Talk:Q11732757

Justification

Any person watching this item might wonder why did I completely replace it. The answer is simple, there is no such thing as a Wallachian language. You are not going to find one single source about it. This item appears to claim that "Wallchian" is another name for Old Romanian, which is also false. This item was completely useless and fake and I thus did what was proper with it. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• There should be a link between the language sections here. If there is an incorrect article in some section, then it is necessary not to break the connection here, but to raise the question in the corresponding language sections about the quality of the articles. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what do you mean by this. You still haven't cited sources. Stop promoting a false language. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Have you read the Civility rule? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I told you I don't understand what did you say and to stop promoting a false language you have provided no sources for. No rules broken. I once again ask for your sources of an alleged Wallachian language. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Redirect

François Pierre Bouchard, hello, I see you have redirected this item to another one. As I don't know how to do this, could you please do this again but to Q25975639 (Wallachian dialect)?. I think this is the most appropiate target item. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• This cannot be done. Including because there are articles in two language sections. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

You still haven't explained what a "language section" is. I can only think you mean dialects, which we have an item for. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I have already answered this question (TALK:Q96972379). I can repeat.

Some information from Russian and English Wikipedia

CHRONOLOGY OF THE ROMANIAN LANGUAGE

The chronology of the formation of the modern Romanian language based on the folk Latin of Dacia is as follows:

• autochthonous languages of the Balkans (Getae, Dacians, Meuses, Illyrians, etc.) until the 2nd century AD. e.;
• folk Latin (Roman Dacia as part of the Roman Empire) II-III centuries AD. e.;
• Balkan Latin IV-VII centuries before the Slavic resettlement;
• the period of Slavic-Romanesque bilingualism of the VIII-XI centuries;
• formation of the proto-Romanian language of the XII-XIII century;
• Old Romanian, or Wallachian language of the XIV-XVIII centuries;
• Romanian language of the XIX-XXI centuries.

(Source – ru:Румынский язык)

NAMES

In the historiographic and scientific literature, there are various names of the language: from the XII century - Wallachian, Vlachian, Volosh (late Latin lingua Valachica) [7], Roman (Wallachian limba rumlenyaske) [8], Valacho-Moldavian; in the XX century - Old Romanian [1], Early Romanian [9], Romanian, Old Eastern Romanesque [10] [11].

According to the 16th century Hungarian historian Bonfiniy, the Vlachs spoke “in Latin” [12] or, as they say in modern sources, in the folk Romance language [13].

After the unification of the Wallachian and Moldavian principalities into a single state, a line is being pursued to oust the Slavisms and replace them with Latinisms and Gallicisms. Since 1860, the Cyrillic alphabet was officially replaced by the Latin alphabet [14], and in 1861 the language received a new name "Romanian" (rumînească) [15] [16]. (Source – ru:Румынский язык. Authoritative sources are indicated in the article) --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, and you did not respond to me after replying to this same message. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Source

period in the history of the development of Eastern Romance languages between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, before the formation of literary Romanian language.
Emu here is the source:

Лухт Л. И., Нарумов Б. П. Румынский язык (Romanian language) // Языки мира. Романские языки (Languages of the world. Romance languages). — М.: Academia, 2001. — С. 574—626. — 722 с. — ISBN 5-87444-016-X.
Published by the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 12:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Published by Russian Academy of Sciences :)). I don't have anything against Russia or Russians, but you are always unable to bring non-Russian sources. Why do you expect an international project to only take views from Russian sources about other countries? Every single time I ask you for international sources, you fail to provide them. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Any languages are developing and old versions of languages are in English, German, French, Russian, Greek. I don’t understand what’s so surprising? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It is surprising because you aren't able to provide any sources calling Romanian during the 16th-18th centuries "Wallachian" (and that it was exclusively spoken in Wallachia) if they are not from Russia. You try to promote a fringe view as true. You talk about showing both perspectives but you don't do this yourself. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Here is the source for the name Wallachian language. Here is the source for the name Old Romanian language. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a clear difference between "Wallachian" and "Old Romanian". Wallachia is only one of the 3 regions of Romania. You claiming Old Romanian is Wallachian is a clear attempt to discredit the Romanianess of the language spoken in Moldavia and Transylvania (the other 2 regions of Romania) at the time. This is a classic Moldovenist stance. And why are you citing sources in Latin for the Wallachian language? "Valachica" translates as Vlach, not Wallachian. Romanians were widely known as Vlachs by outsider nations. I don't think I need to prove this statement with sources, but I will if asked to. Also, why are you just searching the names of the languages and sending me the link of the Google Scholar search? At least put some effort, send me actual sources. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

If you wish to use the name "Old Romanian language" for this epoch of the Romanian language, you are free to do so. Using Wallachian is POV. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are trying to give a meaning here that is different from what is available in the Wikipedia articles. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 05:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Dictionnaire d'étymologie daco-romane, éléments slaves, magyars, turcs, grecs-moderne et albanais:

The Romanian philologist Alexandru Cihac (Q9147282) (1825-1887) believed that although the basis of the Romanian language is Latin, the Slavic part of its vocabulary is 2/5 of all words, while the Latin part is 1/5.

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

A. Graur writes about significant discrepancies between the new Romanian literary language in Romania and the folk dialects in the article „Les mots récents romaine”, published in Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris (Q2928065), t. XXI. 3, 1921, p. 127. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I can also cherrypick authors who support my point. Would you like me to play that game too? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The article in the Russian section and the article in the Serbian section

The article in the Russian section and the article in the Serbian section were written on the basis of the same sources (Lukht L.I., Narumov B.P. Romanian language // Languages of the world. Romance languages. - Moscow: Academia, 2001. - P. 574 -626.), speak of the same period in the development of the Romanian language from the 16th-18th centuries until the formation of the modern literary Romanian language in the 1860s. Why share? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Romanian language // Literary Encyclopedia:

From the end of the 16th century, the Wallachian language received literary formalization in the Romanian part of Transylvania and Wallachia and has since become a general literary language. Later it became the national language of the United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, which united in the 19th century into a single state called Romania.

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Because the Serbian Wikipedia article is honest and talks about a former stage of the Romanian language, while the Russian Wikipedia article is a POV hoax that you defend to support your idea that the Romanian nation is actually divided until recently, so that you can add things like a separate "Wallachian" language name next to the Romanian one for the article Wallachia in your Wikipedia [1]. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The Russian article on Wikipedia also talks about the former stage of development of the Romanian language. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The most common name of this early stage of Romanian in international sources is Old Romanian, not Wallachian nor Vlach. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps, but in Russian-language sources, the language has several names, which are given in the article. In other Slavic languages, it can also be called differently. -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)