Talk:Romanian language

Alfabet

Alfabet składa się z 31 liter: A Ă Â B C D E F G H I Î J K L M N O P Q R S Ș T Ț U V W X Y Z. W alfabecie występuje 5 dodatkowych liter: Ă Â Î Ș Ț. 83.27.159.95 (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Da, ca român pot confirma ca acesta este alfabetul nostru!

Cele mai multe persoane vorbitori de engleza din alte tări nu stiu ce sunt acelea diacritice...

Translation:

Yes, as romanian i can confirm that is our alphabet!

Most people of english language from other countries dont know what those diacritics are... Luigi Cotocea (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Māori translation

This page has been translated into Māori and the Māori translation needs to be linked: https://mi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reo_Romeinia Thomas Norren (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

done Thomas Norren (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thraco-Dacian

@Borsoka Using Thraco-Dacian as the phrase for Romanian substrate is not POV, there are no reliable sources currently using another term and even previously only a couple used a different name for the substrate language. Can you sustain your decision to change to "native"? Aristeus01 (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Thracian, Illyrian, Dacian are also listed among the potential substrate languages. For further details, I refer to authors cited in the article about the History of the Romanian language. The "native dialects" is a neutral term and the subject is to be described in details in the linked article Substrate in Romanian. Borsoka (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine recognizing Moldovan as Romanian language

Sources:[1] [2] [3] Doremon764 (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Slavic influence on Romanian

@Austronesier could you please provide sources that support the fact that linguists thought that Romanian was a Slavic language? I have tried to delete the sentence as the sources used are misinterpreted intentionally. Or might be just an honest mistake of a user that isn't very knowledgeable in this area. For me this seems just a fringe idea.

Еmil Fischer's 'Die Herkunft Der Rumanen: Eine Historisch-Linguistisch-Etnographische Studie' says that he thought that Romanian doesn't sound Romance or Romance enough even, and his friend thought it sounds like Russian. Nothing clearly pointing to the fact that a linguist actually proposed that Romanian is not a Romance language.

Lucian Boia's 'Romania: Borderland of Europe. Reaktion Books.' can't be even misinterpreted. Boia only mentions a primitive or, even, amateur lexical study done by Alexandru Cihac, which affirms that two fifths of the Romanian vocabulary are of Slavic origin and that's it. The author could mention Alexandru Cihac to support the phrase, if he ever said that.

Lastly, Trask's Historical Linguistics just mentions in passing that scholars thought Romanian to be a Slavic language with no citations or names or anything. This affirmation is only made and no other information is given to further or to support it. As Romanian isn't a focus of the guide and taking into account the mistakes related to Romanian included in the guide (Romanian displaying evidentiality), I think it is safe to exclude this source. Linastic (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Linastic: I agree with you about Boia. It is a very liberal interpretation of a rhetoric hyperbole (which goes like: if Cihac were right, could Romanian then still count as Romance?!).

Fischer is not a primary source, but he at least mentions one other scholar who also believed that Romanian is nicht romanisch schlechthin ("not entirely Romance") (NB not schlechthin nicht romanisch "entirely not Romance"). But again, these statement are not about a (re-/mis-)classification of Romanian as Slavic.

Remains Trask. Undoubtedly, Miller & Trask is a reliable source. I don't expect Trask to have made up things, even if the statement in the handbook is without further examples and sources. Sure, it is a rather passing mention and the book isn't primarily about Romanian, but WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: the statement is about past errors in historical linguistics, and historical linguistics (next to Basque) was Trask's field of expertise. Also, I don't it is an exceptional statement (see WP:EXCEPTIONAL); every kind of rubbish has been proposed about virtually every language at some stage in history.

For me, it boils to an issue about WP:DUE and WP:ONUS, not WP:V. With only one reliable source that directly supports the statement, we might reconsider if it is really worth mentioning. As of now, I will remove Boia and Fischer (people will have to present good arguments to reintroduce them for any other purposes than POV-pushing), and leave the passage with Trask as its only supporting citation. We should now give room to other editors to decide whether this mention of a past error is due or not. Also, there might be other sources of the calibre of Trask's handbook which both of us aren't aware of at this point.

Btw, you don't have to ping me in further replies: this page is on my watchlist. –Austronesier (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Starting from WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, given that this is a short chapter in the article, the sentence (and the following one, for that matter) does not meet WP:DUE. Sources like the Oxford Academic series on Romanian language led by Martin Maiden also brief the reader on the history of the language but do not mention this opinion, for example. I would be more comfortable with having the text moved to the main article Slavic influence on Romanian, the Overview section, where I think it would act as an argument for the WP:REL of the entire topic. Aristeus01 (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant WP:N, the notability of the topic. Aristeus01 (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I have come to the same conclusion after going through a number of sources, including ones that cover the history of the Romanian language in much more depth than our encyclopedia article. It's a pretty obscure footnote in the history of bad linguistics; Trask may have had reasons to mention it as an example of the "lexical fallacy", but when scholars of Romanian (and Romance languages in general) overall don't bother to mention it, we shouldn't do it either. –Austronesier (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)