Talk:Arvantovlaxika

‘‘tchobans’’ by Albanians? Ciobani? Bonaparte  talk  09:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Da. Cuvantu este common in the Balkans. DEX says the word is from Turkish, and it spread in many languages in the area during the ottoman period. Alexander 007 09:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. But to call a nation like that is weird. Bonaparte   talk  09:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian Muslims such as the Megleno-Romanians of Nânti in Aegean Macedonia, who were sent to Turkey in the exchange of populations of 1923 [Atanasov 1990: 6], or the Muslim Aromanians of Dolna Belica, who are now Albanianized. Necessary data are lacking, however. (Cf. Kahl Th. Zur Islamisierung der meglenitischen Vlachen (Meglenorumänen): Das Dorf Nânti (Nótia) und die „Nântinets“ in der heutigen Türkei// Zeitschrift für Balkanologie. Bd. 38 (2002). -- Bonaparte  talk  09:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Expertu zice:--->Aromanians--->Talk:Aromanians; --->Megleno-Romanians--->Talk:Megleno-Romanians. Alexander 007 10:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the merge tag since there's no discussion for merge here and I've added the greek spelling of the term - I guess the title should be changed at some point to reflect pronunciation. talk to +MATIA 15:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I placed the merge tag because, you may notice, when the exquisite Bonaparte wrote the article, he included a lot of material that is simply discussing Aromanian, and not this one dialect specifically. Once I remove the impertinent information, there may not be much left...Alexander 007 18:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The discussion about "noun movement", unless I'm mistaken (may be), properly belongs in Aromanian language, since it is not restricted to this variety. Bogdan, can you confirm and help me out here? There may well be very little left of this article once I'm through, and a merge is a good idea. Alexander 007 18:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The current article is not at clear (what is that example supposed to illustrate?) and I'm not sure we can salvage anything for Aromanian language article. bogdan 19:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you suggest? Deletion? Alexander 007 19:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think a redirection to Aromanian language would be ok. bogdan 19:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree given the current state of this article. The reason is, there is no information that shows us any difference between general Aromanian and this variety. This article may well be another one of Bonaparte's mistakes. Alexander 007 19:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If someone would bring some more more information (other that "it can't move the noun") in the future, the article could be restarted, but until then, it should remain as a redirect. bogdan 19:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks like the author read an article from a specialized linguistics journal, but he didn't really understood it. :-) bogdan 19:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. And just as his Romance plurals is a copyright violation I think (I reviewed his source), so is Arvantovlaxika and many of his other articles. Alexander 007 19:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)