Talk:Megleno-Romanian language

Disputed

 * While the evolution of the Aromanian language can be explained by the fact that the Aromanians were isolated from the other Romanians since the 9th century, it seems that the Megleno-Romanians left their linguistic union with the Romanians at a much later time; one theory is that they were settled at sometime around the 14th century by the Byzantines.

I dispute the above, especially the part that says that Aromanians were split from the Romanians, based on the essay of Helen Abatzi, The Vlachs of Greece and their Misunderstood History.


 * I read that essay. Very interesting, however it barely touches the issue of the language. It says that both Romanian and southern Vlach languages descended from Balkan Latin language.
 * This Balkan Latin was in fact Proto-Romanian. There are dosens of proofs that it's true:
 * the so-called "Dacian" words, many of which that are only common with Albanian
 * many other common words that cannot be found in any other language and have an unknown etymology
 * same phonetical changes from Latin to Romanian and Vlach langauges
 * words of Latin origin that changed their meaning: (suflet: breath->soul, inim&#259;: soul->heart, p&#259;mânt: floor->earth, lume: light->world, etc)
 * almost identical grammar
 * common words of Slavic origin such as 'trup' (body), etc which were borrowed around the 9th century.
 * borrowed words in Vlach languages are of Modern Greek origin. If these languages were formed in Northern Greece, they ought to have many Ancient Greek words.
 * just to name a few. Also see this comparision of Aromanian, regional Romanian (of Moldavia and/or Maramures), standard Romanian and Italian (the closest Romance language to Romanian) Bogdan | Talk 13:26, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * AR: Tra s&#8217;dzic tut tsi-am pri suflit, o Pirivole dzînni
 * RR:    S&#259; dzic tuot ce-am prin suflit, o Pirivole dzî-ni
 * RO:    S&#259; zic tot ce-am prin suflet, o Pirivole zi-ni
 * IT: Dicere tutto quello che ho nel' cuore, Pirivole dici a noi


 * AR: La cari s&#8217;ni aspun eu dorlu, la tini i la Armâni?
 * RR: La cari s&#259;&#8217;mi spun eu dorul, la tini sau la Aromâni ?
 * RO: La care s&#259;&#8217;mi spun eu dorul, la tine sau la Aromâni ?
 * IT: A chi devo dicere i miei pensieri, a te o a gli Arumeni?


 * What are Helen Abadzi's credentials? She makes a non-scholarly, easily avoidable mistake: she writes that Greek Romios derives from Latin Romanus. It does not (they both mean the same thing, "Roman", but the Greek term did not evolve from that Latin word). That is morphologically impossible. Romios derives by various steps from Rhomē, the Greek rendition of Latin Roma ("Rome" in English). Alexander 007 05:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The article makes the very broad claim that Megleno-Romanian "contains" Dacian and Thracian words that have cognates in Albanian. Contains suggests that we don't know if they are borrowings or not. Which they must be if they are of Dacian or Thracian origin. But how do we know they are? This needs citation. "Cognate" is a technical term for material that is inherited by different languages. Therefore, the article implies that Albanian is Dacian and/or Thracian, which is not a fact rather one of many possibilities that have been suggested for the history of Albanian, none of which there is any evidence for. This piece needs citations and clarity about how little is known about some of these topics.

The suggestion that Megleno-Romanian has ever been in contact with Bulgarian is questionable. Certainly Standard Bulgarian hasn't been spoken on the territory that Megleno-Romanian is now spoken. I don't care if whoever you are object to 'Macedonian' to describe the relevant East South Slavic dialects, but don't use junk. Say South Slavic or explain the situation.

A couple of questions
I've just overhauled the English of the article, but two passages were rather obscure, and my recasting might have changed the intended meaning. Could those involved have a look at the new version, and let me know whether or not I've understood the original text correctly? If I haven't, I'd be grateful if you could explain what was actually meant, and I'll go back and correct my revision. Thanks. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 18:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I corrected one of your revisions. It wasn't a big mistake, but a clearer formulation was required. Alexander 007 06:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Megleno-Romanian vs. Moglenitic

 * "Moglenitic" -wikipedia: 0 hits
 * "Megleno-Romanian" 1940 hits

I rest my case. :-) bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 16:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Naming policy

 * from the official policy of Wikipedia regarding Naming conventions:
 * If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article (as you would find it in other encyclopedias). This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources.
 * The most common name of this language is "Megleno-Romanian" and it's the one used in works such as the Ethnologue and Encyclopedia Britannica. bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 20:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality

 * The term "Megleno-Romanian" has been used by linguists who noticed the similarity to the Romanian language, as well as by certain Romanian nationalists who claim the language as a mere dialect of Romanian and its speakers as ethnic Romanians, even though they themselves self-identify as a people called Vlahi.

Need I say more? Sentences like these just don't belong in an encyclopedia. It is utter bullshit that calling a certain variant a dialect of another language consitutes any claim of their ethnicity. Linguists are politically neutral and when the cold-hearted truth is that Megleno-Romanian is extremely similar to Daco-Romanian, well, you can't do anything about it. Which fact does not essentially make them Romanians, of course. Another ethnic identity does not automatically consitute a different language. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 10:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The linguists noticed. Ridiculous. This section needs more reword. To politically loaded.--Codrin.B (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

- The title of the page !
I think the title should be changed to MEGLENIAN language, because it represents better the reality. The term Megleno-Romanian is a misleading one. It gives from the start the impression that the language is a dialect of Daco-Romanian. It is true that there are different points of view about its origin, but as they are only theories, it can be discussed in the ’’ origin & history ‘’ section. Taken into consideration the geographical area, where the language is spoken and the low level of mutual intelligibility with the modern Romanian, the title should be : Meglenian  language ! We can not continue with theories of the XIX-th century, when all Eastern Romance languages were considered dialects of Daco-Romanian.Verginia&#39;s star (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Please read the policy guideline WP:COMMONNAME. Article titles should reflect what term is commonly used for the subject in reliable sources. The term "Meglenian language" is not a commonly used term, as a quick Google search clearly shows. All the three hits are based on the same self-published site, so there is in reality only one hit! --T*U (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• COMMONLY used, in RELIABLE sources! Which sources are reliable? The “scientific studies” done by Romanian scholars in line with the nationalist propaganda?! Commonly used by whom? By the same “Professionals”!Verginia&#39;s star (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The term "Reliable sources" in Wikipedia is explained in the guideline WP:RS. In general, it would be helpful if you tried to learn how Wikipedia works. You could continue by reading WP:V about verifiability, which is a basic principle in Wikipedia. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD explains how editors are supposed to co-operate in order to build the encyclopedia. By the way, the formula "commonly used ... in reliable sources" is not my invention. It is stated in the guideline WP:COMMONNAME which I gave the link to earlier, but which you obviously have not bothered to read. --T*U (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Time-out
During the last month, has made a huge number of edits to this and related articles, many of which have been improvements. The problem, however, have been that those edits mostly have been without proper sourcing. Also, the lack of edit summaries have made it hard to follow what has been going on. In many cases, the additions have taken the form of commentary, giving it a look of original research. I have tried to follow up the Aromanian language article somewhat, among other things with tagging of unsourced additions. The sheer volume of edits have made it impossible for me to follow up more.

In the early hours today (UTC), the user made a number of large edits to the article, among them some major changes in the lede. These were reverted by with the edit summary "These edits are neither explained nor verified." Verginia's star reverted immediately (for once including an edit summary: "which edits, specifically?") and continued editing. I have now reverted this last bout of edits to the article. It is necessary to take a time-out for some discussion.

The changes to the lede include:
 * changing the name of the language used by the language speakers themselves from Vlăheshte to Meglãneshte
 * removing two alternative names (Meglenitic and Moglenitic) for the language that have been in the article for years
 * adding one virtually non-existent name (the editor's preferred name Meglenian) for the language
 * adding a name for the speakers (Meglens) that is not mentioned in the article Megleno-Romanians or anywhere else I can find
 * removing info about where the language users live

Some of these changes may be correct, others are definitely wrong, none of them are sourced. They need to be discussed and sourced before re-entered. Suggested reading for participants: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS. --T*U (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Explanation of new edits!
1) The name of the language used by its speakers is Meglãneshte or Moglãneshte and not Vlăheshte !

Vlach, Vlãheshte, ta Blaxika, Vllaçe, etc. are all of them EXONYMS! No one among Romanians, Aromanians, Meglenians, describe themselves or their language as Vlach! The ENDONYMS are: Romãn, Armãn, Meglen!

2) Maybe the two alternative names (Meglenitic and Moglenitic)  have been in the article for years, but they are WRONG!

Both terms are Greek and are used only by Greeks in order to describe the language!(ta meglenitika or ta moglenitika) The general term is MEGLENIAN or MOGLENIAN language!

3) The name for the speakers is not mentioned in the article Megleno-Romanians, but that doesn't mean that it does not exist!

Have you asked yourselves where the title of the language comes from? And don't tell me that it comes from Megleno-Romanians, because the second component of the term is an INVENTION of Romanian scholars, the same like Macedo-Romanian, Istro-Romanian, Proto-Romanian...According to them everyone in the Balkans is Romanian and speaks Romanian! Anyone in Albania, Greece, Macedonia, Bulgaria call them MEGLENS or MOGLEN people and no one calls them Megleno-Romanian!

4) I didn't remove any info about the area where they live, I just put them in an order.Verginia&#39;s star (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not see you giving sources for any of your claims. Especially I wonder how you can claim that "Meglenian language" or "Moglenian language" is what you call "the general term" when they give respectively three (all identical) and zero hits in a Google search. Also, you did remove info about the area they live in from the lede, where it certainly belongs. --T*U (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

≠About sources: First of all I don't need to give any source regarding the EXONYMS and ENDONYMS!Those are well known! Who has provided sources about meglenitic/moglenitic? Regarding the general term, I mean the English term![ex: Romanian-Românește; Aromanian-Armãneashti; Istrian-Rumârește; Meglenian-Meglāneshte;] The fact that you can't find the term in google search is due to the fact that until now all pages about Eastern Romance languages have been a real mess, only Romanian propaganda!Verginia&#39;s star (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC) - Regardind the info from the lede, you are right! I removed it by mistake when I was trying to rewrite the section.Verginia&#39;s star (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * , if you think you don't need to give evidence, you are sorely mistaken, and this website may not be for you. I don't know about Romanian propaganda (in 99% of the cases where editors make changes without evidence and then claim "racism" or "propaganda" or what not, it's complete bullshit), but I do know that you need to stop edit warring. T*U warned you for this already; if you revert again we will bring this up at a noticeboard. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Drmies, who do you think you are? The owner of the Wikipedia? Bullshit is all your text that you have written!! What kind of sources do you want? I repeat, I don't have to give sources about the exonyms or endonyms! IF YOU DONN'T KNOW THEM THIS PAGE IS NOT FOR YOU!!YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT ROMANIAN PROPAGANDA, BUT I DO! The fact that only Romanian scholars are using the additional term Romanian to all Eastern Romance languages is or not an evidence of their propaganda? Talking about sources, you reverted my version twice, so I'm asking you to bring sources about the terms: vlaheshte; meglenitic; moglenitic; and about the name of the native speakers, Verginia&#39;s star (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)otherwise I will report you!! AND BE SURE, IF YOU DON'T BRING YOUR SOURCES THE REVERT IS COMING!!Verginia&#39;s star (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to do this one more time, slowly. First of all, stop yelling. Second, no, I don't own the Wikipedia, but I happen to be an administrator. Third, yes you have to give sources for things, that's the nature of an encyclopedia. If you can't understand that, a block per WP:CIR is easily made. Fourth, "all your text that you have written" isn't very correct, either grammatically or semantically: I didn't write any of this text, I just reverted your unverified changes. Fifth, if you want to challenge "Vlăheshte", that's fine, but this is not the way to do it; you can just remove the word and say in your edit summary "unverified" or something like that. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all, stop flexing your muscles; Second, you can be anything you want to be; Third, yes we have to give sources and explanations for things, so I'm waiting for your explanations and your sources about those terms; Fourth, I never argued with other editors about grammar; Fifth, I have done only changes, you reverted the page twice; Sixth, I'm waiting!  Verginia&#39;s star (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You completely don't get it. You change, you provide references (you haven't). You want to argue against one particular word, do so (you haven't). I didn't say you were arguing something about grammar; I merely said yours was faulty. T*U, what to do?, do you have any suggestions, for a case where an editor is making unverified changes? User:Shellwood, you've dealt with this editor too, in Proto-Romanian language. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * One thing that stuck out at once was the statement that "The fact that you can't find the term in google search is due to the fact that until now all pages about Eastern Romance languages have been a real mess..." Our articles should never be the source of a term - you can't blame the fact it can't be found in Google on Wikipedia. Then there's the battleground mentality, something that's simply not acceptable. Particularly given the warnings already given.
 * The bottom line though is that this stops now. I've given the editor the Balkans DS notice. Any more disruption, shouting, arguing about Romanian propaganda, editing against consensus will end in a topic ban or a block. This includes unverified changes. Doug Weller  talk 18:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)