Talk:Gelou/Archive 2

Extra-Gesta sources of Gelou
Are there any chronicles or sources (Romanian or Hungarian) mentioning the life and rule of the duke Gelou prior to the publication of Gesta Hungarorum? TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, there is no other primary source referring to him. Gesta Hungarorum is the only source of his existence (Engel 2001, p. 11.). Borsoka (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * So as far as our understanding is concerned; prior to the publication of Gesta Hungarorum in 1746, no historian or chronicler (Romanian or otherwise) betrays any knowledge of the 9th century duchy of a ruler of Vlach origin. Neither are there any known Romanian legends or oral traditions of this Vlach ruler prior to 1746?


 * And about the place-names of the duchy of Gelou: Are there any documented place-names of Vlach/Romanian origin? If not, then it would be interesting that a domain populated by Vlachs and Slavs has no place-names of confirmed Vlach/Romanian origin. What's even more interesting is the fact that for a duchy populated by Vlachs and Slavs most place-names are of Hungarian origin.... before the Hungarians arrived. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No, there is no reference to Gelou prior to 1746. Yes, the Gesta mostly mentions Hungarian place names in connection with Gelou's alleged duchy. However, other early sources - royal charters from the 11th-14th centuries - also recorded Transylvanian place names of Slavic origin (and some of them were directly, without Hungarian mediation, adopted by the Vlachs/Romanians); Romanian place names were first documented in the middle of the 14th century (I refer to works cited in the article Origin of the Romanians under the subtitle "Romanian place names"). Borsoka (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input and contributions, Borsoka. I acknowledge that Transylvania was mostly populated by slavs and that Romanian place names in Transylvania were first documented in the 14th century. I was pondering on the fact that as far as we know, there are no Romanian legends, poems, or oral traditions of Gelou or of any Vlach ruler of Transylvania prior to the Gesta being known to the world at large on top of there being no chronicles or other documentation. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Because of editors like TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit, Wikipedia is an unreliable resource for correct knowledge, information, and facts about a subject, because, as an open-source website, the editorial content of the article is readily subjected to manipulation and Hungarian propaganda. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.44.71 (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read and apply WP:NOR and WP:Civility. Borsoka (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Wiki under propagandistic attack
Above section is an obvious propagandist text of some Hungarians. They do not accept other opinion and try to induce false ideas in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.99.79 (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Please sign your posts and feel free to add any information based on reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Falsification of Wikipedia content (by Eurocentral or Borsoka?)

 * As usual, user Borsoka added original research to all his edits.

About Dăbâca, Curta wrote: In fact, the evidence published so far DOES contain evidence of a ninth century ocupation of the site

Borsoka text: Dăbâca was occupied in the 9th century, but no convincing evidence of the reliability of the narration of the Gesta Hungarorum has been provided, according to Curta.

In his edits, user Borsoka added to Curta text, his own ideas. That means, in all his edits, user Borsoka used next scheme: he wrote a partial sentence extracted from a historian reference (A) and added a text with his personal original research (B). Finally he wrote that A+B is the original text of the involved historian. Eurocentral (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have just read Curta's paper "Transylvania Around A.D. 1000" (very interesting work about "text-driven archaeology", by the way), which is in harmony with the original text, namely: despite there are (albeit poor) archaeological evidence that the site of Dăbâca was occupied in the 9th century, the archaeological findings could not support the claims of the Gesta, e.g., it could not be proved that Dăbâca was Gelau's capital (the related texts are on pages 148-152). Thus, in my opinion the original sentence is more accurate, it should be restored.  K &oelig;rte F  a   { ταλκ }  12:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Read the original text from Curta: In fact, the evidence published so far DOES contain evidence of a ninth century ocupation of the site

The text that Borsoka attributed to Curta: "Dăbâca was occupied in the 9th century, but no convincing evidence of the reliability of the narration of the Gesta Hungarorum has been provided" The difference clearly show the falsification of Curta lines. User Borsoka added personal original research and he did so in all pages about Romanian history. Veryfing all Borsoka activity in Romanian history pages will take a lot of time and effort.

Possible explanation of manipulation: Borsoka intention to mitigate the Romanian theory of continuity. This is why “academics, historians, teachers and journalists reject Wikipedia as a reliable source of information for being a mixture of truths, half truths, and some falsehoods, and with regard to controversial topics, Wikipedia is notoriously subject to manipulation” (text from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia) 79.112.99.79 (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC) 79.112.99.79 (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Curta mentioned in another phrase that "The excavators were overhelmed by complexity of the site and embarassed

that no substancial evidence was found to prove the Gesta right" . Mixing phrases in controversial topics shows the tendency of Borsoka editor to influence the reader. Curta also wrote about a Hungarian historian Bona: "His obstinate focus on ethnic interpretation and political agenda were promptly denounced" "Bona claimed that no ninth century artifacts were found on the site" All sentences are clear if they are not mangled as user Borsoka did. The sentence in discussion in this section is about Dăbâca. The other half sentence added by Borsoka is from another phrase. Eurocentral (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The solution is to put exactly as in original text: In fact, the evidence published so far DOES contain evidence of a ninth century ocupation of the site and "The excavators were overhelmed by complexity of the site and embarassed that no substancial evidence was found to prove the Gesta right"
 * , you may not remember that there is an ongoing debate on the same issue above. In order to help you, I copy here Curta's text for the third time: "Romanian archaeologists made every possible effort to turn Dăbâca into a Transylvanian Troy and to prove that the Gesta was a reliable source for the medieval history of (Romanian) Transylvania. ... [D]espite extensive excavations designed to produce substantial evidence of a Romanian occupation of the site prior to the Magyar conquest, to this day no results have been published, except a preliminary report, more than thirty years old now. ... In fact, the evidence published so far, albeit poorly, does contain evidence of a ninth-century occupation of the site. ... [T]he excavators were overwhelmed by the complexity of the site and embarrassed that no substantial evidence was found to prove the Gesta right. ... Two hearths found behind the rampart were associated with two pairs of silver bell-shaped pendants with filigree ornament most typical for ninth-century Moravian artwork." (Curta 2001, p. 148.). Please stop starting new and new debates on the same topic. Your approach is acceptable, because it is fully in line with the text I suggested, with one exception: it is important to mention that two pairs of pendants, similar to 9th-century Moravian artefacts, were found at the site. We should also mention that this dating is debated by Madgearu (another Romanian archaeologist). Do you think he also wants to falsify Romanian history? By the way, because you obviously like accusing other editors of falsification, why did not you copy Curta's text properly? Curta, in his cited work, explicitly says that the archaeological evidence was published poorly. Did you want to falsify Curta's words or were you unable to remember the short text you wanted to copy? Borsoka (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Readers understood your tactics. It is a visible difference between what Curta wrote and your former proposed sentences with Vlachs and Anonymus.

The Curta's sentence was about Dăbâca and about a main conclusion: Dăbâca was inhabited before Hungarian migrants arrival This is why Curta underligned "DOES contain evidence of a ninth century ocupation". User Borsoka, you need to keep always the original text and to not add your personal conclusions (OR). This kind of activities finally made academics, historians, teachers and journalists to reject Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. There are a lot of countries that do not accept references from Wikipedia in scientific works due to manipulation of editors. Eurocentral (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC) Eurocentral (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * , as I proved above it was you who ignored an important word ("poorly") form Curta's (allegedly) cited text. You may not know, but the Gesta was written by Anonymus, consequently the reference to Anonymus's work is identical with a reference to the Gesta in this context. You do not know either that Vlach and Romanian are equivalent in this context: Anonymus/the Gesta does not mention Romanians, but only Vlachs (Blaci, Blasi). Finally, you obviously do not know that WP is not deemed a reliable source for WP purposes either. Borsoka (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Gelou's supporters (Romanian historians and Edouard Sayous) and detractors (Hungarian historians and D.D.?)
Romanian and French (Edouard Sayous) historians consider that Gesta is a true record of ancient times. Hungarians try to eliminate from Gesta all records about Romanians (Vlachs) and they consider that the Gesta is false only when it talks about Romanians. Because of this dispute, amplified by some editors, the Wikipedia remains unreliable. Eurocentral (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Eurocentral, you know that Sayous is (uncritically) repeated the claims of Gesta Hungarorum. There are no, I repeat, no documented sources of Gelou or any other 9th century Vlach ruler of Transylvania outside of Gesta. Gesta Hungarorum is the only source for these figures. There are also no known Romanian oral traditions, poems, or folk tales of these figures or of any Vlach rulers prior to the Hungarian conquest. Sayous, like Lozovan, is a dead end. Stop beating this dead horse. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please try to remember what answer you received upon your request about Sayous . You should read books written by Hungarian scholars about the Gesta Hungarorum, because you are wrong. For instance, the story about the Roman princes of Veszprém, the Bulgarian prince Salan, the Czech prince Zobor are also questioned, because they contradict to sources written around 895. Borsoka (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There are 2 theories in this article: Romanian theory of continuity and Hungarian theory of discontinuity. According to several historians, the theory of discontinuity is based o political reasons. The political reasons are based on irredentism. Nationalist extremist persons claim territories from  Croatia, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, Slovakia and Ukraine, using historical propaganda and manipulation of data including the negation of old chronicles and censoring Sayous, and all promoters of theory of continuity.  Wikipedia became unreliable in controversial articles.

Eurocentral (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is not about continuity or discontinuity, but about Gelou whose existence is debated by many (for instance, Hungarian and British) historians. The credibility of the Gesta Hungarorum is also debated in Slovakian historiography. Can you imagine that Slovakian "extremists" want to seize Romanian territories? Do you think that Dennis Deletant, a British historian, is a national extremist who claims Transylvania for Great Britain? Nobody censors anything and nobody claims anything. Please try to remember what answer you received upon your request about Sayous . Please read and apply WP:civility. Borsoka (talk) 03:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Deletant wrote that Anonymus had no real knowledge of the Carpathian Basin.

Do not pass to Deletant other opinions and do not include him in a discontinuity theory Eurocentral (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletant wrote: "a demontration of Anonymous's unreliability does not lead to a denial of a continous Romanian presence in Transylvania from the time of the Roman withdrawal from Dacia. Force of  logic leads me to accept the continuity theory".

Deletant was a supporter of Romanian continuity. These show that Borsoka comments about Deletant are only mistification. Eurocentral (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Did I whenever say that Deletant denied the continuity theory? Please refer to such a statement from me. Borsoka (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , would you specify the page of Deletant's work on which you read the statment that you cited above? Borsoka (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Dubious edits and dubious phrases
Other dubious edits in this article:

"Other historians (including ... Dennis Deletant) write that Anonymus had no real knowledge of the Carpathian Basin (including Transylvania) at the time of the Hungarian conquest and invented all the opponents of the Hungarian...

But Deletant never wrote that Anonymus "invented all the opponents" !?

Again: Other historians, including Kristó and Dennis Deletant, say that the context indicates that these Volokhs were Franks driven out of the March of Pannonia by the Magyars..

But Deletant never wrote this phrase !?

Eurocentral (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You're wrong, Deletant wrote it. See also page 5 (P. László: Historians and the history of Transylvania), foreword of that work, which also definitely points out that according to Deletant Anonymus is an unreliable source for 9-10th century. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Eurocentral, if you cannot read, please do not make comments. Dennis Deletant says that Laborc, Turzol, Salanus, Gelou, Glad, Menumorut were invented by Anonymous (Deletant pp. 82-85.). Do you know of other (alleged) opponents of the Hungarians who are mentioned in the Gesta Hungarorum? Please also read Close paraphrasing: "Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words". Borsoka (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Laborc and Turzol... I've never heard of them. :( I'd like to create a template for the Magyars' enemies invented by Anonymus. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Laborc was the "count" of Ung, according to chapter 13 of the Gesta, Turzol is known as Tarcal in Hungarian. Borsoka (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The Connection Between Gelou and Geloupara
In the last sentence of The Modern Historiography section: "Neagu Djuvara writes that the names are "authentically Romanian, and very old"; they are connected to Geloupara ("Gelou's village"), an ancient settlement in Thrace." Does Djuvara ever specify in his book "A Concise History of Romania" how are they connected? I am unable to obtain a copy of the book but I found a PDF of some of the book, and here's the first paragraph in the Forward.

"This book is not a regular history book; it is not a manual, and does not aim to replace the textbooks used in schools. It was born out of discussions with Mrs. Irina Nicolau, a specialist in ethnology and oral history, who was concerned that most textbooks continued to promote the same intentionally deformed history of the past decades and to use the same “stiff language”, even after the Revolution in December 1989. The suggestion was to summarize the entire history of our country in a simple and fluent fashion, using audio media intended for young people. The present volume is a transcription of those recordings, cleaned of the imperfections of an improvised discourse and completed wherever the gaps were too obvious, all within the available space. I have therefore “let the story flow”, by writing it without explanatory notes and bibliographical references – in other words, without what scholars call “critical apparatus” - in order to make it accessible to everyone, whether they love history or are somehow indifferent to a better understanding of the past."

Whatever Djuvara's explanation of the connection between Gelou and Geloupara, I am skeptical of his book being a reliable source - especially when he admits that he wrote it without a "critical apparatus". TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 07:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I tend to accept your above suggestion about the text quoted from Djuvara's work, because the text would surely qualify as a fringe theory according to mainstream historians in many countries of the world. However, Djuvara is a professor of history and his works are often cited in Romanian historiography. Nevertheless, if you decide to delete the sentence, I will accept your decision. I suggest, you should wait 3-4 days, because (as far as I can remember) the importance of this sentence was discussed some time ago. Borsoka (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Fringe theory" or contradictions are accepted by Wiki. Wiki is not a platform for "uniform" opinions. An editor must respect the work of historians and to not censor any data. Censoring a Romanian historian by a Hungarian editor means obscure nationalism interests.

Usually we need to collect all data about any subject. We do not need "original research" in these pages. Eurocentral (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Eurocentral, since I assume that you've read Djuvara's "A Concise History of Romania", can you explain how Djuvara connects a supposedly Vlach Transylvanian ruler who lived in the late 9th century whose name was transliterated in Latin by Anonymous as "Gelou", and this ancient Thracian village named "Geloupara"? Supposedly the Thracians were all gone by the late 9th century. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * User:TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit Your original research (OR) is forbidden in Wiki. Your analysis of a Romanian historian is original research and show a nationalist approach. You started again a war edit against Romanian historians.

Eurocentral (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Eurocentral, I'll take your response as an admission that you cannot. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop erasing data of the historian Djuvara
There are some Wiki editors in war against Romanian historians. Read more at:http://fakeconferences.blogspot.ro/   about Wiki editors ! Wiki became a false and biased source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.64.168 (talk) 06:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read the above conversation. Borsoka (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Curta and Madgearu about Dăbâca (again)
Anon, please stop your edit war. Florin Curta's text is the following: "Romanian archaeologists made every possible effort to turn Dăbâca into a Transylvanian Troy and to prove that the Gesta was a reliable source for the medieval history of (Romanian) Transylvania. ... [D]espite extensive excavations designed to produce substantial evidence of a Romanian occupation of the site prior to the Magyar conquest, to this day no results have been published, except a preliminary report, more than thirty years old now. ... In fact, the evidence published so far, albeit poorly, does contain evidence of a ninth-century occupation of the site. ... [T]he excavators were overwhelmed by the complexity of the site and embarrassed that no substantial evidence was found to prove the Gesta right. ... Two hearths found behind the rampart were associated with two pairs of silver bell-shaped pendants with filigree ornament most typical for ninth-century Moravian artwork." (Curta 2001, p. 148.) Consequently, Curta does not write that the castle existed in the 9th-century, he writes that there are artefacts in the site that can be dated to the 9th century. For instance, there are many objects which can be dated to Antiquity in Buda, but Buda Castle did not exist in Antiquity, because it was built after 1240 AD. Curta emphasizes that "no substantial evidence was found to prove the Gesta right". Borsoka (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC) Alexandru Madgearu even refutes the dating of the pendants to the 9th century, stating that "The investigators porposed a date in the 9th century for these pendants [four bell-shaped pendants made of gilded silver with filigree, found in a fireplace], but this is impossible, because such pieces were found only in sites dated between the last third of the 10th century and the first half of the 11th century." (Madgearu 2005, p. 115.) Borsoka (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Hungarian EDitor:  When reading Wikipedia, always keep in mind that it is controlled by few people who use a system of rules and regulation to serve their bias and interest and therefore do not to give you reliable information but act together to discredit people and ideas of their choosing. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia. You try to do exactly like in the above lines: to discredit ideas and discredit people. Look at the sentences of Madgearu and Curta: "probesdoes contain evidence of a ninth-century occupation of the site". But you still argue a contrary opinion launching a personal and original research. your activity is only an example of "propaganda". Please stop your propagandist activity. Because of your bogus, Wikipedia became bogus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.62.208 (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Read and apply WP:Civility. Please also read what the expression "archaeological site" means. Would you quote Madgearu's text which states that there is evidence of a 9th-century occupation of the fortress at Dăbâca? Would you quote Curta's text which states that a fortress existed in Dăbâca in the 9th century? Borsoka (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Read and understand these: the Hoover Institution said that Wikipedia is an unreliable resource for correct knowledge, information, and facts about a subject, because, as an open-source website, the editorial content of the articles is readily subjected to manipulation and propaganda. Erasing Romanian historians means propaganda. Read again and again what Curta wrote: archaeological data does contain evidence of a ninth-century occupation of the site; your original research (OR) about "fortress" is an attempt to avoid Curta's testimony. It is a shame that your OR edits confirm Hoover Institute statement. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia)
 * Anon, you have been trying to delete the following sentence: "Although excavated weapons suggest a military elite, none of the early-medieval Transylvanian fortresses uncovered can be reliably dated before the 10th century." Why do you think this sentence about Transylvanian fortresses contradict to Curta's or Madgearu's texts if neither Curta nor Madgearu did state that a 9th-century fortress was excavated in Dăbâca? Borsoka (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I see here that it is obvious first: Hungarian nationalist historians claim that Gelou's country was empty and without traces. This is Hungarian point of view. Romanian historians opinion is that there are archaeological evidences from the 9th century. Claiming that the there are no "bridges", "fortresses", "palaces" and avoiding Curta,s lines look like a diversion, an attempt to minimize the archaeological evidences. Tomorrow we will see another editor claiming that the country was empty because we didn't find other type of constructions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.181.42 (talk) 07:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you name Hungarian historians who claim that Transylvania was empty around 895? I have never read such a statement in books written by Hungarian historians. Have you realized that it is Madgearu, a Romanian historian, who dedicated pages to the alleged 9th-century fortresses in Transylvania in his monography about the Gesta Hungarorum, concluding that there is no clear evidence of the existence of such fortresses? Have you realized that it is Madgearu who says that the two pairs of pendants which are from the 9th century according to Curta can only be dated to the 10th century? Borsoka (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Editors like Borsoka intend to stress the missing of a fortress. Other editors will claim the missig of bridges, other missing of palaces. This is an ordinary original research. This is a nonscientific and speculative edits made in order to eliminate the data of archaeologists. Curta clearly stated: archaeological data does contain evidence of a ninth-century occupation of the site. Avoiding these lines means forgery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.231.27.123 (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) Madgearu dedicated 13 pages to the fortresses in Gelou's alleged duchy in one of his cited monography, and he concluded that there are no fortresses that can be dated to the 9th century (Madgearu 2005b, pp. 113-130). Consequently, this is an important aspect of Gelou's duchy according to a specialist who published his views in a peer-reviewed work. (2) Please read the last section under the title "Transylvania on the eve of the Hungarian conquest". Curta's text is verbatim cited. Borsoka (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

A mixed proposal is better, containing the most important ideas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.121.129 (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously. That is why Madgearu's dating of the pendants (which contradicts to Curta's theory) is also mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Discoveries in Salaj county from the 7th-11th centuries
Several discoveries were made in the hilly depression of Salaj county, in Nort-West of Romania, in 88 places of archaeological interest. The findings were divided into two groups: the first group with findings from the 7th century until the first half of the10th century and the second from the second half of the10th century and from the 11th century. The first group of findings contains remains of housings, remains of ancillary buildings, owens, and pottery. The shapes of housing were: quadrate, rectangular, oval and irregular,

http://arheologie.ulbsibiu.ro/publicatii/bibliotheca/relatii%20interetnice%20in%20transilvania/volum%20simpozion%202005%20a.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.122.249.248 (talk) 11:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that discoveries from Sălaj County are relevant for the history of Transylvania? Borsoka (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gelou. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721104716/http://www.erdelyert.hu/images/products/original/4936.jpeg to http://www.erdelyert.hu/images/products/original/4936.jpeg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible origin of the name "Gelu/Gelou"
It is very likely that his name originates from the Latin angelus (angel) by abbreviation:
 * Angelus-> Angelu-> Gelu and/or
 * Angelus-> Angelou-> Gelou

There are Romanian family names (Angeleanu, Angelescu, Anghel, Anghelescu, etc.) and personal name (Anghel, Angela) derived from the Latin angelus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.239.218.111 (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This must be a fascinating theory. Do these scholars actually suggest that a Latin-speaking population survived in Transylvania until the arrival of the Magyars? What happened with this population? Did they mix with the Magyars and became the ancestors of the modern Hungarian-speaking population (who use the almost pure Latin word "angyal" for angel)? What do these scholars say about the immigration of the Romanians (who use the word "înger" for angel instead of the Latin-Hungarian angel(us)/angyal) to Transylvania? When did it happen, according to them? Do they suggest that the Romanian family names (Angelanu, Angelescu, Anghel) are of Latin-Hungarian origin? Borsoka (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the confusion created. The below sources are not about this theory. Not sure about other languages but in Romanian such type of abbreviation is common (eg. Alexandru->Sandru->Sandu, Alexandru->Andru, Marcela->Cela, Elena->Lena, Ioachim->Achim, Ionel->Nelu). Regarding Romanian word "înger", the modern standard Romanian is in my opinion quite different that the medieval Romanian and Proto-Romanian due weird improvements. "an" prefix became "în" and through rhotacization 'l' became 'r'. We don't know when rhotacization was used for the first time but this transformation appears in Romanian writings of XIII century. Nothing known about an->în transformation. Some regional Romanian languages are more related to the original Vulgar Latin than the current, modern (standard) Romanian. For example I remember a case when a Romanian elder said "o mers a monte" ([he] went to mountain) instead of modern Romanian "a mers la munte"; "a monte" vs "la munte". I'm pretty sure the modern Romanian would sound oddly for Vlachs/Romanians who lived centuries ago. In Aromanian the word for angel is anghil[u] (http://www.aromanii.ro/aromanii/dictionar.php). About Hungarian/Magyar word angyal I'm pretty sure it was borrowed from (Vulgar) Latin or (Proto)Romanian.
 * Oh, now I see. So the scholars do not know what was the form used around 895. There are also people who suppose that Hungarian is closely related to Sumerian based on similar similarities and assumptions. Their approach is not regarded scientific. Could you refer to academic works verifying the above interesting etimologies? It is quite obvious that the Hungarian language preserved the pure Latin form for angel. That is why I assumed that the Romanian names containing the Latin form derrived from the Latin-Hungarian version instead of the Romanian "înger", which is a modified version. Angyal is a typical Hungarian family name. Maybe Gyalu (this is his actual name) was a direct descendant of an ancient Scythian-Hungarian ruling family. You probably know that Herodotus wrote of Scythians inhabiting Transylvania and medieval chronicles unanimously associated the Hungarians with Scythians, so this explanation is very probable, according to my assumption. Borsoka (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear anonymous editor, those patronyms you provided is more likely due to the Orthodox Christian tradition with Romanians rather than any testament to Latin "angelus" because the Latin word is itself derived from the Greek word ἄγγελος "angelos". Greek was the liturgical language of the Eastern churches before and after the schism. Even after the Romanian orthodox church liturgy switched from Old Church Slavonic to Romanian, Greek continued to be prominent by tradition. The Aromanians most likely got "anghilu" from the Greek word since Aromanians historically reside in Greece and Macedonia) while the Daco-Romanians retained the Latin derived înger. As for your example of the elder person, it is purely anecdotal and could be his personal speech patterns rather than a preservation of Vulgar Latin. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)