Romania Template‑class | ||||||||||
|
Why does the "dialects" section link to the Romanian dialects page? The latter is about the varieties in Romania, whereas the former refers to Moldovan and Aromanian and the likes. May I add that the theory according to which southern Balkan Latin languages are dialects of Romanian is not by any means universal? Dahn 04:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Proper periodization, according to: [1] + [2] ( Rgvis ( talk) 12:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC))
Let's stick to the periodization proposed by scholars (in order to avoid any original research). ( Rgvis ( talk) 15:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC))
You already have the answers in the links mentioned above. ( Rgvis ( talk) 15:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC))
Agree with the reference to the superstratum. Also, the Romanian Cyrillic alphabet belongs to the Old Romanian period, while the modern period must be properly represented. ( Rgvis ( talk) 16:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC))
Relatinization is only a phase in the modernization process (together with others already mentioned). And, the main purpose of this template is an objective presentation of the described context. ( Rgvis ( talk) 17:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC))
What do you mean by "standard literature"? There are already very clear references regarding the respective classification. Let's not get stuck in all sorts of original research attempts and move on, OK? ( Rgvis ( talk) 06:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC))
As considered by scholars, relatinization is only a phase of the modernization process. ( Rgvis ( talk) 07:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC))
The article deals only with one of the aspects related to the respective modernization process (the fact that it makes references to other aspects, does not mean that it covers the respective topics). ( Rgvis ( talk) 07:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC))
All the mentioned topics are much more complex. As for the substratum, as you have already read (on pages 845-846 - [4]) this is specified very clearly: Thracian-Dacian. ( Rgvis ( talk) 08:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC))
Based on the fact that Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and this is a template (not used for WP:FRINGE), the correct approach would be that stipulated by the mainstream scholars (which is Thraco-Dacian). As for the periodization, once again, Relatinization is only a phase in the modernization process (according to so many indisputable sources). ( Rgvis ( talk) 09:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC))
Yes, relatinization is a phase in the development of the modern Romanian language. And, you have just broken the three-revert rule. ( Rgvis ( talk) 10:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC))
Actually, it is vice versa (the relatinization process begins with - and belongs to - the Transylvanian School); read page 860 ( [6]). ( Rgvis ( talk) 11:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC))
This means that you refuse to read any reference provided!
The new epoch (from 1780 until today) is divided into three stages:
— the pre-modern or stage of modernization (1780-1830), with numerous translations and the first linguistic normative works;
— the modern stage (1831-1880) when a stylistic diversification took place and original literature developed through the 1848 writers;
— the contemporary stage (1880 until today), which begins with classical writers M. Eminescu, I. Creangă and I. L. Caragiale.
In the pre-modern period (1780-1830), Romanian culture undergoes a process of rebirth manifested as a tendency to modernize its structures. The epoch is dominated by the doctrine of Şcoala Ardeleană ‘The Transylvanian School’ .... Due to Şcoala Ardeleană ‘ The Transylvanian School’, Romanian turned to Latin and the other modern Romance languages. It is the beginning of a deliberate process of re-Latinization of the literary language, which would last a century and generate, after 1840, excesses of linguistic purism. In the adaptation of new terms, of neologisms, to the phonetic and morphologic structure of Romanian, hesitations, oscillation and uncertainty are noted that would last several decades. Finally, in this epoch a process of emancipating the written language from the influence of the language of religious texts began. At the end of this period, literary Romanian has three main variants, each confined to a certain province (Transylvania, Moldavia, Ţara Românească = Wallachia).
The modern period (1831-1880) brings to an end the modernizing process started in the previous period. The period is dominated by the scholars’ wish to overcome the regionalism of the culture and to lay the foundations of a pan-Romanian culture. On the level of linguistics, the period is dominated by the Latinist ideology, whose representatives argued for the elimination of non-Latin elements from the literary language. Although the excesses of linguistic purism were eliminated, the Latin model will have left its permanent imprint on the literary aspect of the language.
The unification of the literary language was accomplished according to the norms spelled out by I. Heliade-Rădulescu around 1840. The unified language had to start from the literary norm of religious texts, which had the advantage of being unitary. Accepting the norm of religious texts as basis for the unification of the language, Heliade founded the new literary language upon the Wallachian idiom, which had been accepted as the unique language of culture in the printed religious texts of the 1750’ s.
Concerning the modernization of the literary language, “the enrichment” of the lexic was a major preoccupation. Most cultural personalities suggested Romanian should resort to Latin, others that it should approach French, in the first place, or Italian (the direction promoted by I. Heliade Rădulescu). There were also people who believed that the renewal of vocabulary should use the internal elements of the language (obviously, those of Latin origin). ....
The contemporary period (from 1881 to the present) is characterized by the completion of the process of linguistic unification and modernization of the literary language. The Romanian Academy played an important part in this process by publishing in 1881 the first official orthography orientated towards phonetism. This was the first breach with Latinism and thus contributed to the decline of this cultural trend. The Latin model was replaced by the Wallachian one, which had started to gain ground, in some cases, even since 1860-1880. This process was accelerated after 1918, when the unitary Romanian state came into existence. ....
The modern epoch meant in fact Romania’s and Romanian’s turning with it’s face towards the West, after having had it’s “ face turned”, for several centuries of social and cultural history, “ toward the East”. Romanians, the only Latin people of the Orthodox religion, could not have recourse to Latin, used in the Romance West in schools, administration and of course church. While the Western neo-Latin people continuously renewed their language(s), throughout centuries and especially during the Middle Ages and Renaissance, with Latin forms and turns of phrase, Romanians turned to Slavonic, the language of culture here in use. We shouldn’t forget the reverse side of the coin, too : free from the pressure of literary Latin, so powerful in the West through schools and church, Romanian was able to develop unimpended in accordance with the tendencies of late Latin. As a result, Romanian became the most Latin of the Romance languages: not through Latin element and accrued through the centuries, but through natural evolution of the Latin tendencies; in the words of the German Romanist E. Gamillscheg, “ Romanian, the child who was separated from his family early on, preserved old family features with more fidelity, even in the new ambiance where it grew up”.
— Marius Sala, Romanian - The periodization, Revue belge de Philologie et d'Histoire Année 2010 88-3 pp. 860-863, [7]
On the other hand, non-English sources are allowed and commonly used on the English Wikipedia articles (and, moreover, this is the Romanian language template!). ( Rgvis ( talk) 16:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC))
All things are as clear as possible. Otherwise, it is about the pre-modern stage (or phase) of the new epoch (aka modern) period, and a similar periodization is also presented by other sources:
1. The old period, starting with the passage from the Balkan and Carpatho-Danubian Latin in the 7th-8th century (the period of the formation of all Romance languages) towards the common Romanian, in the first phase, and by differentiating the four Romanian dialects towards the old Daco Romanian, old Aromanian, etc., and in a second phase, that goes until the birth of the first autonomous Romanian state formations through the XII-XIII centuries. ....
2. The middle period (which corresponds to the old Romanian language in the specialized literature), dating from the existence of the first Romanian state formations, the keneziates from Transylvania and Maramures, and the voivodeships of Moldavia and Wallachia, until the middle of the eighteenth century, when a part of the elites ... begins to separate from the Slavic-Byzantine cultural model and turn towards West ....
3. The modern period with
(a) pre-modern phase (from the second half of the eighteenth century to 1830)
(b) accelerated modernization phase (1830 until the end of the 19th century)
(c) contemporary phase (from the beginning of the 20th century until today).
— Klaus Bochmann, A problem of the history of the Romanian language apparently solved: the periodization, Akademos pp. 15-18, [8]
( Rgvis ( talk) 18:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC))
The current version of this template should already be seen as a compromise. I still consider that the most accurate version remains the first one I proposed. ( Rgvis ( talk) 07:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC))
As described above, the Transylvanian School, relatinization, or reromanization, westernization and lexical enrichment, unification and standardization processes, all are part of the modernization period of the Romanian language. All works dealing exclusively with the problem of periodization clearly show that the period of modernization is not reduced only to the so-called "relatinization" concept. The current form of the historic evolution section of this template is chronological (and chronologically, the "Transylvanian school" precedes the relatinization process (mother-son relationship)). From a structural point of view (the version I still support), "Transylvanian school" and "relatinization" are both part (along with the other processes) of the modernization period. Since on Wikipedia the articles are not considered final, but in a permanent improvement process, over time things can change (for example, besides the Transylvanian school, an important and influential role in the modernization of the language was also played by the cultural-linguistic currents from Moldavia and Wallachia (so references to these aspects may also appear)). ( Rgvis ( talk) 10:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC))
Why do you always like to contradict yourself (you have said that you "never debated the periodization of the development of the Romanian language")? 1)+2): the period is called Modernization (read the ref. cited). The contribution of the Transylvanian School is much more complex: by publishing the first grammars and dictionaries, "the Romanian literary language becomes a normative, unitary and stable one, entering the modern period of development. The initiative to modernize the Romanian literary language was continued throughout the 19th century, through the contribution of the most representative scholars". [9] 3): From the periodization point of view, we cannot speak of the Modernization period before the "Transylvanian School", which was the first one "to realize the necessity of modernizing the language through loans from the mother tongue". [10] 4) Just because the Relatinization article also refers to other stages of the Modernization period, does not mean that those topics are completely addressed. ( Rgvis ( talk) 08:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC))
I have shown very clearly (with references to appropriate sources) that 1) the proper name of this period is called "Modernization" (from which resulted the modern Romanian) 2) this period is composed of three stages: a) pre-modern stage - with the Transylvanian School as the main exponent b) modern stage - with the Latinism doctrine and vocabulary renewal through lexical enrichment plus the cultural-linguistic currents c) contemporary stage - characterized by the completion of the unification and standardization processes.
The first time I proposed the variant that brings together all these stages under the main period
[11]. Because you did not accept the periodization established by scholars, I came up with the second proposal to highlight only the stages of the modernization period
[12]. All variants that you proposed do not respect the periodization established by scholars (
WP:OR).
So, on the one hand, you say that you do not debate the proposed periodization, and on the other hand, you continue to delete any template version based on it. I'm sorry, but this is a clear example of disruptive editing. (
Rgvis (
talk) 13:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC))
1) It is not
WP:OR: the superstratum in Romanian refers to the old Slavic language and not the words entered later from the neighboring Slavic languages (Bulgarian, Serbian, Ukrainian, Polish, Russian)
[13], and there are scholars who argue that the Slavic influence in Romanian began in or even before the 7th century
[14],
[15] - however, I agreed that both, the substrate and the superstrate, can be individualized within the periodization
[16].
2) As for the modern period, the whole modernization process cannot be reduced only to the relatinization phase. The periodization is as clear as possible, and yes, with the Transylvanian School representing an important stage (pre-modern or transition stage),
[17],
[18], relatinization being another stage of the modernization period, and so on
[19] (as has been presented so many times before). As can be seen, everything is very well referenced. (
Rgvis (
talk) 07:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC))
The modernization period does not refer only to the relatinization stage (as already shown). ( Rgvis ( talk) 07:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC))
In fact, in all this debate, you did not come with any source to support your edits. At least one source, to say that the modernization period of the Romanian language is reduced only to relatinization, a reference that explicitly states this fact. But instead, you continued to deny and revert all well-referenced edits. ( Rgvis ( talk) 18:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC))
Let me clarify a few things:
1) This topic is about the concept of periodization, not relatinization;
2) The relatinization is a stage of the modernization period, not the entire modernization period. As many references show, the relatinization process cannot describe the entire period of the modernization process, because:
2a) The Transylvanian School has a much more complex role and that is why it is included as being part of the pre-modern stage (of the modernization period);
2b) In practice, the process of relatinization had the greatest impact during the next stage, called the (accelerated) modernization stage (of the modernization period);
2c) The contemporary stage (of the modernization period) is, first of all, characterized by the completion of the linguistic unification and modernization of the literary language process (a process that actually started from the pre-modern stage);
3) This is not a matter of English terms (geographical names, historical, personal names, etc.) used in English works, but of concepts established by scholars, regardless of their ethnic origin and the original language in which the respective concepts were defined. And, in this case, it is quite natural for the concept of periodization of the Romanian language to be one of interest for the Romanian scholars, first of all. Actually, even the term of "re-Latinization" used in connection with the Romanian language (along with other terms, like re-romanization, Westernization, francization, lexical enrichment, Latin-Romanic loans, etc.), was first formulated by the Romanian scholars, not by others (on the other hand, the same term of relatinization is also used in connection with the other Romance languages, which all went through similar periods, specific to each language (and where, there is also a parallel terminology for the respective periods like cultismo, latinismo, etc.)).
(
Rgvis (
talk) 09:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC))
It is not OR, as long as everything is well referenced (as mentioned above, so many times). ( Rgvis ( talk) 12:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC))
Eastern Romance substratum (words) → Romanization → Vulgar Latin (sound changes) → Proto-Romanian → Slavic superstratum (Romanian Cyrillic alphabet) → Old Romanian → Modern Romanian (Transylvanian School, Romanian transitional alphabet, Re-latinization, Unification and standardization). A lot of these are very superficial and very concerned with how the language is written. That's a superficial part of the structure of a language, especially when we are talking about periods where most of the population was illiterate (i.e. most of history). If we were going to focus on anything this way, better would be "Syntax developments", "Morphology developments", like we do with Sound changes. But better just to keep periods about identifying the periods and put other stuff elsewhere (ex. "Diachronic developments" -- list script stuff, Transylvanian school, sound changes, maybe morph, syntax etc if such pages exist). See for example Template:History_of_English. -- Calthinus ( talk) 13:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The scientific community... doesn't regard "Vlach" (as in Serbia) or Moldovan, last I checked, as different languages. Governments do. Should we really be favoring politics over science in the infobox? I'm fine if we agree to do so and will abide by it, but I want to know the thoughts of others: @ Rgvis, Borsoka, and KIENGIR:.-- Calthinus ( talk) 16:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Do you think that
Re-latinization of Romanian means
language contact or is it rather part of the broad history of the Romanian language?
Quote: Language contact occurs when speakers of two or more languages or varieties interact and influence each other. Is this the case with Re-latinization?
Leader31 (
talk) 09:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Romania Template‑class | ||||||||||||||
|
Why does the "dialects" section link to the Romanian dialects page? The latter is about the varieties in Romania, whereas the former refers to Moldovan and Aromanian and the likes. May I add that the theory according to which southern Balkan Latin languages are dialects of Romanian is not by any means universal? Dahn 04:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Proper periodization, according to: [1] + [2] ( Rgvis ( talk) 12:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC))
Let's stick to the periodization proposed by scholars (in order to avoid any original research). ( Rgvis ( talk) 15:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC))
You already have the answers in the links mentioned above. ( Rgvis ( talk) 15:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC))
Agree with the reference to the superstratum. Also, the Romanian Cyrillic alphabet belongs to the Old Romanian period, while the modern period must be properly represented. ( Rgvis ( talk) 16:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC))
Relatinization is only a phase in the modernization process (together with others already mentioned). And, the main purpose of this template is an objective presentation of the described context. ( Rgvis ( talk) 17:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC))
What do you mean by "standard literature"? There are already very clear references regarding the respective classification. Let's not get stuck in all sorts of original research attempts and move on, OK? ( Rgvis ( talk) 06:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC))
As considered by scholars, relatinization is only a phase of the modernization process. ( Rgvis ( talk) 07:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC))
The article deals only with one of the aspects related to the respective modernization process (the fact that it makes references to other aspects, does not mean that it covers the respective topics). ( Rgvis ( talk) 07:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC))
All the mentioned topics are much more complex. As for the substratum, as you have already read (on pages 845-846 - [4]) this is specified very clearly: Thracian-Dacian. ( Rgvis ( talk) 08:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC))
Based on the fact that Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and this is a template (not used for WP:FRINGE), the correct approach would be that stipulated by the mainstream scholars (which is Thraco-Dacian). As for the periodization, once again, Relatinization is only a phase in the modernization process (according to so many indisputable sources). ( Rgvis ( talk) 09:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC))
Yes, relatinization is a phase in the development of the modern Romanian language. And, you have just broken the three-revert rule. ( Rgvis ( talk) 10:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC))
Actually, it is vice versa (the relatinization process begins with - and belongs to - the Transylvanian School); read page 860 ( [6]). ( Rgvis ( talk) 11:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC))
This means that you refuse to read any reference provided!
The new epoch (from 1780 until today) is divided into three stages:
— the pre-modern or stage of modernization (1780-1830), with numerous translations and the first linguistic normative works;
— the modern stage (1831-1880) when a stylistic diversification took place and original literature developed through the 1848 writers;
— the contemporary stage (1880 until today), which begins with classical writers M. Eminescu, I. Creangă and I. L. Caragiale.
In the pre-modern period (1780-1830), Romanian culture undergoes a process of rebirth manifested as a tendency to modernize its structures. The epoch is dominated by the doctrine of Şcoala Ardeleană ‘The Transylvanian School’ .... Due to Şcoala Ardeleană ‘ The Transylvanian School’, Romanian turned to Latin and the other modern Romance languages. It is the beginning of a deliberate process of re-Latinization of the literary language, which would last a century and generate, after 1840, excesses of linguistic purism. In the adaptation of new terms, of neologisms, to the phonetic and morphologic structure of Romanian, hesitations, oscillation and uncertainty are noted that would last several decades. Finally, in this epoch a process of emancipating the written language from the influence of the language of religious texts began. At the end of this period, literary Romanian has three main variants, each confined to a certain province (Transylvania, Moldavia, Ţara Românească = Wallachia).
The modern period (1831-1880) brings to an end the modernizing process started in the previous period. The period is dominated by the scholars’ wish to overcome the regionalism of the culture and to lay the foundations of a pan-Romanian culture. On the level of linguistics, the period is dominated by the Latinist ideology, whose representatives argued for the elimination of non-Latin elements from the literary language. Although the excesses of linguistic purism were eliminated, the Latin model will have left its permanent imprint on the literary aspect of the language.
The unification of the literary language was accomplished according to the norms spelled out by I. Heliade-Rădulescu around 1840. The unified language had to start from the literary norm of religious texts, which had the advantage of being unitary. Accepting the norm of religious texts as basis for the unification of the language, Heliade founded the new literary language upon the Wallachian idiom, which had been accepted as the unique language of culture in the printed religious texts of the 1750’ s.
Concerning the modernization of the literary language, “the enrichment” of the lexic was a major preoccupation. Most cultural personalities suggested Romanian should resort to Latin, others that it should approach French, in the first place, or Italian (the direction promoted by I. Heliade Rădulescu). There were also people who believed that the renewal of vocabulary should use the internal elements of the language (obviously, those of Latin origin). ....
The contemporary period (from 1881 to the present) is characterized by the completion of the process of linguistic unification and modernization of the literary language. The Romanian Academy played an important part in this process by publishing in 1881 the first official orthography orientated towards phonetism. This was the first breach with Latinism and thus contributed to the decline of this cultural trend. The Latin model was replaced by the Wallachian one, which had started to gain ground, in some cases, even since 1860-1880. This process was accelerated after 1918, when the unitary Romanian state came into existence. ....
The modern epoch meant in fact Romania’s and Romanian’s turning with it’s face towards the West, after having had it’s “ face turned”, for several centuries of social and cultural history, “ toward the East”. Romanians, the only Latin people of the Orthodox religion, could not have recourse to Latin, used in the Romance West in schools, administration and of course church. While the Western neo-Latin people continuously renewed their language(s), throughout centuries and especially during the Middle Ages and Renaissance, with Latin forms and turns of phrase, Romanians turned to Slavonic, the language of culture here in use. We shouldn’t forget the reverse side of the coin, too : free from the pressure of literary Latin, so powerful in the West through schools and church, Romanian was able to develop unimpended in accordance with the tendencies of late Latin. As a result, Romanian became the most Latin of the Romance languages: not through Latin element and accrued through the centuries, but through natural evolution of the Latin tendencies; in the words of the German Romanist E. Gamillscheg, “ Romanian, the child who was separated from his family early on, preserved old family features with more fidelity, even in the new ambiance where it grew up”.
— Marius Sala, Romanian - The periodization, Revue belge de Philologie et d'Histoire Année 2010 88-3 pp. 860-863, [7]
On the other hand, non-English sources are allowed and commonly used on the English Wikipedia articles (and, moreover, this is the Romanian language template!). ( Rgvis ( talk) 16:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC))
All things are as clear as possible. Otherwise, it is about the pre-modern stage (or phase) of the new epoch (aka modern) period, and a similar periodization is also presented by other sources:
1. The old period, starting with the passage from the Balkan and Carpatho-Danubian Latin in the 7th-8th century (the period of the formation of all Romance languages) towards the common Romanian, in the first phase, and by differentiating the four Romanian dialects towards the old Daco Romanian, old Aromanian, etc., and in a second phase, that goes until the birth of the first autonomous Romanian state formations through the XII-XIII centuries. ....
2. The middle period (which corresponds to the old Romanian language in the specialized literature), dating from the existence of the first Romanian state formations, the keneziates from Transylvania and Maramures, and the voivodeships of Moldavia and Wallachia, until the middle of the eighteenth century, when a part of the elites ... begins to separate from the Slavic-Byzantine cultural model and turn towards West ....
3. The modern period with
(a) pre-modern phase (from the second half of the eighteenth century to 1830)
(b) accelerated modernization phase (1830 until the end of the 19th century)
(c) contemporary phase (from the beginning of the 20th century until today).
— Klaus Bochmann, A problem of the history of the Romanian language apparently solved: the periodization, Akademos pp. 15-18, [8]
( Rgvis ( talk) 18:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC))
The current version of this template should already be seen as a compromise. I still consider that the most accurate version remains the first one I proposed. ( Rgvis ( talk) 07:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC))
As described above, the Transylvanian School, relatinization, or reromanization, westernization and lexical enrichment, unification and standardization processes, all are part of the modernization period of the Romanian language. All works dealing exclusively with the problem of periodization clearly show that the period of modernization is not reduced only to the so-called "relatinization" concept. The current form of the historic evolution section of this template is chronological (and chronologically, the "Transylvanian school" precedes the relatinization process (mother-son relationship)). From a structural point of view (the version I still support), "Transylvanian school" and "relatinization" are both part (along with the other processes) of the modernization period. Since on Wikipedia the articles are not considered final, but in a permanent improvement process, over time things can change (for example, besides the Transylvanian school, an important and influential role in the modernization of the language was also played by the cultural-linguistic currents from Moldavia and Wallachia (so references to these aspects may also appear)). ( Rgvis ( talk) 10:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC))
Why do you always like to contradict yourself (you have said that you "never debated the periodization of the development of the Romanian language")? 1)+2): the period is called Modernization (read the ref. cited). The contribution of the Transylvanian School is much more complex: by publishing the first grammars and dictionaries, "the Romanian literary language becomes a normative, unitary and stable one, entering the modern period of development. The initiative to modernize the Romanian literary language was continued throughout the 19th century, through the contribution of the most representative scholars". [9] 3): From the periodization point of view, we cannot speak of the Modernization period before the "Transylvanian School", which was the first one "to realize the necessity of modernizing the language through loans from the mother tongue". [10] 4) Just because the Relatinization article also refers to other stages of the Modernization period, does not mean that those topics are completely addressed. ( Rgvis ( talk) 08:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC))
I have shown very clearly (with references to appropriate sources) that 1) the proper name of this period is called "Modernization" (from which resulted the modern Romanian) 2) this period is composed of three stages: a) pre-modern stage - with the Transylvanian School as the main exponent b) modern stage - with the Latinism doctrine and vocabulary renewal through lexical enrichment plus the cultural-linguistic currents c) contemporary stage - characterized by the completion of the unification and standardization processes.
The first time I proposed the variant that brings together all these stages under the main period
[11]. Because you did not accept the periodization established by scholars, I came up with the second proposal to highlight only the stages of the modernization period
[12]. All variants that you proposed do not respect the periodization established by scholars (
WP:OR).
So, on the one hand, you say that you do not debate the proposed periodization, and on the other hand, you continue to delete any template version based on it. I'm sorry, but this is a clear example of disruptive editing. (
Rgvis (
talk) 13:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC))
1) It is not
WP:OR: the superstratum in Romanian refers to the old Slavic language and not the words entered later from the neighboring Slavic languages (Bulgarian, Serbian, Ukrainian, Polish, Russian)
[13], and there are scholars who argue that the Slavic influence in Romanian began in or even before the 7th century
[14],
[15] - however, I agreed that both, the substrate and the superstrate, can be individualized within the periodization
[16].
2) As for the modern period, the whole modernization process cannot be reduced only to the relatinization phase. The periodization is as clear as possible, and yes, with the Transylvanian School representing an important stage (pre-modern or transition stage),
[17],
[18], relatinization being another stage of the modernization period, and so on
[19] (as has been presented so many times before). As can be seen, everything is very well referenced. (
Rgvis (
talk) 07:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC))
The modernization period does not refer only to the relatinization stage (as already shown). ( Rgvis ( talk) 07:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC))
In fact, in all this debate, you did not come with any source to support your edits. At least one source, to say that the modernization period of the Romanian language is reduced only to relatinization, a reference that explicitly states this fact. But instead, you continued to deny and revert all well-referenced edits. ( Rgvis ( talk) 18:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC))
Let me clarify a few things:
1) This topic is about the concept of periodization, not relatinization;
2) The relatinization is a stage of the modernization period, not the entire modernization period. As many references show, the relatinization process cannot describe the entire period of the modernization process, because:
2a) The Transylvanian School has a much more complex role and that is why it is included as being part of the pre-modern stage (of the modernization period);
2b) In practice, the process of relatinization had the greatest impact during the next stage, called the (accelerated) modernization stage (of the modernization period);
2c) The contemporary stage (of the modernization period) is, first of all, characterized by the completion of the linguistic unification and modernization of the literary language process (a process that actually started from the pre-modern stage);
3) This is not a matter of English terms (geographical names, historical, personal names, etc.) used in English works, but of concepts established by scholars, regardless of their ethnic origin and the original language in which the respective concepts were defined. And, in this case, it is quite natural for the concept of periodization of the Romanian language to be one of interest for the Romanian scholars, first of all. Actually, even the term of "re-Latinization" used in connection with the Romanian language (along with other terms, like re-romanization, Westernization, francization, lexical enrichment, Latin-Romanic loans, etc.), was first formulated by the Romanian scholars, not by others (on the other hand, the same term of relatinization is also used in connection with the other Romance languages, which all went through similar periods, specific to each language (and where, there is also a parallel terminology for the respective periods like cultismo, latinismo, etc.)).
(
Rgvis (
talk) 09:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC))
It is not OR, as long as everything is well referenced (as mentioned above, so many times). ( Rgvis ( talk) 12:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC))
Eastern Romance substratum (words) → Romanization → Vulgar Latin (sound changes) → Proto-Romanian → Slavic superstratum (Romanian Cyrillic alphabet) → Old Romanian → Modern Romanian (Transylvanian School, Romanian transitional alphabet, Re-latinization, Unification and standardization). A lot of these are very superficial and very concerned with how the language is written. That's a superficial part of the structure of a language, especially when we are talking about periods where most of the population was illiterate (i.e. most of history). If we were going to focus on anything this way, better would be "Syntax developments", "Morphology developments", like we do with Sound changes. But better just to keep periods about identifying the periods and put other stuff elsewhere (ex. "Diachronic developments" -- list script stuff, Transylvanian school, sound changes, maybe morph, syntax etc if such pages exist). See for example Template:History_of_English. -- Calthinus ( talk) 13:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The scientific community... doesn't regard "Vlach" (as in Serbia) or Moldovan, last I checked, as different languages. Governments do. Should we really be favoring politics over science in the infobox? I'm fine if we agree to do so and will abide by it, but I want to know the thoughts of others: @ Rgvis, Borsoka, and KIENGIR:.-- Calthinus ( talk) 16:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Do you think that
Re-latinization of Romanian means
language contact or is it rather part of the broad history of the Romanian language?
Quote: Language contact occurs when speakers of two or more languages or varieties interact and influence each other. Is this the case with Re-latinization?
Leader31 (
talk) 09:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)