Talk:History of the term Vlach

Missing section
Source of the Volcae/Volk link:
 * The term Volcae is simply the German Volk "folk."
 * The Classical Gazetteer by William Hazlitt (1851) bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 18:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Though it should be noted that the book is from 1851. Nineteenth-century works often have etymologies that are no longer accepted. A newer work should be referenced for comparison. Alexander 007 20:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I know that, however, I couldn't find another etymology. Also the Wikipedia article on Volcae uses this etymology. bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 21:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, our Volcae article is taken directly from Hazlitt. Also, Celt article explains it as "Falcons". bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 21:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

There are too many "unknown quantities" in this equation:


 * Germanic folk/volk: unknown etymology/origin


 * the word falcon is: of disputed etymology


 * the ethnonym Volcae itself is: of unknown etymology.

Falcon has two conflicting etymologies: that it is from Germanic, from PIE *pel, 'pale, grey'; or that it is from Late Latin, related to Latin falx, 'sickle'---and Latin falx is of unknown etymology. If 'falcon' is from *pel, then Gaulish Volcae must have been an exonym, because I don't think Celtic changes PIE 'p' to 'f', as Germanic does (then, there is still the extra issue of why 'f' -->'v'). These etymologies are all explaining one unknown with another.

presents the view that Vlach is derived from Volcae (by way of Germanic, then Slavic), but Volcae itself is not explained (see Welsh entry on that site). Www.etymonline is often rather up-to-date, so the Volcae<-->Vlach connection is probably still considered.

I just find this kind of funny: Vlach derives from Volcae (which is of unknown origin), and Volcae may be related to German 'volk' (which is of unknown origin) or to 'falcon' (which is of unknown origin), and 'falcon' may be related to Latin 'falx' (which is of unknown origin).

One might also propose a connection to Latin volcanus---which is also of unknown origin.

This can be extended further: some connect Germanic 'volk' to Latin populus (which is of unknown origin/etymology). 007 23:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

move?
the title of this article is not wholly accurate, since it discusses the exact meaning of Vlach in Slavic languages, rather than its etymology. Could this not be included in the Vlach article? And the actual etymology part applies to Welsh, Wallis etc. just as much, and I suggest it is moved either to Volcae or to Walha (which at the moment is a redirect). dab (&#5839;) 14:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this article could be retitled History of the term Vlach, or Origin of the term Vlach (which originates from Germanic). I also see a difference between the Origin of the term and the ultimate etymology of the term: the origin of the term is known (from Proto-Germanic, etc.), but the ultimate etymology is unclear, as it involves the question of the unclear etymology of Volcae, et cetera. 007 17:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do we need a "history" article? Why cannot the term's history be treated on Vlach? It's not like that article is over long. Once it hits 32k, you can still export a specialized hisory article. The history of Vlach is Volcae. The *ultimate* etymology is unclear, but that's a question of Volcae, not of Vlach. dab (&#5839;) 10:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems okay to me if all the information in Etymology of Vlach is incorporated into Vlach, so I add my vote to a merge unless someone comes along with a counterargument that is a good one. But I don't know who is going to undertake the merge. 007 21:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I still propose a merge, into an article where all the disparate explanations of words from *Walha are explained. Maybe at Walha. As it is, we repeat the same thing on about ten different articles. If nobody objects I'm going to do that at some point in the future... dab (&#5839;) 14:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I changed the title of the article to emphasize its purpose and justify a separate article. It covers a different subject now, not just the etymology but also the history of the term as it branched off from its etymon and acquired a more specific meaning. Alexander 007 07:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is now seven years that Dbachmann proposed the merge; is there a reason why this hasn't happened? &mdash; Sebastian 20:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I propose to merge this article, together with much of Vlach, into Walhaz (which is where Walha, the target proposed by Dbachmann, redirects now). &mdash; Sebastian 20:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You added the "merge" tag to the Etymology section of the Vlach article. I don't think that makes sense.  That section is actually more about the usage of the term "Vlach" in the Balkans, not about the origins of the term from Walhaz.  I would change the section title to "Word usage" or some such.  On the other hand, the article "History of the term Vlach" might well be merged with Walhaz. --Macrakis (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point; I'll do as you proposed. &mdash; Sebastian 21:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is a need for a merge but this is a bit complicated. I think the article, with the current title, History of the term Vlach should be partially (mostly) merged to Vlachs, especially parts of the table since is narrowed down to Eastern Europe, and the rest (i.e. the table again, but expanded with Western Europe terms like Welsh) to Walhaz. In any case, once the content will be moved, the redirect should definitely go to Vlachs, given the name. --Codrin.B (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not that complicated. There is one Proto-Germanic root, walhaz. Since we already have an article about that, it is the most natural to cover all its descendants there. Splitting out one subsection of Indogermanic languages is an unnecessary complication. (BTW, I'm not sure what you mean by "The redirect should definitely go to Vlachs". You can't possibly mean the redirect from Walha to Walhaz, can you?)
 * You may say "But we have so much about the History of the term Vlach that it merits its own article." Now, to be frank, this article has so many problems that it would require a lot of work to fix it. Section Modern languages is only borderline encyclopedic. It has been marked as "straying from the topic" since September, which may or may not be literally true, but it clearly expresses one editor's discomfort with what I would call rambling. The repeated listing of "gelding (horse)", for example, simply comes from the fact that the practice come from Wallachia, which is not explained. The table is of little use to the average reader as it provides no explanations. (OTOH, providing explanations for a term that has often been used derogatorily may not be such a good idea, either.) More importantly, the whole article (insofar as it differs from Walhaz) is unsourced and appears to be largely original research. Therefore, what we really can keep will fit neatly into Walhaz. &mdash; Sebastian 21:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I already moved what was relevant to Vlachs. Feel free to merge what is relevant into Walhaz. I meant the redirect from History of the term Vlach article, once and if it gets removed/blanked, should go to Vlachs. Because it is History of the term Vlach not the History of the term Walhaz. Clear? Also note that there are already two articles, one in French and one in Romanian about the history of the term Vlach. So you can't just simply remove the English now. But we can clean it up. I take the points about original research and the issues with the table, but they can be cleaned up. I already marked with cn and other tags some of the content I moved to Vlachs. But most of it was useful content. It's just needs to be sourced. There is very useful information in the table, for the reader to see the extent of the use for the Vlach term in the Central and Eastern Europe and the extent of the Vlachs, things that are usually ignored in the West, the same way the Eastern Roman Empire is ignored even though it was a continuation of the Roman Empire for another 1000 years! I understand your points that it is a Germanic term, but Vlach got a very specific meaning and context in the Eastern Europe, hence it diverged from the Germanic root. So it needs separate articles to explain all this. You cannot over simply and merge articles like Walloons and Vlachs just because 2000 yeas ago there was just one Germanic word. It's like saying that we are all Romans after all. And that's just not true. Things diverge and become complex enough on their own.--Codrin.B (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm happy that we agree on the main point here; that this article can be changed to a redirect. I would have preferred Walhaz as the target, but I respect your expertise in this area and will change the redirect to the target you suggested.
 * Just for the record, I have to correct one misconception: Different language Wikipedias are independent; the fact that we already have the French and Romanian articles does in no way mean that we can't simply remove this one. But it doesn't hurt to keep it, of course. &mdash; Sebastian 02:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Great. Glad we could find a compromise. Indeed, the Wikipedias are independent, but having articles on multiple languages about a topic should at least hint for the need of an article in English. Now we don't have it anymore. But it is ok, since it was created relatively prematurely. The Vlachs article will have to grow naturally and then be split into other articles like History of the term Vlach when it becomes too large by itself. Regarding redirect, you can create a History of the term Walhaz right now and redirect it to Walhaz if needed. Or create a History of the term Walhaz when Walhaz becomes too large as an article. But like I was eluding above, you can't redirect Walloon to Vlachs just because there is a prehistoric etymological link. Also, you were strongly suggesting the merger between History of the term Vlach and Walhaz, but I don't see any content carried over to Walhaz after History of the term Vlach was blanked. What was the point then? I would at least suggest the creation of a similar table in the Walhaz article, with all the derided words in all the languages (east and west), since it can better organize the information and focus the reader. Right now the different derived terms are in not so nice looking and somewhat hard to follow lists of items. Best regards.--Codrin.B (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The point originally was that the information fits in Walhaz. However, you argued (at 20:24, 5 January) that Vlachs was a better location for it. You wrote "the rest" should go to Walhaz, but there is no rest. I at least am not aware of any content that we don't already have in at least one article. But if you're aware of any, nothing stops you from doing so. As for the table, it currently consists exclusively of Vlach related terms, so there is no reason to add it to the Walhaz article. I already said that I didn't find the existing format very helpful for the average user, so I'm certainly not in favor of multiplying it. If I understand you correctly, you are proposing to copy and paste the existing table and then add a few rows for some non-Vlach terms. That would be bad for several reasons: (1) The existing table has big problems, as pointed out at 21:24, 5 January, which yet have to be addressed. (2) Even if it were perfect, it still would duplicate information, which doesn't help the reader, but hurts those of us who care for Wikipedia as a whole. We then would have to maintain and care for the same information in two different locations. &mdash; Sebastian 19:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I merged some relevant content into Walhaz to see what I mean. As it standed before it ignored the Eastern Europe variants. I am not sure what do you mean by those of us who care for Wikipedia as a whole, but sounds a little insulting as I've been personally putting a lot of effort on Wikipedia. Since this talk page is becoming less relevant, I moved the conversation here regarding the suggested table, for which I created a sample to clarify what I mean: Talk:Walhaz.--Codrin.B (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant no insult. This isn't even about people, it's about viewpoints. What I meant is that, in discussions like this, there can be the viewpoint of delving very deep into one particular issue, and there can be the viewpoint of the bigger picture. Neither is better than the other; both are very important for Wikipedia. With your table, which goes into a level of detail beyond my interest, I felt that you represented the detail oriented viewpoint, and I wanted to counterbalance that with some parts of the bigger picture I felt were neglected.
 * I wouldn't say that the Eastern Europe variants were ignored; they already occurred throughout the article. But I agree that the article looks better with a section parallel to the "From *Walhaz to welsch" section. This is, after all, what I had originally in mind, when I proposed to merge into that article. That said, the content you added is mostly copy and paste (at least as of this diff.) Please try to minimize copy-and-paste; it is almost always better to keep the full information in one place, and the reduced information in another. Please make up your mind which place should be the primary location for the given text. &mdash; Sebastian 21:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand, no problem. Regarding the copy paste, the idea is to have a summary on the "From *Walhaz to Vlach" section, and if the reader is interested, he can go to the Vlachs article using the main template/link. The copy paste can indeed be further reformulated or cleaned up, which I started to do. But it is commmon to use a summary section and point to the main article and some information to be repetead.--Codrin.B (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a great plan. Of course, some information always needs to be repeated. Ideally, I'd think it would be just enough to entice readers to look up the main article. But I have to admit; there may not be many people who share my view or care enough to reply at the village pump. &mdash; Sebastian 20:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Wlach in Russian
I think Russian "lekh" - "lyakh" - pejorative for "Polish" is also related to "[W]lach".


 * I think it is not. This term (same sound as in Russian - "lech") is used also in Czech and Polish language. Its very old word for Poles, older than migration of Vlachs from Balkan to this part of Europe. It is used in various myths about Slavic roots (ie. about forefather Czech and his brother Lech, forefather of Poles) Lech%2C_founder_of_Poland Lechia
 * I don't know who really migrated, is it the Slavs or the Vlachs?! See the Great migration of the Slavs. But I can agree with one thing, it is not meant to mean Vlach. Even in Romanian, the old word of Polish is leş (pronounce lesh). --Codrin.B (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Russian word is not related to Vlach - the most accepted explanation among linguists is that it originates from the name of a tribe living in the eastern part of what is today Poland. This tribe is known as "Lędzianie" in modern Polish. Other words that are believed to originate from the same root are Hungarian "Lengyelek" and Lithuanian "Lenkai" Boraczek (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Very informative! Thanks. --Codrin.B (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Italy in Hungarian
The name of Italy in Hungarian should be mentioned.--Error 01:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

To whom it may concern
Iadrian you have undone what I have written claiming: "unsourced changes". Since the "original" text - what I have been replenished and replenishing - was also "unsourced", your undo makes no sense. Also I was not counter-writing, but mentioned the fact that Byzantine Empire (official language: greek) was the one which passed the term vlachos/vlachs (meaning shepherds) to those slavic nations who followed Byzantine Empire based eastern-christianity. The hungarian terms I've added and about the time when those terms were used, well those are facts.. If you want to find a source (otherwise a hungarian is telling you when and what hungarian words were in use through history and till when) you can find not one but for sure several, but as I've previously mentioned, the orginal text (to which you reverted back) was unsourced in the same way as you have just claimed. Either delete that one too, with my modification, either leave it in the way I have written it. (Wikidtor (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC))
 * Sorry, I did`t saw this. Indeed there is no reference for that text but that isn`t a reason to add more unreferenced text to the article... Nevertheless I will assume good faith WP:AGF(I will not delete it) and I will just add citation needed to statements that lack references. If references are not provided in a couple of weeks data that doesn`t have a reference can be removed WP:SOURCE. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for that. As I have mentioned it: "Either delete that one too, with my modification, either leave it in the way I have written it." So if you think that unsourced material is too much for this article, then you can delete the modifications have been made by me - just of course together with the other unsourced sentences. Otherwise I think there is no controversion in the text, so no other sources are needed in my opinion, because article is coherent and logical in this way as it is. I could only add one source if any: the Constantine Manasses, which also proves that Byzantine Empire was the original source of naming vlachs (and through religion /eastern-christianity/ was the term passed to slavics), but I don't think anyone can link to the specific part of the chronicle, as it is not digitized or searchable for the common. Bests. (Wikidtor (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC))


 * I am sorry but I have analyzed your contribution and I found some factual irregularities. You wrote here vlach (archaic form) -> "oláh" (common usage till end of XIXth century) -> románok (modern form, referring to the way vlachs -> "oláh"s were naming themselves from middle of the XIXth century) which is incorrect. You are actually trying to say that the word "Roman" or in the Hungarian form Románok was invented in the middle of XIX century - which is incorrect. Please take a look at this referenced article. Also I have found a reference that Tranquillo Andronico writes in 1534 that Romanians (Valachi) "now call themselves Romans" - which directly disproves what you wrote. Reference: 1 and 2 I am sorry but a part of your contribution is incorrect and I will revert (that part) to the previous version of the article. The rest will remain as it is. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)