Misplaced Pages

Talk:Moldovan language

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xasha (talk | contribs) at 17:27, 1 October 2008 (→Crucial question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:27, 1 October 2008 by Xasha (talk | contribs) (→Crucial question)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconMoldova C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Moldova, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Moldova on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MoldovaWikipedia:WikiProject MoldovaTemplate:WikiProject MoldovaMoldova
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLanguages Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Liars

Since when a good referenced source is denied? I mean the European Parliament rezolution to forbid the usage of notion "Moldovan language".--211.233.41.22 (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It has been suggested that this page be merged with Romanian Language and Talk:Moldovan Language#Merger proposal. (Discuss) Proposed since October 2007.
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
Archive
Archives

Now then

This article needs to change. Don't ask what I mean, or what parts I want to change, if you've ever edited this article before, you know very well which parts I am talking about. Bogdangiusca seems to think he has a monopoly on this page. He does not. He is not entitled to revert everybody else's edits as he wishes. He acts as if the current version is canon. It isn't.

Now, in the history of this article, it's clear that the current version was not formed by a consensus of opposing parties, but rather, a consensus of one side of the argument. --Node 06:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no two parties. We have you vs. everyone else. bogdan 07:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
No -- we have me, vs Romanians. There are other parties (such as Oleg Alexandrov, Khoikhoi, Francis Tyers), but none of them have been involved as much as they would need to be to keep this from being a one-sided debate. --Node 00:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Ummm, you can count me out, I don't mean to offend you or anything. The thing is, the whole reason "people" like Bonaparte came here in the first place is because of the conflict on this page. I suggest we just leave it as it is. —Khoikhoi 00:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that's a good argument. Nobody said achieving NPOV would be easy, did they? But isn't that our ultimate goal? You seem to recognize that the currentversion isn't NPOV, but think we should leave it as it is so as not to attract trolls. I suppose it would make more sense to wait for more Moldovans so the fight can be Moldovans vs Moldovans rather than Romanians vs Node. --Node
If you want Moldovans, then here I am. Vox Populi (TSO) 01:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
That's "moldoveni", Tso1d. More than one. A horde. Fetch us a horde of Moldovans! --Node 05:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)`
Well, there aren't that many on Misplaced Pages. In any case, I agree that we should not modify the article right now as that would only create another endless battle. TSO1D 13:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, Node goes again with "everybody who goes against me is certainly not from Republic of Moldova thingie ?", he just keeps forgetting... --Just a tag
You aren't a real Moldovan, colleague. You, little man, are just like like a transformer -- a robot in disguise. --Node 07:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I now begin to wonder who's that mythical beast - the REAL moldovan, is it like Neo from the Matrix ? As for being like a bot, you know, some people call it living a life outside of computers and wikipedias, try pondering on that for a while ;) ---Just a tag 09:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
So who's the second "moldovan"? It seems to me that you are alone in Category:User_mo . Dpotop 17:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Node you shouldn't say stuff like "No -- we have me, vs Romanians". This makes it look like you see this thing as a quest by you against the Romanians and it does not help your argument because it makes you seem very POV against Romanians and not an objective Wikipedian. But, like you said, maybe we should wait a little for some Moldovans to start getting themselves involved here - and I don't just mean people of mixed ancestry who grew up their whole lives in the USA and who cannot speak the language fluently (or in retrospect to be fair, Moldvoans from the Romanian part of Moldova who likewise do not know what things are like on the other side of the Pruth). This debate should be done by actual Moldovans from there, that have seen the situation on the ground there, and have lived there and know exactly what they are talking about - because as far as the rest of us goes we all have preconceived ideas of what this article should look like. As far as my personal experience goes, I have visited Moldova and I can tell you, Moldovans are as different from each other as they are from the rest of the world : you can find super-Romanians there and you can find the biggest Romanian-haters in that little country. Dapiks 00:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
When are you going to stop hating Moldovans? --Node 07:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Nobody hates Moldovans buddy, just little immature brats ( I am not pointing fingers to anyone). Dapiks 20:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
That is a clear personal attack. Please retract it. --Node 02:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Good to see things haven't changed much here. Winona Gone Shopping 03:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Stati's interview

I was trying to find Vasile Stati's interview to read it again, and I see the external link to the interview is no longer listed in the article. Or did I miss it? Finally I found it on the internet here. If it's really missing from the article I suggest we link it again.

And the main question: In this interview Stati says that Romanian and Moldovan, in their literary forms, are identical. Why does the article say that Stati disputes this?

Stati's exact statement was: "Incontestabil, forma literară, cea mai elevată a limbii moldoveneşti, forma cultă, prelucrată de scriitori şi lingvişti, este identică cu forma literară a limbii româneşti." — AdiJapan ☎ 10:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Moldovans wanted! :)

I'll give a barnstar to any person that points me to a native Moldovan language speaker on wikipedia. I'll also support him, were he/she wishing to become admin on the Moldovan wikipedia. Dpotop 09:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: the previous offer is meant to show that no such thing as a "Moldovan" speaker exists on the whole wikipedia. Dpotop 09:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Marcu Gabinschi

I never heard of him. Khoikhoi, do you have an exact citation of his affirmations? bogdan 21:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

According to this, he wrote a book called "Reconvergence of Moldavian towards Romanian", which inclines me to believe that he has the Moldovanist views on the language. I also found something in Romanian, from this PDF:
În cartea Limba şi politica în Republica Moldova articolele au fost publicate în ordinea cronologică a apariţei lor. Studiul Limba şi naţunea în Republica Moldova n-a fost publicat în original ci a fost trimis pentru editare la Chişinău, în traducerea lui Marcu Gabinschi. Articolul Limba şi literatura în Basarabia şi Transnistria a fost retipărit în traducerea lui Grigore Chiper în 1991 în trei numere ale Revistei de lingvistică şi ştiinţă literară. Articolul Eminescu în Republica Moldova este reprodus după textul apărut în trei numere ale revistei Limba română (Chişinău) din 1995, fără a se indica dacă acesta a fost sau nu publicat în limba germană în traducerea lui Florin Manolescu. Articolele Româna: Moldoveneasca şi Moldoveneasca sub semnul restructurării şi al publicaţei au fost traduse de Marcu Gabinschi.
I have a feeling, however, that the above might prove me wrong. If so, please don't laugh at me. :p —Khoikhoi 23:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Hm... Well, that "Reconvergence of Moldavian towards Romanian" probably refers to the local spoken dialects, not the official language. You know, like how they had the word "curechi" for "cabbage" and now it's more commonly used "varză", from standard Romanian. bogdan 08:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Bogdan, I cited this text before to you, it refers exactly to the official language. --Node 01:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do some more research. What did the Romanian text say? —Khoikhoi 08:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Nothing much, it just lists the articles/books.
In the book "Language and politics in Rep. Mold.", the articles were published in chronological order. The study "Language and nation in Rep. Mold." was not published in its original form, but was sent for editing to Chişinău, in the translation of Marcu Gabinschi... etc.
bogdan 14:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There are 11 Archives above. Don't open another war Khoikhoi. --Just a tag 2 20:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Banned as impostor impersonating User:Just a tag. bogdan 20:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Russianism

there is a new article created, Russianism. Please update it with examples from Moldovan langauge. `'mikka (t) 23:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The current version of the article seems to be fair

I am a person who lives in Chisinau (the capital of Moldova); I speak Romanian, so I might be the guy "from Moldova who hangs out on Misplaced Pages" you were looking for.

My opinion is that the article is fair*, because it emphasizes that there is a lot of controversy on the topic. Perhaps this is the optimal solution that can be reached at this point. You need to understand that this is an tricky discussion point inside the country, and as long as there is no consensus in Moldova, it is likely that this Misplaced Pages discussion will keep consuming our valuable time in vain.

Why is it still a dispute after more than 10 years of independence? This is a consequence of Russia's aggressive 'rusification' policy.

Has anyone read Orwell's "1984"? If so, then you must be familiar with the strategy which involves the complete re-write of all printed material, so that it matches the new 'facts'. That's exactly what happened here throughout the years - the alphabete was changed, history books were altered, people were deported, etc. It takes time to recover from that, and it takes even longer if Russia's strong grip is still felt. Economically, Russia's decisions can have a negative impact on Moldova's stability, so we are still constrained in our freedom (political, military, economical).


As a Moldovan who is dedicated to his country, I would extend the article by making it more pro-Romanian; but that would of course bring life back into the zealots who are on the other side of the barricades, resulting in another holy war.


If anybody has doubts about my really being a citizen of Moldova, you can call a +373 number (this is our code) I can provide, or I can call you myself and hope that your caller ID works right.

I should also add that I speak Russian (it was my first language), I lived in Ukraine, Russia, Romania (and some other states which aren't in this area, so mentioning them is not relevant), and now I am a resident of Chisinau. I believe this allows me to see the big picture.


You might be interested why there aren't many 'authentic moldovans' contributing; I can't tell for sure, but my best guess is that others have problems to handle (get a job, get a decent education, etc), so spending time on the Internet is not something which directly contributes to these primary objectives. People have other priorities at the moment; if you take a look at Maslow's pyramid, you'll understand what I mean.

Gr8dude 22:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Moldovan language doesn't exist

I also live in Chisinau, Moldova and speak Romainian as my native language. It's very sad to know that people want us to be considered as different nation from Romanians. You can call my number too, if you want to be sure that I'm telling the truth. 326 19:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It does, as long as it is mentioned in the Moldavian consitution. ITERAZI 12:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A Moldavian professor

Interesting info from POSTICA GHEORGHE: CIVILIZATIA MEDIEVALA TIMPURIE DIN SPATIUL PRUTO-NISTREAN (SECOLELE V-XIII) is found here. The first chapter has a lot of info which could be used on the Moldovan language article (e.g. the fact that, due to political reasons, as to expand their influence in Romania, the Soviets at actually supported the Moldovan-Romanian equality in the beggining, and only later, after WW2, they switched to the "Moldovan" theory instead...) Greier 11:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

ro.wp article

I was surprised, last time I checked the corresponding article at ro.wp, it actually seemed more neutral and more well-researched than the en.wp article. Granted, there is a little bit of bias, with a generalised Russophobic tilt, but it's pretty mild. I've made a loose adaptation here.

Two major ongoing issues are:

  • How do we refer to Transnistria? We can use the pro-Moldavian phrasage "unrecognized territory" or "seperatist region", which hides the fact that it is de facto independent and excercises control over most (if not all) of the territory it claims, or we can use the pro-independence phraseage "de facto independent state" or "self-governing territory", which do not explicitly mention that it is not internationally recognised. We could of course mention that it is already de facto independent but is not internationally recognised de jure, but that is too wordy, after all this article is not about Transnistria. I personally favour "disputed region", but that does not acknowledge the challenges many people here have levelled against the authority or the relevance of the separatist government (although it is undeniable that they have the basic organs of statehood, and those organs operate fully, including a parliament, a constitutional court, and to the best of my knowledge, they tax their citizens and operate a police force)
  • How do we refer to the Soviet period? Was it an occupation or not? Many sentimental unionists would like to demonize the USSR and call it an occupation, but it's not that clear-cut. --Node 23:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
For the discussion on Transnistria, we are having the same debate at Transnistria if you want to take a look, so I'm not sure what to say at this point. As for whether the term occupation is justified or not might, this may be challanged by the complex legal situation of the period, however it is still the best term to use for that period and most modern historical sources refer to it as such. TSO1D 00:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
That sounds indeed much better to me, though it lacks the description of the usage of cyrillic. Could someone read/translate that article aswell, to get all POVs? The German wikipedia has a nice neutral seeming article on topic. I'll translate it if anyone 'd ask!ITERAZI 13:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

To newcomers: I suggest not taking Node lightly. The guy may simply want to re-ignite the edit war here. For those who want to talk about WP:AGF, take a look at edits one year old. I presume the only way to switch this is to make a full parallel adit, and then, when everybody has agreed upon all details, replace it. Dpotop 19:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Dpotop, that is a clear personal attack. I would RPA, but then I would be accused of censorship. If you think that I ever did anything just because I "enjoy edit warring", think again. No matter how crazy you think I have acted, it was all for the purpose of making this article better. --Node 20:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, while you were absent, the article matured fairly well, in the exact direction proposed by moderated editors during the edit wars of a year ago. Dpotop 21:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how that's relevant. By the way, the article barely changed at all since then, and lots of the poorly-researched text added by Bonaparte was still intact until very recently. --Node 17:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I was browsing through this article and its sources and I found the following, the article says in the first paragraph that "some Moldovian officials and official bodies "; the source cited is Omniglot. Two issues: (a) Omniglot doesn't say that, and (b) Omniglot is citing Misplaced Pages as a source (for something else). If (a) was true, how reliable can you reasonably expect it to be after taking into account the caliber of sources Omniglot uses? I suppose that statement is true, can't a better source be found? I can't find anything, perhaps there is something in Romanian?--Domitius 00:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Moldovan pronunciation questions

I get a daily news program ("Curier") from Moldova's NIT television on my cable TV system. Two questions:

  • The main announcer consistently pronounces "2008" as "două mii uopt". Is "uopt" a Moldovan regionalism? In other contexts, as best I can tell, this announcer says "opt"; I've only heard the "uopt" pronunciation when she says "2008". She's said it very clearly, and on numerous separate occasions, so I'm confident that I wasn't just hearing things and that it wasn't just an accidental slip of the tongue on her part.
Yes, "uopt" is the regional way of pronouncing "opt" (it's still written "opt", though). It's specific to the whole Moldavia (Rep. of Moldova and the Romanian part), with varying degrees. What was funny when I visited Chisinau was that the peasants in the market spoke Romanian without accent. :) Dpotop 06:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Everyone on NIT pronounces the network's name as /ɛn.aɪ'ti/ — the way an English speaker would pronounce the letters. Any idea why they don't use the Romanian pronunciations of the initials?
In Moldova and in Romania it is often fashionable to have a name with an English or German sound. For instance, the brand "Orange" (the French-based cell phone operator) is pronounced as in English. I presume that the customers get an impression of seriousness (for the German brands) or power (for the American ones) out of this. And, as you know, brands are used today as a way of defining your self-image. It's stupid, but people work like this. Dpotop 06:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Richwales 05:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Rich, it would be interesting for you to find out how she pronounces the word două in the same 2008. If she says duouă then she probably does that in all instances of vowel /o/, at least when stressed (the vowel, not the announcer...). If not, she might be pronouncing that way only after vocalic sounds or at the word beginning. It is a known fact that, especially in Moldova (on both sides), vowel /o/ pronounced in certain situations more or less as /wo/ or /ʷo/. The same happens in all Romanian-speaking areas, but it can be less obvious. Here are some factors that contribute to the intensity of the effect:
  • Region, with the strongest effect in Moldova and the weakest probably in Wallachia.
  • The age of the word in Romanian. Old words such as om, ochi, os are usually pronounced with a stronger /w/, while neologisms like ohm, oftalmologie, osteoporoză tend to be pronounced with a rather pure /o/.
  • Position in the word. Most affected are the initial positions, like in opt, compared to copt.
  • Phonetic context. When it follows after another vowel, /o/ needs to be "insulated" with a /w/ to avoid confusion and to allow an easier pronunciation.
  • Stress. Unstressed /o/ doesn't usually become a diphthong, instead it sometimes tends to close towards /u/. For example the word cocoş might be pronounced in Moldova as /ku'koʃ/.
  • Speaker. Educated speakers avoid pronouncing /wo/, some of them only in neologisms, while others avoid it in all words. Uneducated speakers might pronounce /wo/ just about everywhere, including neologisms they may need to say.
Quite a similar effect is found in all vowels, actually. Even /a/ is heard sometimes as /a/. For more details and examples check out ro:Fonologia limbii române --- a work in progress though. The part you're looking for is the section "Alofonele vocalelor".
This information comes form Fonologia limbii române, by Emanuel Vasiliu (1965). I don't have access to newer works, but I am told that things haven't changed significantly since.
About NIT: I don't know what the acronym actually means. If the name is made up of English words, then that's it. Only in rare cases are English acronyms read with a Romanian pronunciation; an example is NATO, which is pronounced /'na.to/, not /'nej.tow/; but MTV, CNN, BBC follow the rule "English acronym - English pronunciation" and the same normally goes for other languages too: KGB in Russian, ZDF in German, UMP in French. If NIT comes from Romanian words then pronouncing it à l'anglaise is pure snobbery, as Dpotop pointed out. — AdiJapan ☎ 09:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Adi. I'll do some more careful listening to this announcer and see if I can identify how she pronounces "două" and other words with "o". She appears to be an educated native speaker in her 30's, and I haven't noticed any other deviations from "standard" pronunciation in her speech (though please remember that my command of Romanian is still at an elementary stage, and it doesn't help much that the news announcers all seem to talk as fast as humanly possible!). As for the abbreviation "NIT", my web searching suggests it stands for "Noile Idei Televizate" — I'll check the closing credits of the news broadcasts again and see if that phrase appears anywhere in the fine print. The opening title sequence of NIT's news program includes written phrases in Romanian, Russian, and English. Richwales 16:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Another case, more impressive than "o" is "e". Try "mere" (apples) and "miere" (honey). When those that speak Moldovan dialect say "apples", those from Bucharest always understand "honey". Then the latter ask the former to say "honey", after which they make big eyes. A word for which you can see people fall is "el" (he), which obviously is a basic and often used word. Ask people to start a sentense with "El..." ("He..") and see the difference. If one knows to speak both dialects, one might be able to hide "el" in the quick sequence of words (sometimes they do it on purpose so that you won't recongnise the dialect!) But with the starting "El" - it becomes obvious.

About abreviations. In fact, it is just a matter of standards between Moldova and Romania, something like talking in km/miles. There is no official way in Moldova. Hence logically they should use the standard Romanian one. Yet, many people dislike to say "le", "me", "re", etc. Hence at every occasion, the jump to say it the other way around. Another observation: when children are taught geometry in secondary school, they do not say "le", "me", "re", but "el", "em", "er" etc, not only in Moldova, but even in Romania. And last observation: there is a rule in Romanian, to write and read as in the orriginal. Many (unlike you) don't even know what NIT stands for, they assume it is English! :Dc76 20:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that the pronouns el, ea, ei, ele, and eu (except in philosophic contexts where it means the ego, the self), and the verbs este, era etc. are normally pronounced with an initial not only in Moldova, but by all Romanians. See DEX 1998, DOOM 2005, Dicţionarul ortografic 2002. It is true though that the quantity of that is different from speaker to speaker, and that it tends to be more audible in Moldovans' speech. But I wouldn't use it as a definite distinction between idioms. There are better ways to tell a Moldovan from a non-Moldovan (if that really is the purpose), and the pronunciation of mere is indeed one of them.
I must also point out that this page is not a good place for a phonetics subject, because the "Moldovan language" is not a linguistically recognized entity, it is only the official name of the Romanian language in the Republic of Moldova. This article is about politics. The Moldovan idiom does indeed exist as a regional speech of Romanian, but it is also found in the Romanian part of Moldova. — AdiJapan ☎ 03:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
True and true.:Dc76 15:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Map

The only problem with the map that I see is a small one in Chernivtsi oblast (see the map in that article). Leave the other regions appart. :Dc76 18:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

now tell me really, do you think that nobody speaks in Covasna Romanian? or in Harghita? there are more than 15% Romanians, what are they speaking?--Tones benefit 18:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
There are 20% Romanians in Harghita and 35% in Covasna. But the map does not excludes all of these counties - northern Harghita is not, and so on. But if you blank all of it red or blue, it is like there are no Hunagrians at all there. Maybe one should make a more detailed map - village by village. That's a different story.:Dc76 18:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Dc, do hungarian speak romanian or not? if they do what variant? all people speak Romanian better or less they do. There has to be no hole in the middle. That's ridiculous to have a hole even if there are like you said 35% Romanians.--Tones benefit 19:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Look, people speak Romanian in America as well. I thought all here was about mother tongue. Ask more users, if they agree with you, I won't oppose. I only think is not wise to start an edit war b/c of this: the only thing you will achive at this point is to block yourself. You can edit other articles, and even this one, or you can get blocked and not edit even this map. You can not change overnight everything that you believe is not correct on WP. Better even, find a map in some sourse. I am sure that should be some maps online or in books.:Dc76 19:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually this map has several problems. It is supposed to represent the Romanian idioms, wherever they are spoken. Even if Romanian speakers in Harghita and Covasna are few, the map should show what Romanian idiom is spoken there. A hole in the map means that Romanian is not spoken there at all, by anyone. Covering that region with blue or red doesn't say anything about Hungarian being spoken or not, because this is not a map of Hungarian distribution. Languages overlap, as you know, and this map is only supposed to show the Romanian layer. Also, separating the Romanian idioms in just two kinds is at least an oversimplification; nothing is mentioned about the criteria of distinguishing those two idioms. But the really big problem with this map is that the sources used for drawing it are not specified. It could very well be original research. — AdiJapan ☎ 03:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. Anyone willing to make it better or should I make it myself? --Tones benefit 10:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow, AdiJapan! Yesterday I abstained from writing the exact same thing. We have had this discussion a long time ago (when the picture was first made). I didn't want to be called a Nationalist again. Dpotop 10:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Now, that you said it, I'd like to point out another inconsistency of the map: It gives no color for Harghita and Covasna (because RO is a minority there), but gives a color for large regions in Serbia. However, the last time I looked into Serbian Vlachs, they are not an official majority, even on Timok Valley. I therefore feel that the current map is not meeting any standard. Dpotop 10:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I do agree with you that we should have a map for all regions where Romanians/Moldovans/Vlachs are a historic presence. Majority or not, it's another map, or can be marked with another sign (for instance, using "hasurare"). But do you know how to make a map? Dpotop 10:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I will do it. Anyway, another editor was just blocked because he had conflicts with Russians like Alaexis and Miika. His name is Sosomk.--Tones benefit 10:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with being Nationalist or not. If the purpose of this map is to show the idiom distribution of the Romanian language then it should have some color in every little village that is inhabited by Romanian speakers. Of course, there must be some threshold, such as 1% or 10% of the population, otherwise you'd have to put Japan on the map too...

The difficult problem, if one wants to remake the map, is not the numbers of Romanian speakers living in every region --- this is rather easy to get ---, but the idiom they speak. The term idiom itself is a rather fuzzy concept, because depending on the criteria you get different maps. For example I see the current map puts Sibiu and Braşov in the southern idiom (not sure if it was meant to be the Oltenian or the Muntenian), but there are parameters, such as the intonation, which set those two cities clearly in the Transylvanian group of idioms. Unfortunately I don't have access to such linguistic data and I have no idea where to look for them --- most probably they're still not on the internet. — AdiJapan ☎ 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That's true. So, we need to eventually find a better sourse with a better map. :Dc76 17:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Differences

Are there any lexical difference between Romanian and Moldovan (and not just Russianisms)? --AimLook 16:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The Eu does not recognizes Moldovan as an official language

It seems that the EU is now recognizing Moldovan as an official language. The likes of *a** have won. We can also thank our Muntenian administration for fucking it up; and also a great thank you to that fucking idiot, Leonard Orban, who is supposed to be a linguist of some sort. So let us spare us the pain and remove all sources that refer to the Romanian language and give them their own language box. --Thus Spake Anittas 17:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, don't be so fast in calling it Muntenian. Chiuaru, for instance, is from Iasi, and Orban is Transylvanian. It's just a simple case of all-Romanian incompetence. That said, it's quite unbelievable. Isn't the ministry supposed to have fool-proof procedures for specific cases (such as checking for "moldovan language" shit in all Moldova-related documents)? Dpotop 17:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The EU probably recognized the name of the language as Moldovan, but that does not mean that they say that the two languages differ from one another, but it still pisses me off. That Orban idiot should be fired on the spot, as well as the other retards. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. That said, I hate Basescu's populist and authoritarian approach even more. I really don't know what can be done at this point. Upto now the liberals seemed to be the better lot, but it seems it was just an impression. Dpotop 12:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
This is not Romania's fault, and neither is it the fault of Leonard Orban. The name of Moldova's official language is "Moldovan", and thus when the EU signs agreements with Moldova, it is normal that the copy in that country's official language is labelled "Moldovan". Of course, this will bring up a greater can of worms if Moldova joins the EU. Ronline ✉ 10:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's the fault of the Romanian government and (among others) Orban. The Greeks even managed to force a country to change its name (FYROM). Not to mention Bulgaria (cf. http://www.ziua.ro/prt.php?id=228041&data=2007-10-16). Nobody forces us to accept more than the moldovan themselves (which talk about "the language of the state"). Dpotop 16:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
BTW, it was a problem, recognized by Orban himself (cf. http://www.gandul.info/actualitatea/orban-au-modificate-site-ul-referirile-limba-moldoveneasca.html?3927;962484). Dpotop 16:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but I don't think Greece, Bulgaria and Poland are pursuing the right path. Bickering with the EU and appearing to be nationalistic for what are some very petty and symbolic reasons is not a good foreign policy move. Their inflexibility hasn't done any good to the image of those countries, and I don't think Romania should be heading down that path. Furthermore, Orban is not representing Romania in his role as Commissioner for Multilingualism; thus, he does not have to account to the Romanian public for his actions. Ronline ✉ 11:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The EU is not here to fulfill the dreams of some civil rights activists. It is here to advance the interests of its member states and citizens, as perceived by them (and not as imagined by the aforementioned civil rights groups). This is why France, the UK, Poland, Greece, Bulgaria a.s.o. are all right in demanding and obtaining what they see as their due. Dpotop 14:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
As to image issues, I feel that Poles care more about practical advantages they get from the EU and the US than the lip service of the EU bureacracy. In the end, Poland will be more respected and feared, will get more votes w.r.t. its population (as it happened), a.s.o. And will not depend on the whim of some bureaucrat, as Romania does with all its political correctness. As a joke: Two years ago or so, there was in France a scare about the Polish plumber, that will get the work of the French. The Poles made fun of the French publicly, instead of playing it soft. In the end, they fare better and are better accepted. Maybe Romania should be more aggressive. Dpotop 14:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
To the list of inflexible countries you should also add France (agriculture) and the UK (everything), and I presume many other. BTW, it seems Poland and Italy got what they wanted. Dpotop 14:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
As to Orban: He is incompetent. Your defence would have worked, should he not have acknowledged publicly that something was not right. But he did. And by recognizing his mistake, he also answered to his constituancy (remember that he is there because he is Romanian). Dpotop 14:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The "aggressive" negotiating stance with the EU would work, perhaps, for the more established members of the Union. However, in the case of countries such as Poland, the result is not that they are respected or feared as such, but rather that they are derided as being inflexible and stubborn. There is still somewhat of a negative perception of the new member states in the European Union. Conforming to that negative perception by portraying oneself as inflexible or insensitive, as Poland has done, will not do anything to improve image. And then people wonder why the "Eastern states" are looked down upon within the union. The solution for Romania is to behave professionally and in a way which shows insight, outward orientation and leadership, rather than inward orientation and provincialism (which it hasn't done so far, mind you). It's only in that way that it can gain the respect of the other EU members. Ronline ✉ 02:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, Ronline: Do you think Poland cares for being "looked down upon"? My impression is that they get everything important they want. This is solid and concrete. Of course the others hate this success, but who cares? As for critics. 4 years ago Poland was looked down upon in the French press. This is no longer the case. Poland is now accepted as a hard player, and respected as such. Criticised for its clericalism and conservatism, but never whined upon. Dpotop 07:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
As for Romania: Romanians have a provincial complex and would accept any shit for some tap on the shoulder. You might have seen in the real world that hard work never gets you respect unless you're brilliant. Being a hard player does it. Dpotop 07:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on the EU, but if the more established countries don't work as a model for the other countries, and go as far as insulting them and as you say, looking down on them, then I don't think that the new countries will be motivated to stay content. Countries such as the Netherlands, England, and France have at one time or another, committed themselves to such tactics. If they didn't want the new countries joining the EU so soon--or at all, then they should have used their veto. The price of joining the EU shouldn't be to have to endure to be picked on and in politics, politicians also do what they think will make them more popular at home, so often you will see a politician standing up or criticizing the EU, to gain political favor at home. --Thus Spake Anittas 02:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Legally, the name of Moldova's official language is presented in three different ways:

  • "Moldovan" (article 13 of the 1994 Constitution)
  • "Romanian" (1991 Declaration of Independence)
  • "Moldovan, with the existence of a Moldo-Romanian linguistic identity" (1989 Law of Oddicial Language)

So, you need to label the language accordingly. Legally, you can not just say the way you like. Legally, you have to say: "This is a copy in English, this is a copy in Moldovan, Romanian, and Moldovan with the existence of a a Moldo-Romanian linguistic identity, and this is a copy I french." If you say otherwise, it is assumed that you abreviate, so still legally correct. But then Romania could ask that a certain way to do that abreviation be removed as Soviet propaganda. Orban did not oppose it, because it was an issue that mattered to Basescu, and he wanted to hurt him.:Dc76\ 00:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, enough with insulting Orban. Dahn loves the guy and we don't want to hurt Dahn's feelings, or he may hit us with links and reports. --Thus Spake Anittas 00:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

EU does not recognize Moldovan as language

http://www.adevarul.ro/articole/orban-a-eliminat-limba-moldoveneasca-de-pe-site-ul-comisiei-europene/329489

Orban a eliminat “limba moldovenească” de pe site-ul Comisiei Europene de Marius Vulpe (718 afisari, 2007-10-20) Referirile la limba moldovenească existente pe site-ul Comisiei Europene au fost modificate a declarat, ieri, comisarul european pentru multilingvism, Leonard Orban (foto). Pe viitor va avea loc un proces de monitorizare pentru a evita repetarea acestor situaţii, a mai precizat Orban.

Cu două zile înainte, comisarul european solicita omologilor săi să nu mai facă referire la sintagma „limba moldovenească" în documentele încheiate de UE cu R. Moldova. "Când scrie pe site limba moldovenească şi apare, de fapt, limba română este o problemă. Nu poate fi acceptat ca un document care apare cu altă titulatură să fie în limba română", a spus Orban.

În opinia sa, aceasta este o problemă care "vizează apărarea limbii române". El a arătat că există soluţii tehnice şi juridice pentru a evita să se mai facă referire la limba moldovenească, însă a adăugat că nu poate garanta că nu se vor mai înregistra astfel de cazuri. Orban a explicat că România ar putea imita metoda Greciei, care s-a opus la un moment dat denumirii statului Macedonia, care la ora actuală se numeşte FYROM.

Good news. I retract the things I said against Orban. --Thus Spake Anittas 14:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
But the Council of Europe apparently recognizes Moldovan. --PaxEquilibrium 20:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Livezeanu Paragraph

I see that the paragraph by Livezeanu keeps being introduced in the history and politics section. That paragraph takes up half the space in that section and only deals with a minor issue (i.e. the history of the alphabet). Furthermore, that paragraph is rather one-sided and is not even representative of the general article that it is taken from. I removed the paragraph for now, but if you feel that it should stay in the article, please explain. TSO1D 17:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Alphabet is hardly a minor political issue. Restored. If you think the p section is small, expand it, not make it smaller. The paragraph gives an opinion of a reputable historian about this political issue. Please feel free to turn the quotaiton into a summary, if you object its size. `'Míkka>t 05:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S. The piece in question is not mine. I only sourced it and restored its persistent deletion. `'Míkka>t 05:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a specific article Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet. Consider putting the info there. This article is about a political controversy, not a language. :Dc76\ 11:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem though is that the way that paragraph is added just seems very out of place. There's no introduction, no logical sequence, after a brief paragraph about politics and history this large part appears. If you read the original article, you'll see what I mean. That article is about language politics of Moldova and it has a section about the alphabet where this paragraph is found. So taking that whole paragraph and putting it into the tiny summary section here is ridiculous because it is so out of scale. Basically, my point is that if the paragraph is to be added, it should be added to the subarticle, not the main one, because the issue is addressed there in detail. And even there, not the whole text should be added, but perhaps one or two sentences put in context. TSO1D 18:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Română în Moldova

Cred că te referi la scrierea cu â şi î din câte am înţeles din mesajul tău. Aceasta este introducerea celui mai recent Dicţionar ortografic publicat de Academia de Ştiinţe A Moldovei (corespondentul DOOM-ului din România). Acesta anunţă că "în noua ediţie se aplică Hotărârea Adunării Generale a Academiei Române din 17 februarie 1993 privind revenirea la "â" şi "sunt" în limba română".

Totodată aici găseşti curriculumul la limba română pentru liceu (publicat în 2006). Între conţinuturile de lecţie recomandate pentru clasa a X-a (prima de liceu) se numără şi:

  • Dicţionarul ortografic – operă lingvistică şi rezultat al evoluţiei unei limbi. Modificări în ortografia limbii române: DOOM – 2005. Inventarul semnelor ortografice aplicate în limba română. (v. pagina 13 jos)

Cu toate acestea în Moldova prea puţin se face caz din ortografie, o problemă mai stringentă este denumirea limbii, sau supremaţia limbii române. De aceea poţi să observi că în ciuda faptului că curriculumul vorbeşte despre modificarea ortografiei limbii române - şi recomandă la clasă ca elevilor să le fie aduse la cunoştinţă modificările, - el este scris cu grafia veche. --Danutz 18:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Dicţionarul ortografic al limbii române (ortopepic, morfologic, cu norme de punctuaţie)" (cel din care este scanata introducerea pe care ţi-am trimiso în comentariul anterior) este elaborat de Academia de Ştiinţe a Moldovei şi normal toate instituţiile din Republica Moldova trebuie să ţină cont de el când scriu în limba română. Şi la noi deciziile din DOOM 2005 sunt obligatorii în învăţământ şi actele oficiale. Aşa şi în Moldova. Deci decizia de folosire a literei â este natural obligatorie în învăţământ pentru că materia în şcoală se numeşte limba română şi nu moldovenească. În legislaţie situaţia e mai complicată, întrucât limba acolo este denumită moldovenească şi foarte rar română (într-adevăr sunt unele acte oficiale în care mai scapă denumirea de limbă română). Dar moldoveneasca nu este o limbă standardizată, ci este considerată de legislaţia republicii ca doar un nume pentru acelaşi fenomen lingvistic întâlnit şi în România: citat din legea privind concepţia naţională a Rep. Moldova: "Concepţia porneşte de la adevărul statornicit istoriceşte şi confirmat de tezaurul literar comun: poporul moldovenesc şi poporul român folosesc o formă literară comună . Avînd originea comună, dispunînd de un fond lexical de bază comun, limba naţională moldovenească şi limba naţională română îşi păstrează fiecare lingvonimul/glotonimul său ca însemn identificator al fiecărei naţiuni: moldovenească şi română"
Precizez că prin "limba naţională moldovenească" se înţelege în contextul legii limba naţională din Republica Moldova iar prin "limba naţională română" se înţelege limba naţională din România. Lingvonim/glotonim înseamnă denumirea limbii.
Deci, având în vedere că limba moldovenească este doar un nume, atunci ea are aceleaşi reguli ortografice ca limba română. Şi atunci, având în vedere dicţionarul academiei de la Chişinău, trebuie folosit â.--Danutz

Move to Moldovan language (linguistics)

We should move the article to Moldovan language (linguistics). It's better this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.33.7.47 (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And why is that? — AdiJapan ☎ 08:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

User/Administrator:Mikkalai is deleting every official statement about the non-existance of Moldovan language

EVEN IF THE STATEMENTS ARE REFERENCED!!! Furthermore, he gives no explanations to his deletions of referenced material (even from official sites). --Cezarika f. (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is this referenced text being deleted again and again? The European Parliament has included in its documents the recommendations not to make references to the so-called "Moldovan language". Nergaal (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A6-2007-0427+0+DOC+WORD+V0//EN Romania reiterates that, according to the facts and scientific evidence, including the interpretatio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.42.155 (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

use this insead Romania underlines that its participation to the said agreements does not imply whatsoever any recognition or acknowledgement of the name of the language referred to as "Moldovan". Romania reiterates that, according to the facts and scientific evidence, including the interpretation of the Academy of Science of the Republic of Moldova (issued in September 1994), the correct name of the language is Romanian.(1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs) 18:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edit states: "rv by user who has problem with the understanding of wikipedia's sourcing policies (like not using wiki as a source and fair presentation of the sources"

Please explain: 1)not using wiki as a source 2)fair presentation of the sources; in the context of this edit . Unless you prove your point, I will have to report your abusive, ignorant behavior. Thanks. Nergaal (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You have been explained several times that one of the deleted statements quoted from a newspaper are false and misleading. The tto remaining political rants of Romaninan politicians have no place in the introduction to a linguistical article. `'Míkka>t 02:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu vs Nergaal

  1. uses wikipedia as a reference, so considering it a reference means considering wikipedia the reference. This is not allowed here.
  2. states clear that "the facts and scientific evidence" are only Romania's opinion, that is allegedly also supported by a misterious 1994 interpretation of the Academy of Science of the Republic of Moldova , that may or may not be obsolete by now.
  3. Also makes it clear that the rapporteur stated Romania's oppinon on the matter, and not that of the EP.
Please stop your insults. And please buy some glasses.

Anonimu (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


3) if you noticed, the referenced article is called "Parliament of Europe rejects Moldovan language". The first paragraph says "The Parliament of Europe passed yesterday the resolution to modify the EU-Moldovan Republic readmission agreements. The document includes the recommendations authored by rapporteur Jean Marin Marinescu, an EPP representative, denying the existence of the 'Moldovan language'." Regardless if it is Romania's opinion on the matter, European parlament adopted a resolution that includes the recommendations denying the existence of Moldovan language. 2) it is irrelevant weather it is obsolete or not now. the relevant part is that Romanian's opinion is based on this document AND that European Parlamend ENDORSED THIS OPINION BY ADOPTING THE RESOLUTION! we are not discussing weather the opinion of the EP is good or bad, and if it is based on verifiable facts, but that this is the EP's opinion Nergaal (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This is false. As of NOvember 2007 the term "Moldoval language" is still in use in new EU documents. A politically biasewd newspaper cannot be a source of information about EU. Romanian political opinion has no place in the introduction of the article about official language of another state. `'Míkka>t 02:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
please bring references that state that Moldovan languge is still in unse in EU documents. Otherwise biasewd newspapers are still better than no reference at all.Nergaal (talk) 10:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no disagreement in wikipedia that Moldovan is linguistically identical to Romanian. The current article says this clearly and there is no need in additional quotes political rants and threats of extremist Romanian politicians, who are not exprets in linguistics and hence have no say in this article per wikipedia rules. The Romanian political threat is a disgusting pressure applied to a souvereign state. `'Míkka>t 21:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Answer to aggressive Romanian journalist lies

From November 17, 2007 interview with Leonard Orban, European Commissioner for Multilingualism:

  • Rep.: Does the European Commission acknowledge the existence of the Moldovan language as official language or not? How do you comment on the fact that EU citizens are required to speak this language if they want to join the staff of the EU special representative to the Moldovan Republic?
  • L.O.: It is not the European Commission who acknowledges one language or the other. I want to be very clear about it: it is a decision that belongs to every national state. When views are different, of course they have to be settled politically, not at the European Commission level, but by the states that have different views. As for the other thing you have mentioned, the fact that on the European Commission's website there is listed a requirement such as knowledge of the Moldovan language or of some documents with references to it, this is about a matter now tackled by the European Commission and Romanian authorities. As normal, a decision will be reached accordingly.

Case closed and sealed. `'Míkka>t 21:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I am puzzled that nobody replied to this: LO and the European Commission express Points of View, not truths. And nobody can acknowledge a language. However, the EU is a reputable source and its POV is what's important here. The fact that some other scientist or country writes a document stating Moldovan =Romanian or Moldovan !=Romanian also expresses the POV of that individual or institution, not the Truth. Dpotop (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

other issues

According to census data, Moldovan in mainly spoken in the eastern part of the oblast. Xasha (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
People from Noua Sulita district tend to call themselves Moldavians (just over half of them do so, and just under half-Romanians), while those from Herta, Storojinet, Adancata tend to call themselves Romanians. However, they all speak the same variety/dialect - Moldavian. Just as 4 million other people in Romania.
This article is not a linguistic issue, it is a political issue: can one call Romanian language Moldovan, at least in some instances, or can not? So, it makes more sense to separate the things: to talk in some sections(s) about linguistic issues (Moladavian variety, etc), and in other section(s) about political issues. And again, citing like this "X said that, Y considered that, Z claimed that" should be totally ok. We are not giving our weigh to things, but the credibility of X, Y, Z does. We only cite X, Y, Z.:Dc76\ 14:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, the Romanian idosyncrasy about the unity of the Eastern Romance language doesn't hold much water. In other parts of the world, languages less different than Moldovan and Romanian are considered separated languages and nobody contest it. This is all about the expansionist policy of Romanians. I don't need anyone to tell me what I am and what language I speak.Xasha (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
What you are and what language you speak is your own business. I am not telling you what you are or speak. What holds water and what does not is for scholars to tell, not for us. We can only cite them. What is in other parts of the world is in other parts of the world. What happens in Madagascar is no precedent for Moldova. If nobody contests it there, then maybe they are separate. If so many contest here, then maybe they are not.
Just as you don't wish anyone to tell you what to think of yourself, please don't tell me that, either. I am Moldovan, and I am Romanian, and please don't dare call me expansionist in my own house. Please be specific: that Romanian, and call him/her by name, when you say someone is expansionist. I am not giving you arguments like "this is occupants' theory". Even if I think it is, I only say "this is X's theory", where X has a name. So, keep to yourself what you think, and please don't call anyone expansionist.
Even better, I'm ready to forget about "expansionist" and just focus on the issue. I repeat, "X said Y (source, citation), Z claims T (source, citation)." That's the only way it goes on WP. Your or my interpretation, while at heart to us, mean nothing to outsiders. They want to hear all claims, and have them sourced, they don't want to hear the conclusions we draw or our interpretations. :Dc76\ 18:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Divine origins

The notion of a distinct Moldovan language, of ] origins

Xasha, can you please stop adding nonsense to this article? Thanks. bogdan (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As nonsensical this may seem, this is much more true than the one presently in the article. (according to all major religions)Xasha (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Moldovan language is the name of the Romanian language in Moldova. That's not an opinion, that's the consensus in linguistics, regardless of what politicians on either side say. bogdan (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No, the thing that nobody can deny is that Moldovan is the official language in Moldova, and that Moldovan and Romanian share their literary form(with very minor lexical exceptions). The rest are just personal opinions.Xasha (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Your logic is flawed. You have a problem when linguists consistently say "Moldovan is Romanian called under a different name", and never vice-versa. --Gutza 20:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It's just the bias of the big entities. How often do you hear that "Romania united with Transylvania"?Xasha (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You don't, because it never happened. That is, unless the government's in Alba Iulia or something. --Gutza 20:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Romania kept its government, its laws, its structure, etc. Transylvania adopted the Romanian law and political administration (division into judeţe, etc), not the other way around. bogdan (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Romanian Academy

It is stated that Romanian Academy is the regulating authority for Moldavian language. Is that really so, can somebody confirm?--Moldopodo 23:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldovan is not formally regulated.Xasha (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
hmmm, not even by the Moldavian Academy of Sciences?--Moldopodo 14:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Anyway, big question, what has Romanian Academy of Sciences to do with regulation of Moldavian language in Moldavia?--Moldopodo 14:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldopodo's edits

Moldopodo, First of all, this piece belongs to the articles History of the Moldovan language because it is not about the modern language. Second, Kantemir wrote "Valachiae et Transylvaniae incolis eadem est cum Moldavis lingua, pronunciatio tamen rudior, ut dziur, Vlachus proferet zur, jur, per z polonicum sive j gallicum; Dumnedzeu, Deus, val. Dumnezeu: akmu, nunc, val. akuma, aczela hic, val: ahela." I.e. by Kantemir, vallachians and transylvanians spoke the same language, only with different accent. And therefore it is a very philosophical question : isn't it Kantemir used the term "Moldavis lingua"/lingua moldavorum (language of Moldavians) in the meaning of what we call now Romanian language, rather than he spoke of separate Moldovan language. So this piece actually may be belongs to History of Romanian language. This question may be decided only by expert linguists, not by reference to Kantemir. Mukadderat (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Cantemir speaks of Moldavian language spoken by Moldavians. Please, do check the last two chapters of Descriptio Moldaviae. This is quite clear and there is no ambiguity. However, he never mentions anything relating to Romania (poor Cantemir did not know this term would exist one day). As for the History section of Moldavian language, certainly it does belong to it. I have much more to develop on the History of Moldavian language article, and then we could make a nice summary to put on the main page of Moldavian language article. As for "Valachiae et Transylvaniae incolis eadem est cum Moldavis lingua, pronunciatio tamen rudior, ut dziur, Vlachus proferet zur, jur, per z polonicum sive j gallicum; Dumnedzeu, Deus, val. Dumnezeu: akmu, nunc, val. akuma, aczela hic, val: ahela." I. - where exactly did he write it? Thanks in advance for your answer. --Moldopodo 00:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
As for "Valachiae et Transylvaniae: I cut and pasted it from your reference (wikisource of Descriptio). Mukadderat (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what Cantemir said. You should not add your interpretations of primary sources to Misplaced Pages. If a modern linguist uses Cantemir's work when talking about Moldovan language, fine, use that, but don't do the interpretation yourself. bogdan (talk) 09:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, it does matter very much so. Let's put it clear. I have made no interpretation whatsoever, if I had interpreted, please provide an exact diff to prove exactly where and how and when. Now, when you say Cantemir spoke of anything else than Moldavians and Moldavian language you lie. It's easy as this. It's not even an interpretaion, it's a banal uncovered lie, and you have already tried different excuses, from "no it's not about Moldavian", "no, you don't know Latin", to "you are interpreting", and the most surprising "it's about Romanian" (Romanian is an absent word in the entire work of Cantemir).--Moldopodo 10:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
You're just trolling and I don't intend to waste my time with you. I'm just saying that it's absurd to claim that a 1716 work is not a primary source. bogdan (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Please remain civil and stop lying (I am referring to your bad faith translation and intrepretation of Descriptio Moldaviae), or provide otherwise a diff to support your accusation of trolling. Descriptio Moldaviae - is THE primary source.--Moldopodo 12:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldopodo, Yes, Cantemir called the language (in Latin) by name that may be today interpreted as "Moldovan language". But the exact meaning of the latin term is "language of Moldavians". Strange it may sound, but "language of Moldavians" in 17th century is not necessarily the same as what we call today Moldovan language. For example, there is Turkish language and there is Ottoman Turkish language. As you may know, languages evolve thru time. I don't know details about Moldovan/Romanian, but it is quite possible the language of Kantemir times may be called Old Moldovan language or Old Romanian language. Mukadderat (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Mukadderat, No, Cantemir called the language Moldavian, not only it is based on my translation, but also on translation into other languages, as Russian or Moldavian for example. There is no need to look for interpretation, it is what it is - it is quite plain. NOTHING is mentioned eiher about Romanians or Romanan language there. And if you insist on this - this is a mere orignal research and POV interpretation, or in my simple straight words: it is a lie to say what the text does not say, either explicitely, nor implicitely. Cantemir had not described, nor mentioned the term because it was inexistent and had no practical applcation at that time. Neither Romania, nor Romanian language, nor Romanian nation existed back then. These "Romanian" notions certainly do exist today, but the scope of this article is not to describe their origins/history - so it is completely irrelevant here on the talk page about Moldavian language. You forgot to answer my question, which chapter was your quote from, which para? Thank you in advance. P.S.... about evolution of the language, do not know much about Turkish lanaguage, so I cannot understand your comprison. As for Moldavian, funny enough, as old as the Cantemir's chronicle may seem, the writings and analysis of Cantemir are perfectly valid today and are fully applicable to the Moldavian language of 21st century, with almost no modification at all (except the major one: the alphabet).--Moldopodo 19:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Neither Romania, nor Romanian language, nor Romanian nation existed back then. "

See what Miron Costin says about this in 1675:
"Măcară dară că şi la istorii şi la graiul şi streinilor şi înde sine cu vréme, cu vacuri, cu primenéle au şi dobândescŭ şi alte numere, iară acela carile ieste vechiŭ nume stă întemeiat şi înrădăcinat: rumân. Cum vedem că, măcară că ne răspundem acum moldovéni, iară nu întrebăm: ştii moldovenéşte?, ce ştii românéşte? Stă dară numele cel vechiŭ ca un teméi neclătit, deşi adaog ori vrémile îndelungate, ori streini adaog şi alte numere, iară cela din rădăcină nu să mută. Şi aşa ieste acestor ţări şi ţărâi noastre, Moldovei şi Ţărâi Munteneşti numele cel direptŭ de moşie, ieste rumân, cum să răspundŭ şi acum toţi acéia din Ţările Ungureşti lăcuitori şi munténii ţara lor şi scriu şi răspundŭ cu graiul: Ţara Românească." wikisource:ro:De neamul moldovenilor
... Although we call ourselves Moldavians, we don't ask Do you know Moldavian?, but Do you know Romanian? ..
bogdan (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Very interesting, and a mention about this surely has its place in the article, at least as anecdotal reference. The problem is that Cantemir clearly gives morphological and grammatical description of Moldavian language, whereas Costin (at least in this particular phrase you citedm I haven't read the entire work yet) simply tells us how Moldavians answer in his own view. Contrary to Cantemir, Costin's story really does sound as a fairy tale because there is no attempt to justify anything scientifically, as Cantemir did. He merely expresses his own opinion, not comparing it to any other or making any research whatsoever. Do you have a translation link somewhere, to modern Moldavian language I mean, or to English, or Russian or may be Ukrainian? Just to make sure certain terms are well understood and correctly translated --Moldopodo 15:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Costin explicitly records that Moldavians called their language Romanian (românéşte) not Moldavian/Moldovan (moldovenéşte). I have never heard of any secondary source questioning Costin's honesty! There was no identity related controversy back in the 17th century, Costin had no reason to lie. And, yes, Cantemir calls the language Moldavian. Vasile Lupu (also 17th century), on the other hand, had the Carte româneascǎ de învăţătură ("Romanian book of learning") published; it was the first written code of laws of the Principality. However, I fail to see the impact that this has on an article about the official language of the modern Republic of Moldova. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Catalan / Valencian precedent

The Romanian / Moldovan controversy is not unique. Here is the lead of the article on Valencian. Valencian (valencià) is the historical, traditional, and official name used in the Valencian Community of Spain to refer to the region's native language, known elsewhere as Catalan (català). Even Moldovan officials agree that the languages are identical. They merely claim that Moldovans have the right to call their language as they have always had. The article should stress this from the lead section, anything else would be giving undue weight to fringe theories. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 04:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that none of the facts in the lead can be disputed: 1. that Moldovan is the official language of Moldova. 2. that Moldovan and Romanian have the same literary form. So I see no need to politicize it further. Xasha (talk) 08:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Stating that Moldovan is an alternative name for the Romanian language is not a political statement, but a scientific one. The purpose of the article is not to reach compromise between a dominant scientific view and a fringe theory. It is perfectly legitimate for Moldovans (or Valencians) to call their own language as they wish. However, introducing the doubt about Moldovan beeing an altogether different language from Romanian (or Valencian from Catalan) is misleading the reader. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I am inclined to agree with Plinul - point 2 kinda does differentiate them more than it should. Perhaps the "Valencian" solution would be best (or at least, more neutral), with a further explanation that colloquial Moldovan differs from standard Romanian on a dialectal level (or something like that). --Illythr (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
We already have something about that : "There is no particular linguistic break at the Prut River, Moldovan and Romanian forming a dialect continuum." Xasha (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but the war is centered on the first sentences of the lead section. Maybe it could be abated by applying this version without compromising NPOV. Sort of like 1. The official language of Moldova is (called) Moldovan. 2. It is essentially another name of Romanian. 3. The spoken colloquial form differs from the standard blablabla... --Illythr (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
If you or anyone else has a specific proposal, please post it below under a new header (on the talk page). You can omit the ref tags for the moment.Xasha (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused as to which portion of Xasha's latest edit is a reversion of an "edit with deceptive summary, partly in an unidentified language". Xasha, could you please help us out with a more detailed explanation here? Thanks. Richwales (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Deceptive since no RS was removed, as the summary claimed, as for the second part I didn't understand what he meant by "concensous"... now I see that it may have meant consensus, but at that time it seemed like something about a census.Xasha (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, no ref was removed. However, I fail to see how Minahan, for example, who states: The Moldovan language is Romanian, although the distinction between Moldovans and Romanians remains may be used to reference the statement: Its literary form is shared with the Romanian language as is the case in the current version of the article... Plinul cel tanar (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed the lead to better fit the sources, since none made a distinction between "literary" Moldovan and "spoken" Moldovan. Such a distinction, besides being unsourced, would also be pseudosientific since a language is not defined by slang. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The distinction is made in most Moldovan sources. The only slang here is the literary form, since it's hardly ever used outside written documents.Xasha (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No, many Moldovan sources claim the right to use the name "Moldovan" for the language and argue its historicity (some arguing that the designation is earlier than "Romanian"), others simply state that Moldovan is Romanian, the highly controversial Stati claims that Moldovan is an altogether different language. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You're not familiar nor with Moldovan sources, neither with Stati. Please don't speak based only on what you've heard around or what the Romanian press says.Xasha (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith and remain civil. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

New lead section

I suggest that the first sentence in the lead section be changed to Moldovan is the official and most common name given in Republic of Moldova to the country's native language known elswhere mostly as Romanian. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Not good. It ignores the quite important phonetic and lexical differences between spoken Moldovan and Romanian.Xasha (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Not more important than those between the English spoken by a Scot and that spoken by an American from Texas. Or Western Catalan (Valencian) from East Catalan (particularly the dialect spoken in France). Or Flemish from standard Dutch. Or Cajun from standard French. But more importantly, this is what almost all sources say, including the Moldovan President, the Moldovan Academy, and almost all linguists aside from Stati. Moldovan is another name for Romanian. We may discuss dialect problems afterwards, but the lead should stress the quasi-unanimous scientific view. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I made some changes.

So that the text is consistent with the sources and with the content of the article. Dpotop (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And I reverted your edits because: 1.the pdf from the EU site is just a guide to recognize languages, and has no scientific authority. 2.the only official language of Moldova is Moldovan. 3. cyrillics are still used by thousands of Moldovan speakers in Moldova and Transnistria and, unless things have changed in the last years, are the standard way to write Moldovan in Russia and Ukraine.Xasha (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
You don't deserve an answer. However, the other readers should really understand that (1) an official document is an official document, (2) official means having official status, and (3) who cares, the paragraph I replaced only talks about official status, which is exactly what mine talks about, too. Dpotop (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually the readers should read Dpotop edit and see that 1) there's no official document 2)Russian is as official in Moldova as Romani language in Romania 3) shows the refusal to accept facts by the above user. Xasha (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW: The wine bottles in the "Moldovan culture" box are cool. Dpotop (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Make a new footnote for the Moldovan Constitution

The current footnote (Number 1) is a dead-end. The constitution can be read in whole in English and Romanian/Moldovan at the following links:

http://en.wikisource.org/Constitution_of_the_Republic_of_Moldova

http://ro.wikisource.org/Constitu%C5%A3ia_Republicii_Moldova

Raoulduke25 (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually http://xiv.parlament.md/en/legalfoundation/constitution/ would be better since, as an official site of the government, is more reliable.Xasha (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael I of Romania

Attn Romanian wikipedians: Please help resolve the issue in Talk:Michael I of Romania.

P.S. I find it quite surprizing that no one paid attention to my notice at wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board, so I am posting this request here, since it seems that Romanians flock here in numbers. `'Míkka>t 19:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Also check out Talk:Moldovans. Seems to be quite the hit right now. --Illythr (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
<shrug> Obviously, to meddle into affairs of another state is much more fun than own history which is probably boring since schoolyears. If they don't care about their former king, all the more I am removing it from my watchlist. `'Míkka>t 23:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you can ask user:Biruitorul about this. He seems to be quite fond of the guy. --Illythr (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Transnistria

Somebody can explain to me about what kind of official language in Transnistria is written in the article? As the administration of the region is not recognized, we can talk only about the language usage in the region. I propose to remove the "as well as one of of the three official languages in the the breakaway territory of Transnistria". --serhio 16:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It is an official language by nonrecognized administration, and we can talk about it. `'Míkka>t 16:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Serhio, I don't necessarily see this as a problem though. I mean even though the separatist government is not internationally recognized, the region is de facto under its administration. Essentially what that clause means is that "the Moldovan language is considered official by the unrecognized breakaway Transnistrian government," which after all is true, only in more concise form. TSO1D (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the last major battle over the usage of the word "official" around PMR authorities, settled on a "bracketing solution" - that is, since the PMR is not recognized as a statal entity with its entire legislative infrastructure, we simply note that PMR itself is not recognized, thus implying that the rest of its institutions is not recognized as well, avoiding the need to "unrecognize" them at every mention. --Illythr (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

Can we please agree on an introduction for the article (or more precisely the first paragraph). This seems to be the main point of contention in the edit war that led the page to be blocked, and it hasn't been resolved yet. I propose something like: "Moldovan (also Moldavian) (limba moldovenească), written with Latin script, is the official name given to the Romanian language in the Republic of Moldova, where it has the status of "state language". Written with the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet, Moldovan (лимба молдовеняскэ) is one of the three official languages of the breakaway territory of Transnistria." TSO1D (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No. This ignores census results, historical use, and, most important, the colloquial language.Xasha (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
How about "Moldovan (also Moldavian) (limba moldovenească), written with the Latin script, is the name of the official language of Republic of Moldova. It is essentially identical to the Romanian language. Written with the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet, Moldovan (лимба молдовеняскэ) is one of the three official languages of the breakaway territory of Transnistria." --Illythr (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
How about: ""Moldovan (also Moldavian) (limba moldovenească), written with the Latin script, is the name of the official language of the Republic of Moldova. It is essentially identical to Romanian, the two languages sharing the same literary form. Written with the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet, Moldovan (лимба молдовеняскэ) is one of the three official languages of the breakaway territory of Transnistria." TSO1D (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Even better. --Illythr (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The part with the name doesn't work. We don't have "Bosnian is the name of the official language of Bosnia". The rest is more or less OK. Also, the article lacks an infobox, required by Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (infoboxes).Xasha (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Xasha, the problem is that the Moldovan language as a concept only exists in relation to the Republic of Moldova. In any other place it would be called Romanian, and even in Moldova it is only a matter of the name. That's why it makes sense to begin the intro by explaining that Moldovan is what the official language of Moldova is called, even though its written form is identical to Romanian. But if you prefer another version, please explain what that is. TSO1D (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Huh? What about all these Ukrainian, Russian etc nationals who declare their language to be Moldovan (even in an EU countries such as Estonia)? Should we just ignore them? What about all references to the Moldovan language before 1924? Simply dismiss them?Xasha (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, we do have Valencian, which is "the historical, traditional, and official name" etc, so, as long as the description is neutral and accurate, why not? Since Valencian has an infobox, so can Moldovan, as long as its contents is formatted the same way (i.e. "Moldovan, Romanian" and so on). --Illythr (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
That wouldn't work. Moldovan speakers in a dozen countries don't call their language Romanian, even if other citizens of the same countries call it that way. Also, Moldovan has a unique ISO code, which Valencian doesn't.Xasha (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you guys misunderstood me. I was answering Xasha's question about the part of the intro where it begins with Moldovan being the official language of Moldova. I'm not necessarily against an infobox. I guess we could take the Romanian one but also add the name "Moldovan" up top like they do for the Valencian one with Catalan. TSO1D (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I misunderstand you, seeing as how I approve of your suggestion. I think this last suggestion best as it seems (to me, at least) be the most NPOV: We have a country. It's got an official language. They call the language Moldovan there. It is pretty much the same as Romanian. --Illythr (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Langauge infoboxes are for articles on languages, obviously. This article, however, is about the name of a language, while the linguistic details are already included in the article about Romanian. This is only natural, since all linguists agree that Moldovan and Romanian are one language. We have tried several times to fit a language infobox here, but it didn't work:

  • How do you classify Moldovan if nobody considers it a separate language?
  • How do you count the speakers if at censuses they had to choose between two names of the same thing?
  • Then what ranking does it have?
  • What body regulates the language, if the Moldovan Academy of Sciences uses the term Romanian?

These are critical pieces of information, without which a language infobox cannot exist. The simple fact that Moldovan has a language code is definitely not enought, and in fact this information is already mentioned in the article.

I agree with any of the three wordings proposed by TSO and Illythr.

I'm afraid what we have here is an attempt to prove that Moldovan is a separate language, while the specialists say otherwise. Misplaced Pages should reflect their view, not "ours". Remember that Misplaced Pages is not for propaganda. — AdiJapan 18:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of invoking WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I'd like to point out that the aforementioned Valencian as well as Montenegrin do have infoboxes, even though they're but names/dialects of their respective parent languages and their creation was purely political. To address the individual points:
  • Since official Moldovan is almost exactly the same as Romanian, it can be classified the same way with putting "Moldovan, Romanian" together.
  • According to their census choice.
  • I think we can cannibalize the Romanian infobox to modify it the way it was done for the Valencian one (although I foresee this as a major point of contention in the future).
  • I believe they'll have to convert to using "Moldovan" this autumn, but since Moldovan is the same as Romanian, I see no problem in listing MAS as the controlling body. --Illythr (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
MAS has adopted the same orthography rules as RoAcad. AFAIK MAS calls it Ro, not Mo . So, technically speaking, MAS regulates the use of Ro on the territory of Mo. Meaning that Mo is not regulated by MAS. As for the infobox, something more than "Romanian (named Moldovan in Moldova)", i.e. more than pointing out it's purely a diff name, hm, sounds like assasinating Franz Ferdinand. The cleanest way to do it would be Mo having its own infobox, wikilinking Ro's. It's up to Moldopodo or someone else to find out the regulating body and some scientific sources more recent and more reliable than of the early 18th century (like Cantemir), which, hm, is older than the steam engine (scientifically speaking). adriatikus | talk 19:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, since Mo is just another name of Ro, and since MAS remains the regulating body of the main language used on the territory of the Republic of Moldova, I see no problem in naming MAS its regulating body. --Illythr (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Hm. No, MAS regulates the use of Ro in Mo. Saying it regulates "the main language" is like saying that Mo is spoken in Bucharest, because Mo is another name for Ro. Since this is a naming issue, let's stick to facts. MAS names it Ro, so MAS regulates Ro in Mo. If Voronin, or the Parliament, or the Education Ministry, adopt the rules published by MAS for Ro, than it's their business, and the regulating body is Voronin or the Parliament.
The problem is not we don't know the facts. The problem is facts are named differently. Since WP mirrors the reality, let's not use here "direct implications" (perfect fitted for anything else), because Mo propaganda doesn't follow logics. Let's use only quotes. MAS names it Ro, then MAS has nothing to do with Mo. adriatikus | talk 20:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
But Ro is Mo (or vice versa?), just under a different alias, so, while it could be said that Mo is spoken in Bucharest, it would be silly. On the other hand, since MAS did adapt the Ro rules for use by the main language used on the territory of the Republic of Moldova, doesn't that make it the governing body for that language? --Illythr (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
You're right, only in part. In order to deal with it and try not to profane Franz Ferdinand, let's check *facts*, and then, only if safe, use "direct logical implications". Fact: MAS calls it Ro. Fact: Official lang in Mo is Mo. Fact: Mo and Ro are identical. If we use logical implications, we'll and up with a mess. E.g. because MAS calls it Ro in order to show it opposes Mo politics of renaming the language (but this is not fact, is our conclusion, since we have no evidence). Oh, and MAS didn't adapt, but copied (as in republished and used) RoAcad rules (it's not "something like", it's "identical to"). And where from is this expression, "main language"? Is it from MAS? Then we should write: "The main language in Mo, named Ro by the MAS and Mo by officials, use the Ro ortography rules....". If it's not MAS, but officials using the expression "main language", then we should write "The official main language in Mo, officially named Mo, uses the orthography rules of Ro as published by the MAS which names it Ro and has adopted the rules of RoAcad rules in 2001,....". Or something like this... :)) adriatikus | talk 21:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, another fact is that it was MAS that adapted copied the RAS rules for use in yada-yada. Doesn't that make the implication unnecessary? As long as we avoid calling out the True Name of *that language* (Shhh!), we may be spared from the wrath of the demons guarding it. BTW, the expression is my own original research placeholder name used to cheat the demons mentioned above. :-P --Illythr (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
All I'm saying is facts, logic and propaganda don't go hand in hand. For this reason, let's stick to facts only (logic offends propaganda and propaganda offends logic). Let's refrain to: «it is X saying something based on that quote». Because if we try to be logical, we end up saying the official lang in Ro is Mo and in Mo is Ro, or else. We should stick strictly to quotes and let the reader come to its own conclusion. (minor: it's RA, not RAS). Basicly, no yada-yada, just bare facts. :P adriatikus | talk 21:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
To avoid the yada-yada, I can't seem to find an explicit official mention tying mo and MAS together. Hm. --Illythr (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If this article were about a language, it would contain information about sintax, morphology, phonology, and so on. But since, according to linguists, Moldovan is Romanian, the whole article would then be a mere redirect, wouldn't it? This makes it clear that the subject we have here is not in the field of linguistics proper. Instead, it is about the political controversy around the name of a language.

If an infobox is added, I will demand to see the sources: What language classification ever mentions Moldovan? I mean textually, not by way of deduction. Who says that Moldovan is regulated by MAS? Also, taking the number of speakers from census data represents our interpretation (i.e. original research) of those data. Given the naming controversy, most probably a linguist would just add up the numbers of those who answered "Moldovan" and those who answered "Romanian" to find out the total number of Romanian-speaking population of Moldova. Anyone who has read anything about this subject understands that the census responses in the language section were not simply language-based, but also politically or ethnically motivated. We can't just take census numbers as reflecting a linguistic reality. — AdiJapan 18:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue (same as with Valencian, Montenegrin etc) never was about a linguistic reality, but a political one. For the rest - see above, although I'm not sure what you mean by original research regarding the census. --Illythr (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Well then it should be obvious that there is no place for a language infobox in this article. Valencian and Montenegrin are no reference, since other Misplaced Pages articles are not a reliable source. Besides, each such controversy is different. In the particular case of Moldovan, there is a clear consensus among linguists that this is not a distinct language or dialect. All that's left is politics. Why then have a language infobox in a politics article?...
Simply taking census data is original research because it boils down to making the assumption that only those 2 million people speak Moldovan, when in fact all Romanians do, that is, over 20 million people. How can we state the number of Moldovan speakers without making any interpretation of the census data? We can't. — AdiJapan 10:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Moldovan, Romanian
Moldovenească, Română
Native toMoldova, Romania, European Union, Bulgaria, Canada, USA, Russia, Spain, Ukraine, Israel, Serbia, Hungary; various communities around the wider Balkan peninsula and beyond.
RegionSoutheastern Europe, some communities in the Middle East
Native speakers24 million
22mln as Romanian (sources) 2mln as Moldovan (sources)
Language familyIndo-European
Official status
Official language inAs Moldovan:
 Moldova
As Romanian:
 Romania
 Vojvodina (Serbia)
 European Union
Regulated byMoldovan Academy of Sciences (in Moldova)
(should be sourced)
Academia Română (elsewhere)
Language codes
ISO 639-1md, ro
ISO 639-2mol, rum
ISO 639-3mol
Well, if you can find an outside reliable source on the placement of infoboxes in Misplaced Pages, I'd be most interested to see one. ;) In the cases of Valencian and Montenegrin, as can be gleaned from their respective articles, Valencian is but a name of Catalan, whereas Montenegrin has the same motivation behind the political force driving it to officialness (I wonder if anyone has accused the government of Montenegro of Stalinism yet?), so, in case of Valencian, we have a nearly 1:1 match (except Valencian doesn't have its own ISO code).
I still do not see where the interpretation is. The census says: "60% Moldovan, 16.5% Romanian". Please point out original research in the following statement: "60% of the population of RM speak Moldovan 16.5% of RM speak Romanian".

Well, something like that. I stole all the numbers from the ro infobox, so don't kick me if they're all wrong, we're talking general structure here.

What I meant was that "other crap exists" and we don't need to do here what others have done with the articles on Valencian and Montenegrin. What we need to do is judge things individually. We have this question: Is a language infobox appropriate in an article about a political controversy? I say no. You seem to say yes, although you do seem to understand that we're dealing with a use–mention distinction: This article is not called "Moldovan language" because it talks about a language, but because the political controversy happens to be called "Moldovan language". Having a language infobox here is almost as wrong as having a plant taxobox in Apple Inc..
It is perfectly okay to quote the census results, "60% Moldovan, 16.5% Romanian", but it's not okay to state that same information as if it reflected the reality, because we have reliable evidence indicating that all those 60% + 16.5% actually speak the same language. A parallel: It's okay to quote the Bible where it says that God made everything in 6 days, but we cannot state that as being the truth about the origin of the Universe.
The infobox you placed here is full of statements you won't find sources for, I mean textually about Moldovan, without including our own inferrences. Besides, if this is the same info as in the article Romanian language, why copy it? Why is it not enough to link that article here? — AdiJapan 08:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Eh, the article is about the "Moldovan language", which is 1) The state language of Moldova; 2) A local dialect of Romanian; 3) A controversial attempt at Language secessionism. An infobox is thus useful in dealing with all three, by providing census data as well as underlining the essential unity of standard mo and ro by pointing out that the difference is in name only.
I'm not sure if you're reading me right. The infobox is a clone of the Romanian one, as it deals with the same language. All it adds on top of the original is the name of that same language as it is official in Moldova. Both of your parallels are thus completely off the mark, as the existence of a separate language is not even implied (note the "As" parts). On the contrary, the unity of the two is asserted.
What references would you like to see? That Moldovan and Romanian are the same language? That this language (officially) goes under a different name in a certain area?
PS:Whoa, who wrote the "in Romanian" section in that article? O_o --Illythr (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Come on, for #3 (a controversy) you surely don't need a language infobox. The same goes for #1 (state language of Moldova) because all you need to say is that the Constitution of Moldova uses this term. As for #2, that is actually a different subject so it should go in a separate article. Romanian does indeed have local speeches --- about just as different as Texan English and New York English --- but the geographic distribution of the Moldovan speech does not match the territory of Moldova. In fact, in this linguistic sense, there are much more Moldovan speakers in Romania than there are in Moldova. Let's not mix things up.
The current version of the article does imply the existence of a separate language where it says that "Moldovan is the official language of the Republic of Moldova". The reality is the other way round: The official language of the Republic of Moldova is called Moldovan in the Constitution and possibly other official documents. "Moldovan" is a name. For it to be a language it is necessary that those who are specialists in the field of languages say it is so. Well, they don't. — AdiJapan 17:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree there. I think that #1 deserves an infobox, as long as it's the same one as Romanian and #2 is what this "language" really is, thus making it a good place to explain not just the Moldova-specific controvercy but also the dialect itself (regardless of geographic location and census data). In fact, I think the article should primarily focus on the dialect and only have a section about the controversy. I suppose that if the article had been named just "Moldovan", there'd be much less revert warring over its contents. Sigh.
As long as that is immediately offset by the next sentence - I don't think it's all that bad, although I would rather reformulate the "the two languages" part. Hey look, Austro-Bavarian actually does have an infobox, if only as a dialect... --Illythr (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Changing the name to Moldovan won't improve anything. On the contrary, you'd have to disambiguate it from Moldovans.
I don't think I made myself clear: "Moldovan language" as used by politicians and "Moldavian dialect" as used by linguists are two distinct subjects. They mean different things and you can't have both in one article.
The comparison with the Austro-Bavarian doesn't hold. That is a dialect recognized by linguists, while the same linguists say that Moldovan is an "alternate name". (Read the section on Moldova.)
But hey, do whatever you please. I've stated the facts, I tried to explain them, all seemingly to no avail. I got tired. You probably believe that whatever I say should be dismissed or at best taken with a grain of salt, since I must be in a conflict of interests. Well, I'm one of those who think the NPOV is something to be achieved internally, not by negotiation with the other side. As such, I have nothing left to negotiate. — AdiJapan 09:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I still don't see how this case differs from Valencian, which is also but a name of Catalan, but oh well. No consensus - no infobox... This wasn't a negotiation, btw. --Illythr (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Consensus doesn't mean unanimity.Xasha (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Moldovan language and the EU

It seems that about a fourth of the body of the article is dedicated to this silly matter. Considering how minor and inconsequential this issue is I propose removing this section altogether. Anyone opposed? TSO1D (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It was originally important to whoever added it to "prove" that Moldovan is outlawed in the EU. Since the EU had washed its hands in this matter, the whole section can probably be cut into a single sentence stating that the EU is neutral on the issue. --Illythr (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you prove EU washed its hands on the matter? Appolodor din Damasc (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Why, that is, or rather, was, written in the article... Hey, Xasha, surely, that one statement sums up the stance of the EU on that matter - "Call it as you want, we're not interfering, let's all live in peace, bros."? --Illythr (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
There was another statement that said Romania has accepted the Moldovan language as a precondition for joining EU (as part of the acquis), so it has to live with that.Xasha (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Mhrrrm, didn't read that part... Uh, whatever. --Illythr (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I didn't read it either, I became bored after the third sentence, which is why I tried to abridge it that way. But I see Xasha's point, the last quote directly contradicted the earlier claims. So I substituted this quote for the other one and I tried to simplify the passage a bit. Hopefully everyone will be satisfied. TSO1D (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OR

Xasha labeled the article with an WP:Original Research tag. Could he or anyone else who believes this is justified please explain what specific problems they perceive with the article. TSO1D (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead is OR. Moldovan is, according to the Moldovan constituiton, the official language of Moldova, not one of its names. Moreover, people in Russia, Kazakhstan or EU (Estonia), who are not Moldovan citizens and have nothing to do with Moldovan officials, still call their language Moldovan. The current lead imposes the view that "Moldovan" is just imposed by evil Moldovan communist government, with nobody "really" calling it that way, fact that is contradicted by census results and centuries of use. Xasha (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
You're talking about this sentence: "Moldovan (also Moldavian) (limba moldovenească), written with the Latin script, is the name of the official language of the Republic of Moldova."? You mean you want the part about "name of" to be removed? That would actually make sense, since it is the language that is written in the Latin alphabet, not just its name. I'll change it. TSO1D (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It still misses the part about Moldovan speakers outside Moldova. After all, they are about 15% of the total speakers. Xasha (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
You want to include in the article information about people in other countries who have declared their language as Moldovan? I don't think anyone has a problem with that as long as the information is sourced (preferably by citing the respective census results). But I don't understand why you think that the introduction somehow contradicts this fact. I am especially confused about what you regard as original research, since the first paragraph only has three main points: 1) The Moldovan language is the official language of Moldova 2) Moldovan and Romanian share a literary form 3) Moldovan is official in Transnistria. All three of these facts are well-sourced and almost universally accepted. TSO1D (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
So, I take it, the only problem with the lead section is the absence of speakers from outside of Moldova who were counted as "Moldovan-speakers"? This hardly deserves even a "globalize" tag. All it needs is sourced censa data. --Illythr (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
In its current state, the lead is to Moldovan government-centred.Xasha (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Well then, propose something! --Illythr (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, Xasha, if you still disagree with the introduction as it stands, please propose some specific changes or at least be more specific about what you would like to see changed. Otherwise, the tag should not remain up. TSO1D (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Something along "Outside Moldova, Moldovan is also spoken as a minority language in RU, UA and KZ".Xasha (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Or, rather, "Moldovan is also recognized as a minority language in Ru, UA, and KZ. (sources)" --Illythr (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
That would mean putting a long list with all the countries that have reported Moldovan language in their census results, even if that means under 200 speakers, as in the Baltic republics. And what about those states that include it under "Other" just because they're too few speakers (relative to that country's population)? Maybe " Moldovan is also spoken by sizable minorities in RU, UA and KZ." (4,200 in KZ being a reasonable threshold for "sizable").Xasha (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It shouldn't be matter of factly referred to as a language, at least without some clarification, since Romanian is spoken in more places than where Moldovan is recognized as a separate language. I'm not sure that 4200 is sizeable, but ok. Important is mention of recognition. (Huh, the Baltic republics recognize Moldovan?) As for "Others" - I don't think the two-and-a-half speakers this includes really warrant a special mention. --Illythr (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
One guy and we have recognition. If we were to believe Stati, even Romanian ethnologist have found people claiming to speak Moldovan in at least two places west of the Pruth. Just that Romania doesn't recognize their right to self-expression. I doubt any other country cares enough to actually join the two categories (Romanian-speakers and Moldovan-speakers). So your formulation still wouldn't resolve the current tagXasha (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I meant official recognition. By the state, that is. Since Romanian is "default", Moldovan can be mentioned only when it is explicitly present as an option in a country's census. --Illythr (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Most census forms, including the Moldovan one, have write in language question. So I doubt any country (except Romania maybe) have even "Romanian" as one of the standard answers.Xasha (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Hm, ok, then not as a choice option, but as a result, since those are usually filtered (so that no Hobbits, or Martians (along with whatever languages they speak) get into the result sheet). --Illythr (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me like Xasha has been working hard to become the pro-Moldovenist version of "Bonny" :) Dapiks (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
He lacks the socks... --Illythr (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
All my edits are based on reputable sources, mostly Western. If I were to adopt Bonaparte's mentality, Misplaced Pages would be full of quotes from Stati's book.Xasha (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think his post-ban version is guilty of using any sources at all... --Illythr (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Major revamping: intro and history sections

As User:TSO1D has fully reverted my last edit, considering it as a "drastic change", I would like to discuss with the community, to see what is so drastic about it:

Moldovan also Moldavian (limba moldovenească, Moldavian pronunciation: , also graiul moldovenesc) is a Romance language spoken today around the world by 2.5 to 4.5 million people as a native language, and by about 2.5 to 4.5 million people as a first and/or second language, with significant speakers in Ukraine and Romania. Most native speakers of the language live in Moldavia, where the language originated. The rest live in western and southern Ukraine, eastern Romania, Italy, Spain, Canada and Australia. Moldovan written in Latin alphabet is the official language of the Republic of Moldova. Written in the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet, Moldavian (лимба молдовеняскэ) is also one of the three official languages of the breakaway territory of Transnistria.

Moldavian is a descendant of the Latin language of the Roman Empire, as are languages such as Portuguese, Spanish, Italian and Catalan. Its development, contrary to most other Romance languages was not influenced by the Celtic languages of Roman Gaul and by the Germanic language of the post-Roman Frankish invaders. However, 20% of the language was influenced by the Slavic languages. Moldavian language shares with the Romanian the literary form. Contrary to the majority of Romance languages, Moldavian had its first alhabet - the Old Cyrillic alphabet. Between 1940-1989, the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet had been used.

Moldavian has two assigned ISO codes mo in ISO 639-1 and code mol in ISO 639-2 and ISO/DIS 639-3.

This version is too much in line with the "Ro is a dialect of Mo" idea. Unless you resurrect Cantemir to testify for you, this won't get through. --Illythr (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
It contains some inaccuracies and misses some points: the phonetic form is awful, and looks more like what a Russian speakers would read the name written in Moldovan Cyrillics (even if Cyrillics are more adequate for writing Moldovan, and even Romanian, phonetic values are not always the same in Russian and Moldovan cyrillics); the 4.5 million figure seems like an exageration; it doesn't mention the important community in Russia, but it does mention the one in Romania, even if the latter's documentary mention in modern times (as in official census results) is inexistent; 20% percent Slavic it's only in the literary Romanian, Slavic lexical influence is much more important in spoken Moldovan and written Moldovan, even the one after the Romanianization in the 70s and 80s (as was in literary Romanian before the 19th century Gallicization)Xasha (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I do not pretend the version itself is perfect, far from that. What is perfect - is the structure of the intrduction and history sections (as well as others to be revamped later) - this version is perfectly in line with the standard used by Misplaced Pages articles on languages. Here is another version, taking in consideration your proposals of improvement.--Moldopodo 23:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Moldovan also Moldavian (limba moldovenească, Moldavian pronunciation: , also graiul moldovenesc) is a Romance language spoken today around the world by to million people as a native language, and by about to million people as a first and/or second language, with significant speakers in Ukraine, Romania and Russia. Most native speakers of the language live in Moldavia, where the language originated. The rest live in western and southern Ukraine, eastern Romania, Russia, Italy, Spain, Canada and Australia. Moldovan written in Latin alphabet is the official language of the Republic of Moldova. Written in the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet, Moldavian (лимба молдовеняскэ) is also one of the three official languages of the breakaway territory of Transnistria.

Moldavian is a descendant of the Latin language of the Roman Empire, as are languages such as Portuguese, Spanish, Italian and Catalan. Its development, contrary to most other Romance languages was not influenced by the Celtic languages of Roman Gaul and by the Germanic language of the post-Roman Frankish invaders. However, 20% of the litrary form of the language was influenced by the Slavic languages. Moldavian language shares with the Romanian the literary form. Contrary to the majority of Romance languages, Moldavian had its first alhabet - the Old Cyrillic alphabet. Between 1940-1989, the Cyrillic alphabet had been used. --Moldopodo 23:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


References

  1. Ziua, November 14, 2007: "Parliament of Europe rejects Moldovan language"
  2. ^ Article 13, line 1 - of Constitution of Republic of Moldova
  3. Kogan Page 2004, p 242
  4. http://ec.europa.eu/translation/language_aids/recognition/field_guide_main_languages_of_europe_en.pdf A Field Guide to the Main Languages of Europe - Spot that language and how to tell them apart], on the website of the European Commission
  5. Article 12 of the Constitution of Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublika
  6. ^ Template:Mo icon "Concepţia politicii naţionale a Republicii Moldova" Moldovan Parliament
  7. SIL International: ISO 639 code sets: Documentation for ISO 639 identifier: mol
  8. Kogan Page 2004, p 242
  9. http://ec.europa.eu/translation/language_aids/recognition/field_guide_main_languages_of_europe_en.pdf A Field Guide to the Main Languages of Europe - Spot that language and how to tell them apart], on the website of the European Commission
  10. Article 12 of the Constitution of Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublika

History

Main article: History of the Moldovan language

"Moldavian" is a term that has been continuously used for deisgnation of the language in English since its appearance. The term "Moldovan" exists since 1991 and designates the same language. The references to Moldavian language appear as early as 14th century in works of Dmitrie Cantemir. First written documents were attested in the 16th century in the Cyrillic alphabet, as the Old Slavonic, used by the clergy at the time, influenced the choice of alphabet. History of the Moldavian language in Moldova is closely tied to the region's political status, with long periods of rule by Ottoman Empire, Russian Empire, short rule by Romania influencing the language's name and orthography. Today, the Constitution of Moldova (Title I, Article 13) states that the Moldovan language is the official language of the country. In Moldova's Declaration of Independence the state language was called Romanian. Major recent developments include the passing to a Latin script from Cyrillic in 1989 and several changes in the statutory name of the language used in Moldova, commonly referred to as limba de stat - "The State Language".

--Moldopodo 20:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

A rather obvious piece of original research; scholars are agreed that the "Moldavian" of Cantemir is Romanian, while the "Moldovan" of Stalin has entirely different origins. I advise against trying to conflate the two. Biruitorul 04:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean? The attempt to create the language from eastern dialects had failed, its proponents were repressed and, by the late 30s, the language was stabilized (more or less) same as it was before, plus the Cyrillic script. (Linky). --Illythr (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Biruitorul, please stop lying. Cantemir has nothing to do with Romania. He is more than widely acknowledged, one of the most prominent Moldavain scholars. He described scientifically Moldavian language well before this was made for Romanian language, well before Stalin was born. Biruitorul, please stop polluting.--Moldopodo 23:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I mean that the language Cantemir spoke of is early modern Romanian, and should be discussed in a history of the Romanian language; while what was official in the MASSR/MSSR is Romanian written in Cyrillic, and has no history distinct from Romanian prior to 1924 or so. In other words, today's "Moldovan language" was split off from Romanian in the 1920s, and has had a recorded history since then, but prior to that time, its history is essentially indistinguishable from that of Romanian as a whole. (Of course, there may be slight variations, but that should be noted here, not here. Biruitorul 00:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and coherency

I can easily predict I will (again) be catalogued as oscillating, insecure, immature, illiterate and what have you, but I really need to make this point. I have fought a litany of pro-Moldovan contributors over this article several times over the years. Now things seem to have settled -- but the article ended up being too anti-Moldovan (language, not ethnicity) to claim objectiveness. In the current version the article is a continuum of denial, from top to bottom. That can't be right for a presumably balanced article. Just to ensure I explain my position properly from the beginning: yes, of course Moldovan is not a real language in any scientific way or form; yes, it has certainly been forcefully pushed into existence; yes, lacking even the superfluous distinction of Cyrillic writing or at least distinct spelling rules it is currently indistinguishable from Romanian. I agree 100% with all of that, no reservations. But the current version of the article doesn't explain why the Moldovan "language" ever came into existence, why some people welcomed it, why some people are still clinging on to its presumed distinctiveness, it doesn't properly exorcise Cantemir's and other chroniclers' references to "limba moldovenească" -- the current version just says "no" on all levels without any prior explanations. That can't be right, we must abide by NPOV (and common sense) and provide a reasonable overview for the casual reader -- I don't believe the current version does that. At the very least we should include the rationale of immigrants from within the USSR (Ukrainians, Russians and so on) who must have welcomed the creation of a language distinct from Romanian during the Communist era, that would at least explain the social aspect of the deal. What say you? --Gutza 00:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't understand what exactly it is you want to see changed. If you believe that the historical context of the article is too limited, I agree with that. It appears that the history section was truncated as a result of the numerous debates we've had here to the point that it's now no more than a stump. In that case, that section could be expanded, so that it would constitute a more representative summary of history of the Moldovan language. I'm not really sure what you are referring to when you talk about immigrants who would have supported the development of the concept of the Moldovan language. Few non-Romanian speakers (barring specific groups active in the political/linguistic field) even were familiar with this issue, so I don't understand why they would have welcomed the creation of the language. Could you please elaborate on that. TSO1D (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Come on, think about it. You're a relatively poor but literate Russian/Ukrainian citizen and you get an offer to move into some remote region of the Union where you'd get better pay -- wouldn't you support a sense of self-determination and unique identity for that region as opposed to acknowledging you're moving in what amounts to an imperialistic expansion territory? Even if you choose to doubt my anthropological extrapolation, you need to acknowledge that even today the proponents of a distinct Moldovan language are mostly Slavic by ethnicity, so it's reasonable to trace that choice back to the beginning of this whole nonsense. --Gutza 02:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Well I agree that the idea of a Moldovan language has always had a dominant political aspect. In that light I agree that during the break-up of the USSR a large part of the non-Romanian speaking part of Moldova's population opposed the idea of Moldo-Romanian linguistic unity since they perceived it as nationalistic and irredentist. As for what the views of immigrants to the republic were on the language issue, I simply have no idea. However personally, I doubt more than a few people even considered the issue, particularly when even locals did not really debate this problem(government censure was of couse a large factor here, but there was also much apathy, particularly in the countryside). And as for the idea that most proponents of a distinct Moldovan language are Slavic, I am very skeptical about that. If you're talking at an official level, then there only remain a very tiny number of individuals of any ethnicity who still endorse this idea. As for public opinion, I would wager that most vocal proponents of the Moldovan language would be lower class self-described Moldovans, since this issue affects them more directly (and if you go by sheer numbers considering that most Romanian speakers called their language Moldovan in the census, it's hard to imagine another group surpassing them). As for the opinions of Slavs on the issue, again I have no idea about the statistics, though at least speaking from personal experience, I have hardly met anyone who has argued this point. In any case, this is more or less my personal speculation. If you can find a source that discusses any aspect of this issue, we can of course include that, but don't know where you could find such information. TSO1D (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
As a Moldovan, I must say I find Gutza's argument offensive.Xasha (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Crucial question

By reading both article Moldovan language and History of Moldovan language I noticed that neither of them anwsers crucial question about topic; What were the differences between standard language used in Romania and standard language used in Soviet Moldavia (except that it used different script)? Also what were the differences between standard language used in MASSR and MSSR? The anwsers I couldnt even articles in romanian and russian language. Couldnt anyone write about this? Luka Jačov (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You can think of the common literary from of Romanian and modern Moldovan as the "Serbo-Croatian" unified language in former Yugoslavia. Just that Moldovans didn't feel the need to reinforce the characteristics of the their vernacular over literary language, like Croatian did in the 90s.Xasha (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The literary form is based both in Romania and Moldova on the Wallachian vernacular (roughly Bucharest-Prahova area). The differences between Wallachian and Moldavian vernaculars are probably smaller than between American and British English. (mostly some words and a few small accent/phonology differences, I'm not aware of any notable differences in grammar) bogdan (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it seams to me noone understood completly my question. Saša I know today Republic of Moldova and Romania use same standard language. But in Soviet times when offical policy that those two languages were similar but seperate it must have been based on different standard. And Bogdan you didnt understood that I am not speaking about verniculars as its normal that every language has its local variations. What I meant the standard forms used in Romania and Soviet Union what were the differences except the script that was used? Was Soviet standard also based also on Bucharest-Prahova area? Or based on first Transnistrian and later Bessarbian vernaculars? Luka Jačov (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Except script, there were only some lexical differences (most of the neologism) in the standard literary language of the 80s. The Transnistrian and Bessarabian standards were dropped on Stalin's orders for some imaginated faults.Xasha (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
There were some attempts in the 1920s/1930s to make in Transnistria a "Moldovan language" that is different from Romanian, but Stalin shot all the linguists involved during the Great Purge. (I doubt there were many other massacres of linguists in the history of the world)
After that, they used the Romanian standard language. I read somewhere that the standard grammar description was entirely plagiarized from some grammar published in Bucharest. (which isn't surprising, considering there were no good linguists left) bogdan (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So Soviets in their attempt to differate Romanian and Moldovan didnt even bother to make an effort to really make it different? Btw I noticed that romanian article mentions those slight differences between those two standard languages during Communist era. Could things missing in English article be translated from Romanian one? Could somethin be written about linguistic properties of previous moldovan standards? Luka Jačov (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Concerning your first question, my guess is that it was not worth the trouble. With efficient propaganda and a closed society you can make people believe that the languages are and have always been different. Why bother built up a whole, new, elaborate standard? Plinul cel tanar (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
There was no attempt to make them different after WW2, just that the Soviets and most Moldovans chose to name the literary language by the centuries old name of the vernacular.Xasha (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, Edward Vajda, an American linguist specialized in dialectology, thinks differently: "When the USSR took over the eastern province of Romania in 1945 at the close of WW2, they declared that the local Moldavian dialect was a separate language. Although Moldavian and other regional dialects of Romanian actually differ very little, the Soviets forced the Moldavians to adopt the Cyrillic alphabet and add many Russian words to the vocabulary." — AdiJapan 17:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Considering the assertions he mades, I won't trust him too much.Xasha (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  1. Template:Ro iconDeclaraţia de independenţa a Republicii Moldova, Moldova Suverană
Categories: