Talk:Origin of the Romanians/Archive 12

Names of rivers and Latin words

 * [There] is not a single name of a river, a mountain, or a place in Romania which could prove the plausibility of the survival of a language island [...]

Actually, there is one: Danube (Dunăre), which can't be explained by being borrowed from any modern or medieval language, so it must be older than that. bogdan (talk) 08:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks you for your above remark. Actually, there is a plausible explanation Danuvius > Gothic *Donaws (mentioned as Donawis by a 4th-century scholar) > Slavic Dunaj > old Romanian *Dunar (similarly tîlhar from Hungarian tolvaj) > Dunărea (Vékony 2000, p. 210.), and also similarly by Schramm. The Romanian Dunărea form cannot be explained from the Latin Danuvius form. Yes, from a hypotetical (never attested) pre-Roman *Donaris form the Romanian form could be descended. Both theories are referred to in the article. Borsoka (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In the same area where this pottery was preserved are attested words of Latin origin like: ai < alium ("garlic") (...) nea < nivis ("snow"), which are not used in other regions of Romania.

It would be interesting to have a map of the isoglosses of Latin words. I know that in Transylvania, Banat and Maramureş they have dozens, if not more, Latin words not found elsewhere. There have been published some atlases with hundreds of maps of such isoglosses. bogdan (talk) 08:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Yes, it would be highly interesting, because it could demonstrate that Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian (who migrated to their present territories) also preserved Latin words which were lost for example by the Oltenian dialect (a dialect spoken in the territory of Dacia province) - sources are cited in the relevant part of the article (Linguistic approach - Romanian language). Borsoka (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems that this can only prove that Wallachian is derived from Southern Transylvanian and Moldavian are derived from Maramureşan, and we already know that. Anyway, Aromanian does have a large number of Latin words not found anywhere in standard Romanian: for instance, baş = kiss (cf. Italian bacio), tumbă = tomb, dimãndu = to demand, mur = wall, etc.
 * But then, Albanian (which borrowed Latin words from Balkan Latin) also has quite a few words of Latin origin not found in Romanian or Aromanian, for instance, mik = friend (<amicus), lirë = free (<liber), etc. bogdan (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand that Latin words only preserved by the Transylvanian dialect prove the continuity in Transylvania, but Latin words only preserved in the Aromanian dialect does not prove any continuity. Borsoka (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I never said that Latin words preserved by the Transylvanian dialect prove the continuity in Transylvania, they only prove that the Wallachian and Moldavian are derived from Transylvanian, but then, we already know that based on the large number of Hungarian loanwords that are found in all standard Romanian dialects.
 * BTW, this is not mentioned in the article as it is now: that before settling in Wallachia and Moldavia, Romanians lived some time along the Hungarians, enough time to borrow a few hundred words. bogdan (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that this argument should also be added, if it is based on reliable source. It is a really interesting argumentation: we should also assume that Russian people lived in France for enough time to borrow a few hundred French words. I am just kidding, but seriously the above suggestion looks a little bit simple for me.Borsoka (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

"Some towns preserved its ancient name[note 8] in many regions of Southeastern Europe up until now.[315] Roman Dacia is an exception, because the names of all Roman settlements attested in Antiquity disappeared from the territory in the Dark Ages" - this affirmation is false. To give a single counterexample, I will bring into attention the case of Abrud (in Roman times Abruttus) 79.117.179.95 (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your remark. I learnt from here that the name of Abrud may be of ancient origin, but it is first attested in 1271 as terra Obruth. Therefore, the above cited statement does not seem to contradict the facts we know from reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Instead of coming directly from the Roman, these names must have been adapted from those applied by other ethnic groups that cohabited with the Romanians in Transylvania." - I understand that according to these source these name was adopted by Romanians from the Romans, with the only observation that this was done indirectly (there was an intermediary population). Source for Abrud being a Romanic toponym: . Also Ernst Gamillscheg (German linguist) supports this idea 79.117.179.95 (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I repeat that I do not deny that the Abrud name is from Antiquity. I purely stated based on the above cited source that it is not attested from Antiquity (which is fully in line with the statement cited above from the article). I am afraid I do not understand the above remark: "the name was adopted by the Romanians from the Romans, with the only observation that this was don indirectly" - does the article contradict to this claim? If yes, please point at the exact sentence, because I have not found it. The article expressis verbis states that "the modern names suggest a Slavic mediation instead of a direct transmission between a native language and modern languages" - it is fully in line with your suggestion. Borsoka (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Statement A (from article): Some towns preserved its ancient name in many regions of Southeastern Europe up until now. Roman Dacia is an exception. implies Statement B: No town from Roman Dacia preserved its ancient name; Statement C: : Abrud preserved its ancient name contradicts with Statement B 79.117.179.95 (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Where can I find the source Toth 2004? On the other hand, what is www.friesian.com? 79.117.185.128 (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Tóth 2004 - I added the proper reference. Thank you for your remark. As to friesian.com, I have no information on it. Borsoka (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't understand at all this action of yours and the motivation give in the edit summary. You first add yourself the words about Abrud, and afterwards remove them on the basis that there is an unsupported attribution? I already provided you a RS (the Society for Historical Sciences of Romania). The same problem for Ampei, why did you delete that part, considering that it was smth sourced? 79.117.214.124 (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As Codrinb pointed out these sentences contained weasel words (possibly, etc.) that are not promoted by our policy. Yes, it is assumed that the two names (although never recorded before the 1200s) derived from Antiquity, but it is, all the same, only an assumption. For me, it would not be problem to mention it, but this is a sensitive article. What is your suggestion?Borsoka (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Immigrationist theory is pushed throughout the article
At this point and on this "version" of the "Origin of the Romanians", the ideas behind Immigrationist theory are pushed in radical POV fashion throughout the article. They are no longer solely contained to the "Immigrationist theory" section. This makes out of this just a POV and OR article based on Hungarian revisionism. I propose it should be renamed to Hungarian view on the origin of the Romanians. The Written sources and Linguistic approach are pushing in large, unbalanced proportion the "Hungarian view of the world". How is this going to be considered a balanced, useful encyclopedic article? It is obvious propaganda work. Thanks Borsoka. And read about WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL to get an idea of how you should write this article. --Codrin.B (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sincerely really grateful for your above remarks even they seem to be driven by emotions, because I am sure that the article can be improved. For this purpose, would you please clarify how the "Written sources" and "Linguistic approach" section represent Hungarian revisionism? What parts of the article contain OR (excluding the Archaeology section which has been tagged as containing OR)? What statement of the article is not based on reliable source (excluding the Archaeology section which has been tagged as OR)? What statements (even if they are based on reliable source) contradict to other reliable sources and what are those sources? What facts have remained concealed? What facts should be added (excluding Archaeology which is still under construction)? Just one remark: would you please cheque the cited sources again: there are many Romanian and neutral scholars cited. Borsoka (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Extensive Roman colonisation of Dacia
I do not understand why the citation of Eutropius words' of the "vast numbers of people from all over the Roman world" (with a reference to Rusu 2004) represent undue weight. Would you clarify me? Borsoka (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on the edit summary I added some POV interpreting Eutropius's words based on Ruscu 2004 cited in the article. Thank your for your remark. Borsoka (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Dacian names in Egypt, Italy, etc.
Sorry, I do not understand why the sentence "Bitus, Dezibalos and other characteristic Dacian names were recorded in Egypt, Italy and the empire's other territories" represent undue weight? It is based on two book, one was written by a Romanian, the other by a Hungarian historian. Would you clarify your concerns? Thanks. Borsoka (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the additional information mentioned under the previous title also handles this issue. Borsoka (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

First chronicle
Both Victor Spinei and Gyula Kristó (a Romanian and a Hungarian specialist of the early medieval history of the region) state that there are two early chronicles referring to Romanians in the territory: the Russian Primary Chronicle and the Gesta Hungarorum. Both chronicles are mentioned in the article. Nevertheless, there might be other chronicles unknown by these two scholars. Therefore, I would be grateful that those earlier chronicles would be presented (based on a properly cited reliable source). Thanks. Borsoka (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on the edit summary, I tried to handle the above issue. The Russian Primary Chronicle was completed in 1113 (as it is stated in the article based on Madgearu 2005); therefore it is the first chronicle possibly writing about Vlachs ("Volokhi") north of the Danube (as it is stated in the article based on Spinei 2009 and Kristó 2003); however, the identification of its "Volokhi" with the Vlachs is sharply criticized by a number of Hungarian, Romanian, and other scholars (two of them are mentioned in the article based on Madgearu 2005, but for example Samuel Hazzard Cross, the translator of the Laurentian Text of the chronicle also represent such a view). Anonymous' Gesta Hungarorum, I fully agree with you, is most probably only the third chronicle writing of Romanians north of the Danube. However, many Romanian scholars suggest that it was written in the 1150s (as it is stated in the article based on Madgearu 2005), not only around 1200 (as it is suggested by most Hungarian scholars). Therefore, Nichetas Choniates who surely wrote his work after 1200 is mentioned in the third place. Nevertheless, in order to provide a more neutral picture, the sentence concerned is modified (based on Kristó 2003) by the words "intra-Carpathian". Thanks for your remark. Borsoka (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for addressing the concerns. --Codrin.B (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The name of Roman towns
The sentence stating that "The names of all Roman settlements attested in Roman Dacia in Antiquity disappeared in the Dark Ages" is supposed to represent undue weight. I would be grateful if somebody could clarify what is the reason. It is a fact, a significant fact that distinguishes Roman Dacia from any other former provinces of the Roman Empire. Borsoka (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic continuity in the Carpatho-Danubian area, by Elemér Illyés
Does anyone have information about this work? What's author's qualification? If it is a RS, can it be found anywhere online in entire format? 79.117.214.124 (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a quite good work, but I think it is not available on the internet. Although the book itself was distributed by Columbia University Press, I suggest it should not be used here. It would generate lots of debates ("He is politically driven, biased ...."), and I think there is no point in vasting our time with such debates. Borsoka (talk) 06:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have the book and indeed seems pretty politically driven. I would stay away from quoting it. --Codrin.B (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

In the case of Sarmizegetusa
"There is little archaeological evidence of the native (indigenous) population." Why is it so important? Because we have a Dacian capital without autochthonous Dacians (and there is not a single record about them). I think it is quite interesting and important statement. Moreover we should emphasize that even if the name of the capital derives from the natives the residents of the capital were presumably outsiders. (p. 291) Fakirbakir (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * About "Because we have a Dacian capital without autochthonous Dacians", did you studied all the settlements of Sarmizegetusa valley before trying to make such statement?? Otherwise that assumption is ridiculous. -- Saturnian (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually this statement is from a scholar (from Cambridge) if you read the source (p. 291).


 * Fakirbakir (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For him is unclear!!!!! Little archaeological evidence doesn't mean there was no autochthonous population. It's only a stupid interpretation. Such affirmation is flawed. There are a lot of evidences. Maybe artefacts are scarce because after the conquest, the romans plundered Sarmizegetusa and removed almost everything in order to force people forget the old rule. It is a common practice of conquerors, see Damnatio memoriae. Saturnian (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That quoted statement is about Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa and not about Sarmizegetusa Regia. I can't believe the knowledge level of some people here. Or maybe you are playing dumb to push the wrong POV? --Codrin.B (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the quoted statement concerns the capital of Roman Dacia and not the center of the Dacian kingdom. Borsoka (talk) 07:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, a white raven is really interesting, but it does not represent ravens. In this case, we do not know whether Sarmizegetuse is a white or a black raven. If we would like to make a statement of Sarmizegetuse, I suggest that we should also add whether other towns provide or do not provide evidence for native inhabitants. Borsoka (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)