From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
 Start |
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Mid |
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. |
| This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and how best to improve it. |
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
| Start |
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Mid |
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
[edit] Disputed
- While the evolution of the Aromanian language can be explained by the fact that the Aromanians were isolated from the other Romanians since the 9th century, it seems that the Megleno-Romanians left their linguistic union with the Romanians at a much later time; one theory is that they were settled at sometime around the 14th century by the Byzantines.
I dispute the above, especially the part that says that Aromanians were split from the Romanians, based on the essay of Helen Abatzi, The Vlachs of Greece and their Misunderstood History [1].
- I read that essay. Very interesting, however it barely touches the issue of the language. It says that both Romanian and southern Vlach languages descended from Balkan Latin language.
- This Balkan Latin was in fact Proto-Romanian. There are dosens of proofs that it's true:
- the so-called "Dacian" words, many of which that are only common with Albanian
- many other common words that cannot be found in any other language and have an unknown etymology
- same phonetical changes from Latin to Romanian and Vlach langauges
- words of Latin origin that changed their meaning: (suflet: breath->soul, inimă: soul->heart, pământ: floor->earth, lume: light->world, etc)
- almost identical grammar
- common words of Slavic origin such as 'trup' (body), etc which were borrowed around the 9th century.
- borrowed words in Vlach languages are of Modern Greek origin. If these languages were formed in Northern Greece, they ought to have many Ancient Greek words.
- just to name a few. Also see this comparision of Aromanian, regional Romanian (of Moldavia and/or Maramures), standard Romanian and Italian (the closest Romance language to Romanian) Bogdan | Talk 13:26, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- AR: Tra s’dzic tut tsi-am pri suflit, o Pirivole dzînni
- RR: Să dzic tuot ce-am prin suflit, o Pirivole dzî-ni
- RO: Să zic tot ce-am prin suflet, o Pirivole zi-ni
- IT: Dicere tutto quello che ho nel' cuore, Pirivole dici a noi
- AR: La cari s’ni aspun eu dorlu, la tini i la Armâni?
- RR: La cari să’mi spun eu dorul, la tini sau la Aromâni ?
- RO: La care să’mi spun eu dorul, la tine sau la Aromâni ?
- IT: A chi devo dicere i miei pensieri, a te o a gli Arumeni?
-
- What are Helen Abadzi's credentials? She makes a non-scholarly, easily avoidable mistake: she writes that Greek Romios derives from Latin Romanus. It does not (they both mean the same thing, "Roman", but the Greek term did not evolve from that Latin word). That is morphologically impossible. Romios derives by various steps from Rhomē, the Greek rendition of Latin Roma ("Rome" in English). Alexander 007 05:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The article makes the very broad claim that Megleno-Romanian "contains" Dacian and Thracian words that have cognates in Albanian. Contains suggests that we don't know if they are borrowings or not. Which they must be if they are of Dacian or Thracian origin. But how do we know they are? This needs citation. "Cognate" is a technical term for material that is inherited by different languages. Therefore, the article implies that Albanian is Dacian and/or Thracian, which is not a fact rather one of many possibilities that have been suggested for the history of Albanian, none of which there is any evidence for. This piece needs citations and clarity about how little is known about some of these topics.
The suggestion that Megleno-Romanian has ever been in contact with Bulgarian is questionable. Certainly Standard Bulgarian hasn't been spoken on the territory that Megleno-Romanian is now spoken. I don't care if whoever you are object to 'Macedonian' to describe the relevant East South Slavic dialects, but don't use junk. Say South Slavic or explain the situation.
[edit] A couple of questions
I've just overhauled the English of the article, but two passages were rather obscure, and my recasting might have changed the intended meaning. Could those involved have a look at the new version, and let me know whether or not I've understood the original text correctly? If I haven't, I'd be grateful if you could explain what was actually meant, and I'll go back and correct my revision. Thanks. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I corrected one of your revisions. It wasn't a big mistake, but a clearer formulation was required. Alexander 007 06:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Megleno-Romanian vs. Moglenitic
I rest my case. :-) bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 16:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Naming policy
- from the official policy of Wikipedia regarding Naming conventions:
- If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article (as you would find it in other encyclopedias). This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources.
- The most common name of this language is "Megleno-Romanian" and it's the one used in works such as the Ethnologue and Encyclopedia Britannica. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 20:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality
- The term "Megleno-Romanian" has been used by linguists who noticed the similarity to the Romanian language, as well as by certain Romanian nationalists who claim the language as a mere dialect of Romanian and its speakers as ethnic Romanians, even though they themselves self-identify as a people called Vlahi.
Need I say more? Sentences like these just don't belong in an encyclopedia. It is utter bullshit that calling a certain variant a dialect of another language consitutes any claim of their ethnicity. Linguists are politically neutral and when the cold-hearted truth is that Megleno-Romanian is extremely similar to Daco-Romanian, well, you can't do anything about it. Which fact does not essentially make them Romanians, of course. Another ethnic identity does not automatically consitute a different language. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 10:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
