Template talk:Romanian language

Dialects

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)

I am not sure what is your question here. Nergaal (talk) 07:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Historic evolution

Proper periodization, according to: [1] [2] (Rgvis (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC))

Would you refer to a reliable source stating that Slavic languages influenced Romanian only in the Proto-Romanian period? All sources dedicated to this topic emphasize that Slavic languages influenced Romanian for centuries even after the disintegration of Proto-Romanian. Why do you think that one of the featuring elements of Re-letanization (borrowings from other Romance languages and Latin) should be mentioned in a template? Borsoka (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Modern Romanian is the Romanian language. Why do you think a separate language should be dedicated to it? Borsoka (talk) 14:03, 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))

Fully agree, we should stick to scholarly views. That is why I asked you above why do you think that Slavic languages influenced Romanian only in the Proto-Romanian period and why do you thnik that one of the featuring elements of Re-latinization should be mentioned in a template ([3])? You have not answered these questions. Borsoka (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

You already have the answers in the links mentioned above. (Rgvis (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC))

No, you have not answered my simple questions. Borsoka (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you refer to a single scholarly work dedicated to the history of Romanian which does not emphasize the relevance of Slavic influence on Romanian? Borsoka (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Please, read the above references cited (in order to avoid any WP:OR on the subject). (Rgvis (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC))

I read. Why do you think there is a difference between the presentation of the substratum language (allegedly Dacian) and the superstratum language (Slavic) on pages 845-848? Borsoka (talk) 16:43, 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))

Do you know what is the purpose of the template? It is a collection of relevant articles. Would you please answer my above questions: what is the difference between Modern Romanian and Romanian, why do you think that several aspects of the Re-latinization process should be mentioned in a template? Borsoka (talk) 17:04, 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))

However, the article "Re-latinization of Romanian" covers most topics (Transylvanian school, lexicon enriching) you want to mention separately in this template. Moreover, the Re-latinization is an importan phase of the development of Romanian according to standard literature. It is as important as the emergence of Vulgar Latin and Proto-Romanian or the strong Slavic influence on Romanian. Borsoka (talk) 17:44, 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))

No, we should not get stuck in all sorts of original research. That is why I referred to standard literature. You may not remember the article dedicated to this subject (Re-latinization of Romanian) because you edited it a couple of days ago. Its "Sources" section contains standard literature. Borsoka (talk) 06:44, 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))

Can you mention a topic which is not covered in the Re-latinization of Romanian article? Borsoka (talk) 07:16, 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))

No, the article covers the Transylvanian school, the transitional alphabet, and also the topic of lexicon enriching. Please read before editing. Borsoka (talk) 07:40, 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))

You may not know, but there are multiple sources stating that that nothing proves that either Dacian or Thracian formed the substratum of the Balkan Romance languages. There are scholars who say that an Illyrian variant was the substrate language. (For further details, I refer to the sources of the articles Origin of the Romanians and History of Romanian). As per WP:NOR we cannot present only one PoV. Yes, all topics are complex, but this is a template, not an article. Borsoka (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I sought a formal dispute resolution process on this issue ([5]). Borsoka (talk) 08:42, 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, WP is a mainstream encyclopedia. That is why we cannot present scholarly theories as facts. Yes, Re-Latinization is a phase of the development of the Romanian language: it is as important as Romanization and Slavicization, according to mainstream literature cited in the article dedicated to this subject. Please remember WP:3RR. Borsoka (talk) 09:34, 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))

If you actually think so, please do not refrain from reporting me for edit warring. Please also take into account WP:BOOMERANG. Borsoka (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Rgvis:, could you please read before reverting. Standard literature says the re-latinization of Romanian started already in the 17th century (see the sources of the relevant article). Which reliable source says that the linguistic affects of the 18th-century Transylvanian School can be detected already in the previous century? Borsoka (talk) 11:27, 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))

@Rgvis:, I read page 860. It does not say that Re-Latinization began with the Transylvanian School. On the other hand, Kim Schulte states that borrowings from Italian commenced already in the 17th century (Schulte, Kim (2009). "Loanwords in Romanian". In Haspelmath, Martin; Tadmor, Uri (eds.). Loanwords in the World's Languages: A Comparative Handbook. De Gruyter Mouton. p. 237. ISBN 978-3-11-021843-5.). Sorry, but I must say that your frequent pseudo-references to scholarly works to verify your own assumptions are close to vandalism. Likewise, could you refer to scholarly works to prove that the expression "Re-Latinization and lexicon enriching" is more frequently used than "Re-Latinization" (which covers the idea of lexicon enriching in case of Romanian). The academic works cited in the article dedicated to Re-latinization of Romanian use short terms ("Re-latinization", "Re-romanization" or "Reromancing tendency") to describe the process. Sorry, I must say that you obviously do not understand some basic principles of our community: we are not here to invent our own terminology, but to adopt the most widely accepted terminology used by scholars in peer-reviewed works published in English. Borsoka (talk) 13:55, 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))

(1) Please try to properly use the cited source. First of all, Sala does not write that re-latinization began with the Transylvanian School. He writes that the "pre-modern period" is the beginning of re-latinization. Furthermore, he writes of the "deliberate re-latinization of the literary language". However, as it is proved by multiple reliable sources cited in the article Re-latinization of Romanian, in English literature re-latinization covers a lengthy process, which started in many places already in the 17th century and has not ended. (2) Of course, non-English sources can be used, but they, of course, are not relevant when we are speaking of proper English terminology. In this case, re-latinization is the proper English term (as it is proved by the source I referred to above). We do not need to create our own terms. Borsoka (talk) 17:07, 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))

I have never debated the periodization of the development of the Romanian language. If my understanding is correct, we agree that the activities of the Transylvanian School should be mentioned within the framework of the lengthy process of re-latinization and we should not create our own English terms. If this is the case, please modify the template. Borsoka (talk) 01:13, 6 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))

Both versions would be fine if they did not contradict basic WP policies, such as WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. We cannot pretend that the Transylvanian School is a period of the development of the Romanian language if no reliable source states or suggest this. Consequently, we can only present it within the framework of re-Latinization (if it should be mentioned on the template at all). Furthermore, we cannot create our own terminology. Consequently, if English literature uses the term "re-latinization" we cannot create the new term "Re-latinization and lexicon enriching", especially, because "lexicon enriching" is a substantial part of re-Latinization. Please, modify the template in accordance with relevant WP policies. Borsoka (talk) 10:35, 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))

(1) Can you refer to a single book which says that the Transylvanian School formed a period in the development of the Romanian language? (2) Can you refer to a single reliable source which says that the linguistic activities of the scholars of the Transylvanian Schools do not fell within the re-latinization process? (3) Which reliable source says that the linguistic activities of the 18th-century Transylvanian School started earlier than the re-latinization process (which started in the 17th century, according to Schulte)? (4) Why do you think that the reliable sources cited in the article Re-latinization of Romanian explain the activities of Moldavian and Wallachian scholars within the context of re-latinization? Borsoka (talk) 10:42, 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 never debated the periodization of the development of the Romanian language. This is a fact. You have not demonstrated that the Transylvanian School is a period of the Romanian language, according to any reliable source. You have not demonstrated that re-latinization (as it is used in works dedicated to the Romanian language) does not cover "lexical enriching". Borsoka (talk) 09:02, 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) Please read my very first message about your first version above. It shows clearly that my concern was that it wrongly claimed that Slavic languages influenced Romanian only in the Proto-Romanian period (pure OR). (2) As to your second version, you have not proved that Transylvanian school is a period of the development of Romanian language, according to reliable sources. Could we say that August Treboniu Laurian is a period of the development of the Romanian language? No, we cannot say it, because he was a scholar. Likewise, we cannot describe the Transylvanian School as a period. Especially because its activities fall within the wider scope of re-latinization which is an important stage of the development of the language, according to scholars who dedicated studies to the Romanian language (again, read the sources listed in the article dedicated to the re-latinization of Romanian). (3) What is the difference between re-latinization (as it is described in multiple sources in the article dedicated to this process) and modernization (as it is described in your single source)? Your source makes it clear that its modernization is re-latinization. Read the following texts on pages 860-861: "In the pre-modern period (1780-1830)... the "Transylvanian School" promoted the idea of modernizing the language by borrowing words from Latin, and sometimes, from Romance languages." "On the level of linguistics, the [modern period (1831-1880)] is dominated by the Latinist ideology, whose representatives argued for the elimination of non-Latin elements from the literary language. ... [T]he Latin modell will have left its permanent imprint on the literary aspect of the language." "Concerning the modernization of the literary language, 'the enrichment' fo the lexic was a major preoccupation. Most personalities suggested Romanian should resort to Latin.... The old syntactic structures that copied Slavonic syntax ... were replaced by new ones that took French as a model." "In the modern period (1880 until today), literary Romanian has undergone a strong Latin-Romance influence." We can conclude that all scholars emphasize the importance of the re-latinization of the Romanian language. Borsoka (talk) 14:47, 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))

(1) All specialist agree that Slavic influence on Romanian was weak in the Proto-Romanian period and it intensified after the division of the Proto-Romanian language. (For further details I refer to the sources cited in the wl-ed article.) (2) You have not answered my question above: if Sala associates all periods of modernization with strong re-Latinization, what is the difference between his modernization and re-Latinization used in multiple sources? Borsoka (talk) 07:43, 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))

No, you have not shown anything. I quoted long sentences from Sala proving that his modernization is equal to other scholars' re-Latinization. We should use the terminology applied in specialized literature published in English. English literature uses the term "re-Latinization". Which part of modernization is not re-Latinization, according to Sala? Borsoka (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I requested a third opinion ([20]). Borsoka (talk) 09:52, 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))

Please read the sentences that I quoted from the source to which you are referring ([21]). Sala exclusively explains modernization as a series of linguistic changes that most other authors who published in English define as re-latinization. If a book describes a cougar, a second book a mountain lion and a third book a puma, we do not need to refer to a source to conclude that the three books write of the same animal. Borsoka (talk) 00:10, 10 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))

ad) 1 The navigation box shows several topics relating to the Romanian language, among them the main phases of the development of the language: a) substratum, b) Vulgar Latin, c) Proto-Romanian, d) Old Romanian. However, the box also displays the process between these stages, such as Romanization (between the substratum and Vulgar Latin) and Slavic influence (between Proto-Romanian and Old Romanian). Re-Latinization/re-romanization is the process through which Old Romanian developed into Modern Romanian, according to all reliable sources cited in the article (even, according to Sala, as it is demonstrated by his multiple statements above).

ad) 2 See my remark above (ad) 1).

ad) 2a If all reliable source explains the linguistic activites of the Transylvanian School within the scope of the re-latinization process (including Sala), why do you want to separate it from re-Latinization?

ad) 2b OR?

ad) 2c OR?

ad) 3 If most specialized books published in English use the term "re-Latinization" (because this is the best description of the process), why do you think we should adopt an other term? WP is neutral from ethnic PoV. Borsoka (talk) 09:56, 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))

As we both have realized several times that your first readings of the source cannot always be substantiated, would you quote the text from the source, which proves that your above statements 2b and 2c do not contain OR? Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

A few comments. I wish I had a suggestion to break this impasse but I just have a few remarks, from a guy whose pov doesnt align to either of yours. One, I think it would be undue to rely on only Sala for our paradigm. No one explicitly stated that, and he surely should be respected as a scholar, but this sensitive topic requires more for a consensus paradigm than one scholar whose views are not always in the majority. Two, "lexical enrichment" is POV as it assigns a positive value to the process by which new vocabulary was inserted mostly from above by elites (I happen to personally agree it is positive but this is still POV). Three, both the Slavic superstratum/adstratum (two separate phenomena!) and the relatinization should not be periodicized like this as they imply to the reader that they were the defining aspects of period transitions. There is some merit to this POV. Most people will agree that relatinization (the correct term, which is also used for French and Spanish uncontroversially -- example [[22]]) was quite transformative, but not everyone would agree that it should define the transition to modern Romanian. Regarding structural, not lexical, changes, many linguists are "internalists" (ahem Sala, but this is not limited to Romanian scholarship, plenty of others agree, like Mees) who will object pretty consistently to such claims everywhere and instead find internal explanations for almost everything but vocab. I personally strongly disagree, but this is a highly significant scholarly viewpoint that must be given respect; not our job to judge. Four, both must remain in the box but should be placed in a new row, "language contact effects". Imo this row should be limited to transformative effects that (sorry internalists) changed not only vocab but also structure per significant sourcing -- i.e. loads of Turkic vocab doesnt mean wr add another page link here for that, unless grammatical influence is also sourced and more prolific than the disputation of it. I think that should be the policy, though it should not be explicitly stated in the mainspace. Just suggestions here, feel free to ignore. --Calthinus (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

One other thing I don't think I stated explicitly (apologies for length) -- the current form is giving too much space to specific aspects, in a section that should be just about periods. Currently it stands at 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)

• Thank you for your comments. Your proposal for a "language contacts" row is logical (although most literature agrees that both the Slavicization and the re-latinization of Romanian were definitive during its history). Some remarks: (i) there is no article about Slavic superstratum, because the article is titled as "Slavic influence on Romanian"; (ii) Sala is not fully internalist, especially when he writes of the development between Old and Modern Romanian (he he acually writes purely of the re-latinization of Romanian, even if he limits the scope of this term to a shorter period, in contrast with most linguists); (iii) I think the Template:History_of_English is not the best example, because it overemphasize the phonological history of English. Borsoka (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Borsoka I simplified Sala's views to get my point across. Total internalism or externalism are fringe views and Sala explicitly states that some cases of language contact -- Gaulish substrate in French for one -- are well demonstrated (his views more generally here [[23]]) -- point is that on balance he is more "internalist", in some cases like his skepticism about the existence of vestiges from some antediluvian "Palaeo-Alpine" or whatever, very generalizably for hte rest of the field, in others less so. My understanding is that his views on Romanian would be held by the compromise midway view to underestimate the influence of the substrate, whatever it originally was. I would need some cites to view relatinization and slavification (or Balkanization for that matter) as definitive -- this is on the other hand a very externalist view and at least I've read accounts of Romanian's development that find internal motivations for features such postfixed definite article or the nominal morphology -- which I do not personally agree with but are still notably represented in literature. Vocab is a different beast than morphology, syntax or phonology. This brings me onto a model for the box. I didn't want to suggest this as a model since it's immodest (heh, I made it), but what do you think of how it's handled in this one below? We could reproduce that here. Ping also Rgvis --Calthinus (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I've made some edits. What do you guys think?--Calthinus (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is a good way to present in a proper manner all points of view on the discussed topics (of course, other references can also be made, for example I would also add Junimea to the "Institutions and movements" group). One aspect I want to discuss is that of the substrate: I see no reason why we should not use the reference to the most accepted (mainstream) theory, namely the Dacian (Daco-Thracian) substrate. (Rgvis (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC))

Calthinus, thank you for your suggestion. Yes, the box now covers the relevant aspects of the theme and presents them neutrally, Agree, Junimea could be added. Relating to the substrate, the most widely accepted view is that it is unknown. What is sure that some of the Romanian substrate words have cognates in Albanian, but the Albanian-Romanian linguistic relationship is already mentioned on the box. Borsoka (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the Dacian identity for some specific substrate vocabulary, especially plant names, is uncontroversial. The rest is up to dispute. It's also of keen interest to Albanology as a good number of (Proto-)Romanian substrate words in addition to some phonological and grammatical developments are shared with... only Albanian. Regarding Albanian, the Dacian theory is in the minority, behind the autochtonous theory as well as the non-autochtonous Illyrian theory (i.e. Illyrians from highland areas in N Albania and Kosovo most likely), and possibly the Thracian/Bessian theory as well. Some sources speak of a "common Daco-Illyrian substrate" assuming the two were closely related, others do not have that view. Then there are hypothesized other "layers" as well. For Junimea -- sure. --Calthinus (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The question is which language exactly you referred regarding that specific subtrate i.e. (List of Dacian plant names). I concur that is sure that some of the Romanian substrate words have cognates in Albanian. However, your occurence helped a lot to a direction to settle the dispute ongoing. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC))

@KIENGIR, Borsoka, and Rgvis: I thought this might work for incorporating some of the substrate word lists [[24]]. The plant names I left as Dacian. This list I just said substrate vocab-- I'd note that page needs a possible renaming and/or cleanup as a lot of the words are obviously not Dacian but instead cited to be later loans, plus at least one case of an inherited Latin lexeme (vătăma [[25]])... --Calthinus (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I think we should wait to gain consensus for the inclusion (this was the point), since these are just hypothesis (hence possible because they can be explained by loans from other languages), but there is no proof.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC))

Fair enough editing wise. I'd really like to see inline cites on both those articles, or at least some indication of where each word was cited to belong to (a/the) substrate. Historically, sometimes when etymologists didn't have a good answer and onomatapoeia wasn't likely, they just fell back on some "substrate" null hypothesis (the exact sort that Sala criticizes), rather than a positive substrate argument.--Calthinus (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

None of the Dacian plant names can be detected in the Romanian language, so we should not place the List of Dacian plant names in the box. On the other hand, the Dacian origin of none of the supposed Romanian substrate words can be documented, so I agree that we should rename the article [[[List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin]] (and place it on the box). Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

What would be your proposal to rename to?(KIENGIR (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC))

Substrate etyma in Romanian?--Calthinus (talk) 14:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Beautiful expression and very professional, but could we choose a less frightening name? :) Borsoka (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Borsoka Ok, I see no way to replace substrate but we could have Substrate roots and words in Romanian. Or just Substrate words in Romanian if we don't really care about WP:PRECISION. If we really want to be less frightening, we could have Pre-Latin words in Romanian? --Calthinus (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The last proposal I would abandon, since the phrase pre-Latin may be misinterpreted, since many words may be loans from other languages much later the timeline would refer to. Borsoka should as well propose some versions, so we could evaluate and narrow the candidates.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC))

I don't think "loan words from other languages much later" should be part of that page's scope. It's about a substrate, not an adstrate.--Calthinus (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, recently we are just trying to find the most appropriate name to rename to. I am sure we'll find the best solution.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC))

I think Substrate words in Romanian is a possible solution. All the same, what about Substrate vocabulary in Romanian? Borsoka (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

"Vocabulary" is a good idea.--Calthinus (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

False balance?

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)

Yes, they are not different languages (scientifically as well), however, there are official stances we may not ignore, if there are two main article about it and linked to the template (any offical things may be regarded just a derivative of politics, even if every official thing is by the way the result of politics). However, if you meant "infobox" here in the template, the "speech community" phrase is well set as it does not say it would not be the same language, just grouping the speakers combined with location.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC))

As I understand "Vlach language in Serbia" is dedicated to the Romanian variant spoken in Serbia (and is a variant of the Banat dialects of Romanian), Moldovan is the Romanian variant of Moldova (and Transnistria). I assume that both variants have it peculiarities (primarily for political and historical reasons). As far as I know, politics does sometimes matter: Serbian language and Croatian language; Czech language and Slovakian language; German language.... Borsoka (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

This is the idea, to present these language variants ​​(as they are called) of the respective communities. In Serbia (and Bulgaria, in the adjacent area), the Romanian community on the Timok Valley is called Vlach (unlike the Romanian community in Vojvodina (western Banat)); subdialectal, the so called Vlach language is divided between the variants spoken in Banat and Oltenia. Regarding Moldova, both names, Romanian or Moldovan, are used. However, I have no objections to other better ways of highlighting these two links (articles). (Rgvis (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC))

Alright sounds good, thanks for your thoughts all! Seems like status quo works.--Calthinus (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Language contact or part of history

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)