoy dom] (big house), большая улица [bolshaya ulitsa] (big street). большой is masculine (as is дом – house), большая is feminine (as is улица – street). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.78.89.127 ( talk) 16:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Romanian language is an inflationary language that that has three genders for the noun (masculine, feminine, neuter), five cases (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, vocative) and two numbers (singular and plural). —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
89.36.190.155 (
talk)
19:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The world map on this page says me that the EU is a "Romanian-speaking territory"... Could we just change the title of this map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.80.75 ( talk) 23:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry this seems to be a bit "crazy". I checked the referred site and it tells me that there are approx. 8000 speakers in this country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.211.117 ( talk) 00:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The following section puzzles me:
Contemporary Romanian with French or Italian loanwords:
Romanian, excluding French and Italian loanwords, with Slavic loanwords:
Romanian, excluding loanwords:
Are we to understand that these are all equally valid and natural sentences in Romanian? I note that the first sentence uses the term "Contemporary Romanian", which suggests that it is more neutral and natural than the other two. Or are they simply three versions cooked up as a kind of academic exercise to show how some words could be substituted by others?
Could someone explain the significance of the three versions a bit better?
Bathrobe ( talk) 14:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Since the territory blonged to Turkic Cumans for several hundred years it would be an obvious to ask this question.
Quote from Cumans article.
Edelward ( talk) 11:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Not many, 2-3% at most. Mostly Ottoman terms, i.e borrowed during the Ottoman domination. Dc76\ talk 11:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a genuine Romanian friend, besides the fact that google translator is horrible at Romanian to English translations, "is not exist limba moldovenească", she says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.1.84.55 ( talk) 05:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The letter 'e' at the beginning of some words like in 'era' (from to be) is not generally pronounced with short i, this is only in the Moldovan dialect and it is not generally.
The section with pronunciation is a short section with general rules. Only general rules. No stories, no super long essays of linguistics and original research and one's impressions. Using original research of type "generally pronounced" is not allowed in Wikipedia. If it is "generally pronounced" it means by a majority? Nope. This is not true, as I am Romanian and never learned this rule of pronunciation in school and never heard it on TV or on the street.
Also please keep in mind that in that sections are the rules, not the exceptions that are controversial, because this is not helping anybody. You want to say for a stranger of Romania to better pronounce "este" as "ieste" with short "i" to be understood and if he pronounces "este" with no "i" is not understood?
These polemics and things that are controversial are not part of the encyclopedia. Only if you want to write an essay of linguistic you can mention these findings, but they don't have any value to a normal person, it just confuses. Thank you -- Alomado ( talk) 08:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this e pronunciation in a fi conjugation: eram, erau, era is part of the rules.
I mentioned the controversy around e in erai but the details are not relevant for the general rules. Even if there are sources for the "a fi" pronunciation, this is not a rule, it is an exception.
The vast majority of words starting with e like electricitate, educatie, ecologie, ecumenic, eroare, elaborare, etc do not have this ie pronunciation, so we cannot have a rule that words starting with e are pronounced with ie. And the section there is about rules, not about exceptions. Architengi ( talk) 17:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The IPA transcription [roˈmɨnə] (in both the lead paragraph and the infobox) shows stress on the second syllable, but the linked audio sounds to me as if it stresses the first syllable. Which is correct? I assume the audio is more likely to be correct, since it seems less likely that a speaker of Romanian would mispronounce the name of his own language than that an IPA transcription would contain a mistake. But maybe, since I am completely unfamiliar with the language, I'm not correctly detecting the stressed syllable in the audio. Someone who knows, please clarify. Thanks. -- Jim10701 ( talk) 18:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the origin of the word "mișto" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_language#Other_influences )is German "mit Stock"/"ohne Stock" (see http://www.romlit.ro/mito_i_legenda_bastonului ) Căluşaru' ( talk) 22:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be right, I was using my horse glasses when reading that article. Well, at least I found a good source to sustain that word's etymology an learned something today. Căluşaru' ( talk) 00:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
What is the purpose of this sample sentence in the article? Why and how was this particular sentence chosen? Do any sources on Romanian (or on any other language) take such sample sentences to illustrate something? If they do, we should use their samples. This one seems to be trying hard to use only Latin-origin words. — Adi Japan 08:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed the way Romanian pronounces the diphthong ea not as e-a but ea sort of like English "yeah" or "yah" which the vowel corresponds to the Old Church Slavonic yat vowel Ѣ. And Romanian had this vowel for the "ea" diphthong when the language was written in the Cyrillic alphabet. Any thoughts on this? Hypothetical BS ( talk) 07:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
On an sort of off topic note, my opinion is that romanian written in cyrillic looked much more beautiful and unique and would have been the more distinct and unique of the romance languages in europe. It seems that romanian is, or was, by and large a slavo-romance language with a heavy dose slavic vocabulary, morphology and phonology, yet the syntax is predominantly romance. The language could have been just like the Maltese language, which is the only semitic language written in the latin alphabet; which has a heavy dose of italian/sicilian influence but the syntax is basically arabic. Hypothetical BS ( talk) 08:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I find the Balkan sprachbund paragraph very wrong. It first starts saying "While most of Romanian grammar and morphology are based on Latin, there are some features that are shared only with other languages of the Balkans and not found in other Romance languages." Then it says "The shared features include a suffixed definite article, the syncretism of genitive and dative case and the formation of the future and perfect." However the perfect is formed in Romanian exactly like in the other Romance languages (even including two forms of perfect, composed and simple, the latter not being present in other Balkan languages). The situation of the future (va+infintive) is similar. -- Danutz ( talk) 13:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
QUOTE About 300 words found only in Romanian (in all dialects) or with a cognate in the Albanian language may be inherited from Dacian, many of them being related to pastoral life (for example: balaur "dragon", brânză "cheese", mal "shore"). UNQUOTE
"Brynza" (брынза) is a Russian name for a certain type of cheese. So this word is not uniquely Romanian. Offensive ru ( talk) 19:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I took out this statement:
Dacian was probably close to the neighbouring Balto-Slavic branches of Indo-European.
Not enough support for this statement and the article on Dacian itself makes no mention of it. Besides, how can a language be close to two language groups that really have only a few similarities to each other and are rather controversially placed together? Kasnie 07:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm making some changes to this article. The section on the Romanian substratum had to be updated so I'm in the process of doing that. Prior to my new edits, part of the section read too much as if, "oh, those substratum words are Albanian loanwords"---I want it to be clear in the Dacian language section of this article that:
More to come. I know that we have the article Eastern Romance substratum and we have List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin, however we needed a much better summary in the Romanian language article, so I'm working on that. I will post more here to discuss the needed changes. 76.208.178.193 ( talk) 18:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
And yes I know that there were some speakers of Thracian in northern Greece and there were Thracian incursions and settlements of some sort in Albania, however those areas (northern Greece and Albania) were not in any way predominantly Thracian. Albania was by far mostly Illyrian, while in Northern Greece there were Greeks, ancient Macedonians, Paionians (unclear whether they were Illyric, Thracian, or a different group perhaps related to Phrygians), Illyrians, and some Thracians. 76.208.178.193 ( talk) 18:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I have a question: the idea that a significant portion of Proto-Romanian ethnogenesis and language genesis occured in Northern Greece, can we say that nowadays that idea is a fringe hypothesis, and it is given undue weight in the Romanian language article? I know that some material in Wikipedia is passed down from the early days of Wiki (2001 to 2005) when outdated ideas were often placed prominently in articles (and that still happens often) and the material often stayed there in the article for awhile---which may be the case here. 76.208.178.193 ( talk) 19:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I have heard Romanians speak, and <ea> is in fact pronounced /æ/, not /ea/. It may have been that way in the past, but in that case through the course of linguistic evolution they were conjoined into a single sound.
Also, Wikipedia uses a cedilla under t and s instead of a comma, which is highly hypocritical due to how in the articles on Romanian phonology it is stated that the comma is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.27.186 ( talk • contribs)
Bogdangiusca, do you think you could provide some more detail regarding this change? I'm particularly concerned because your deletion of material included the deletion of a source — if it's a poor-quality source, that may be OK, but is there a better source to use in its place? As things stand right now, I fear someone is likely to come along and revert "removal of sourced material" or some such, and I think we'd all prefer to avoid that sort of altercation. — Rich wales 05:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
In Romania, the official language is Romanian.
http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?den=act2_2&par1=1#t1c0s0a1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.126.34.17 ( talk) 06:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
List of countries where Romanian is an official language contains three very short tables, including a two-element list matching its title. It also duplicates information already found in Romanian language. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 09:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Pray where do you get these numbers? Ninety percent Latin words? I don't think the Vatican can lay that claim. -- VKokielov ( talk) 20:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
It is a contradiction with what is written few lines below, where you read that 75-80% of words can be traced to Latin and also it is provided an explanation. Bogdanno ( talk) 21:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. This makes absolutely no sense. I think it should be deleted. Are these figures referenced? Gug 01 Gug01 ( talk) 01:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Gug 01
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Romanian language. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi guys, I am wondering if this source is considered valid. If it is, the article would need an extensive rewrite. I do not know what to make of this source. Gug01 ( talk) 00:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Romanian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
The section on Slavic languages is probably too big and should be summarised here and moved to its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnight Madness ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The article says there’s a difference to the situation on the Germanic lines but I see no clear expectation why, could this be clarified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.72.186.51 ( talk) 20:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Many of the quotations in the Early history section are in Romanian. Most of them were probably not originally written in Romanian, since they are taken from the works of Croatian, Polish, Italian, Saxon etc. authors. I think that this is somewhat misleading. 81.175.244.139 ( talk) 11:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The "Prehistory" section presents the Daco-Roman continuity theory as the only widely accepted scholarly view about the origin of the Romanian language, although this is not the case (for further info I refer to the academic works cited in the Origin of the Romanians). Furthermore, the section claims that the military terms of the inherited Latin vocabulary of the Romanian language could only be preserved in Dacia Traiana because 2 legions stationed in this province to the north of the Danube. However, in the lands to the south of the Danube (for instance in Illyricum) there were more legions and the same territories were under Roman rule for 600 years (while the Romans abandoned Dacia Traiana after 180 years). Furthermore, certain military terms were most probably not directly inherited from the Latin language, but were (re-)borrowed from the Albanian language most probably in Illyricum /for instance, Romanian sat ("village") < Albanian fshat("village") < Latin fossātum ("ditch"), (I refer to works cited in the article History of Romanian/. Borsoka ( talk) 17:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Verginia's star: While I agree to most of your other edits to this article, which are mostly removals of unsourced and/or unnecessary information, I disagree with
this edit. Firstly, the statement that the term "Romanian" is sometimes used also in a more general sense
is supported by a link showing that Encyclopædia Britannica actually does use the term in exactly this way. Secondly, the removal of the sentence leaves the continuation without context: Starting a section with "The four languages" without having mentioned any languages does not make sense. The whole section clarifies that even if the term "Romanian" sometimes is used differently, this article is only concerned with dialects of "Romanian" in the narrower (and more commonly used) sense. --
T*U (
talk)
07:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
This stub adds no useful information to that in the article on the Romanian language. Romanian language can mean one of two things:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Again you make bias edits Mikka, this is another proof of your bias edits.-- Bonaparte 19:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
It is a MAJOR MISTAKE to consider Latin as the basis of all the so-called Latin languages! Here's the reason: https://plus.google.com/u/0/115254974114157068545/posts/fLbMGPTabPb (romanian and english subtitle) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiltis ( talk • contribs) 11:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Still, is anyone willing to describe the usage of this term in 18-19th centuries? mikka (t) 04:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Please comment on the correctness of the following phrase:
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
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)
Also my opinion is to preserve the status quo of this article. Bonaparte talk & contribs 15:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
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:
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)
The changes described are deeper than just phonetic, e.g. surface phonetic [ke] or [ki] to [tʃe] or [tʃi] is presented, but restructuring of /ke/ or /ki/ to /tʃe/ or /tʃi/ reports what gives Romanian its form with regard to those evolutions. The conflation eventually leads to statements such as /ks/ → [ps] (rather than /ks/ > /ps/) and (undifferentiated as to level) e and o → ea and oa, which half explicitly, half implicitly combine to claim that an item such as coapsă is phonemically/structurally/underlyingly (take your choice) /koksa/, pronounced [koapsa] (with no information on stress). The section is actually Phonological changes, and needs re-working by someone who knows both diachronic and synchronic phonology of Romanian. Barefoot through the chollas ( talk) 16:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
All major theories can be presented in the article, but we should respect WP:DUE. The theory which claims that Romanian is the direct descdendant of the Dacian language is fringe. We can edit WP based on reliable sources (primarily on sources written by respected scholars and published in peer-reviewed books). Borsoka ( talk) 00:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
native words used for thousands of years in Dacia. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, the background: we don't directly know the Dacian words, but some Romanian words are thought to be of Dacian origin, because they lack any other alternative etymology and also by comparison with Albanian. These being said, we don't know Dacian words used for thousands of years since Dacians had no writing and therefore there is no evidence to support such claim. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
The source provided in the article: Andreose, Alvise; Renzi, Lorenzo (2013). "Geography and distribution of the Romance languages in Europe". In Maiden, Martin; Smith, John Charles; Ledgeway, Adam (eds.). The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, Volume II: Contexts. Cambridge University Press. pp. 283–334. ISBN 978-0-521-80073-0.
On page 287, we find:
"In contrast, extensive 'neo-Romanized areas are fond north of the Danube. The area of colonization of Dacia essentially correspond to modern Western Romania (Transylvania, Banat, western Muntenia. The thesis of 'continuity', according to which Romanian continues the Latin of Dacia (a Roman province from 107 to 275AD when it was abandoned by Aurelian), is not universally accepted. Some scholars hold that Romanian was formed wholly or in part to the south of the Danube, and the current location of Romanian is the result of internal migrations"
The original information from page 287 is not enough accurately reproduced in the article. We should work on this and find a better version. I'll introduce a tag disputed – discuss up to the resolution. Horea Vêntilă ( talk) 09:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Kateybeck.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Literally the most significant and striking facts about the history of Romanian from a comparative point of view aren't mentioned in the history section and are only touched upon in the lexis section, namely that there was an extremely long period, beginning with the fall of the Roman Empire, during which Romanian largely wasn't used in writing or for official purposes, that Romanian wasn't the official and literary language of the Romanian principalities until the 18th century, and that Church Slavonic was their official and literary language until then. Instead, the section is cluttered by an endless series of quotes that apparently all serve to drive home only one point, namely ... that Romanian speakers existed (no joke, I thought they were just suddenly dropped in Romania by an alien ship). Oh, and, of course, the inevitable message that 'all your Moldova are belong to us'. 79.100.144.23 ( talk) 20:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)