Talk:Re-latinization of Romanian

Fake entry
I see there is one main "creator" of this whole deceptive article, a Borsoka avatar. Some serious people knowing romanian history should interfere and remove this panslavistic vicious propaganda written by individuals who believe they can reinvent the history of other nations. Wikipedia is not a playground for post-yuogslav fanatics, I am deeply disgusted by the idea that such an article stays on line and do wish that some educated corrections be brought and the article removed. No sir, there has been no relatinization OR reromanisation of Romanian, and it is easier to read a Romanian text of the 17th century with knowledge of present romanian, than, maybe, some german texts of the 17th century. On the other hand, it is well known that the mystification of relatinisation is a fairytale dear to some extremist panslavist circles, and it knows now a rebirth. Are we seing extremist propaganda find support on Wikipedia? When will get some islamist movement sharing their theories about the history of Europe? Please ACT and remove this extermist propaganda. PredaMi (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to the very existence of this entry, which falsely presents historical facts in a heavy loaded ideological manner. It results into a highly misleading entry, far away from the scope of Wiki. I am ready to start an argumented debate on this poor try of an entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.8.64 (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

–Agreed entirely. The Romanian language is more or less the same as it we see it in printed books from the 1500s, except with an influx of loanwords. Where is the "re-latinization"? It's more like a "modernization". It's an obvious politically motivated entry. Report it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BB:410:70E3:5D76:D291:7765:63E7 (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Report it if you think this is the case. Borsoka (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * First of all, the Romanian language today is a "Romance" language, not "Latin", which has derived its constructed development of the last 150 years, in particular from the French, a process based on an equally 150 year spread of an invented xenophobic national history, the you can read here:
 *  doi:10.1017/S1380203816000064
 * As written sources and geographical maps show, the name "Valach", is unknown before 1250, north of the Danube. According to these written sources, the Cumans lived there until 1241 under their leader Cuthen, until the raid of the Tatars of Batum. Also, "Wallachia" has always been between the river Cserna, the Carpathians and the Danube, as evidenced even by the map from 1736 of the Woiewod Cantacuzeno, etc.
 * In this respect, the narrowing down in this article is the "Daco-Romanian continuity theory", the xenophobic Causescu- doctrine, the spreeding and dissemination of fascist content, over this platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.223.151.23 (talk) 08:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The scientific field of history are historical, written and archaeologically, proven facts, not theories. Historical facts are not a theory. It does not prove anything for the historical facts, who accepts which theory. Who accepts which theory or not, is his own personally subjective view of the world. However, this is not the subject of history, but the subject of political ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.223.151.23 (talk) 10:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In conclusion of the opinion expressed here by the scribents, today's Romanian historiography is a collection of theories and counter-theories, which ultimately does not substantiate anything, but is only an opinionated discussion without factic substance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.223.151.23 (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

English names (adding "re-Romancing tendency in Romanian" title in addition to "re-romanization of Romanian")
According to MOS:LEADALT, "By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can have only one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." , why do you think that an alternative name used by a specialist (Mallinson) in a specialised work (The Romance Languages) should not be mentioned in the lead? Do you think Oxford University Press is not a significant publishing house? Borsoka (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * According to MOS:LEADALT: "These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages". It does not fit into any of the listed situations. The fact that an author or another uses a different terminology than most others use can be very well exemplified in the corresponding section, Terminology. And, as a good example for a title, the Encyclopædia Britannica named this process/curent/tendency (or whatever is named) "The so-called re-Romanization of Romanian".
 * (Rgvis (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC))
 * Would you read what I wrote? Do you really think that usage by Oxford University Press in a book deducated to Romance languages in a chapter dedicated to Rumanian is not significant? Borsoka (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again: The fact that an author or another uses a different terminology than most others use can be very well exemplified in the corresponding section, Terminology.
 * (Rgvis (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC))
 * And? Does it mean that we should not mention a significant alternative name for the topic in the lead? Why do you think we should ignore MOS:LEADALT? Borsoka (talk) 05:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The "re-romanization" and "re-romancing tendency" terms mean the same thing. Using both terms in the first sentence would be a case of redundancy; see MOS:INTRO. (Rgvis (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC))
 * Please read again the relevant WP policy: "significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph". If you cannot quote text from a specific WP policy to verify your approach, please refrain from referring to it. Borsoka (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The "re-Romancing tendency in Romanian" is one of the many formulations used to describe this "process" (as you can see, in his opinion, is not even a "process", but a "tendency"). (Rgvis (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC))
 * Do you really think he does not write of the same subject (re-latinization and re-romanization) when he explicitly links the re-Romancing tendencies in Romanian with the significant changes of Romanian vocabulary (along with other changes)? Would you refer to reliable sources to verify your assumption? Borsoka (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I called for 3rd opinion on this issue . Borsoka (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * , thank you for your opinion and also for your research. One missed point whether a third term ("re-Romancing") could/should also be mentioned in the first sentence. The term describes the same process. It is used by Graham Mallinson in his work cited on the article. His work was published by Oxford University Press. Thank you for dedicating your time to this issue. Borsoka (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't be giving opinions late at night :). In any case, does any other author use "re-Romancing"?---- Work permit (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time. I have not found other scholars using this term. Borsoka (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If not by scholars, would you know how often it is used in general? I notice a number of general google hits   that use the term in the way you mention.  One of course does have to manually filter out results when the subject is about making love to a Romanian :). When google searching in books  [], I get significantly fewer hits then I do for relatinization [].  And a number of those hits are false positives.  It's a judgement call. I'd probably not use it given what I've seen so far.  ---- Work permit (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion. Agreed. Borsoka (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality
Instead of placing templates just for fun,, would you explain what is the neutrality issue? Borsoka (talk) 06:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * MOS:BEGIN; WP:NDESC. (Rgvis (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC))
 * You did not explain. Would you please make an other attempt? Borsoka (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is explained very well. (Rgvis (talk) 06:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC))
 * No, you may not know, but references to WP policies do not explain anything. As far as you are only making general statements, I have to ignore your remarks. Borsoka (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, I don't see how the opening paragraph does not identify the topic with a neutral point of view (see MOS:BEGIN). It would be useful to include a time frame for the process, other than that I think it is good. Alternative Transport (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I insert a time-frame in the sentence. Borsoka (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This article has serious flaws to be addressed
This entry conflates two parallel phenomena: the Latinate current and the  Lexical Modernization of Romanian creating a nonexistent historical process presented as Re-latinization of Romanian

The Latinist Current was a Transylvanian academic school of thought (aprox. 1830-1880) aimed at latinizing the Romanian language. Its radical and ideology driven version promoted not only the introduction of (classical !) Latin neologisms, but also latinate modifications of already existing Romanian words, against the internal logic, phonetics and general use of Romanian. The Romanian academic world of the time criticized it as an extremist linguistic current, which, apart from academic debates, had no consequence on the Romanian language.

Quite contemporarily (1830-1900) a process started in both Romanian Principalities (later Romania), which one might call the  lexical modernization of Romanian. It was a vigorous linguistic modernization, as vigorous as the modernization of the Romanian society in the XIX century. This modernization took place mainly through massive lexical borrowings from French, in order to acquire the lexical tools necessary for the new modern era. This is a common phenomenon in many societies, up to our days.

The Romanian elite of the XIX century was heavily "francizised" so that the massive French borrowings were initiated by the francophone elites and absorbed by the population at large in a process which lasted three generations and was - out of many reasons - politically convenient and culturally compatible with the Romanian society.

In no possible way was this lexical modernization linked to whatever ideology of “latinization”, which actually didn't ever exist in than Romania, being confined to Transylvania, as the academic debates already referred to).

Attributing the lexical modernization of Romanian to whatever latinate linguistic ideology is an abuse, creating fake historical events.

This entry must be accordingly reviewed and edited. The only alternative would be Articles for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.9.189 (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * According to the cited reliable sources the re-latinization of the language resulted not only in the spread of Romance loanwords describing the modern world, but it also included the replacement of Slavic loanwords by Latin or Romance loanwords. Furthermore, the Balkan morphological features of the language weakened and the Cyrillic script was replaced by a Latin script. Consequently, we cannot describe this process as if it were limited to vocabulary. The association of this ongoing linguistic process with a 18th and 19th-century Romantic movement is a total misunderstanding of the literatura. We cannot say that globalization is equal to the Amber Road. Borsoka (talk) 02:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "The association of this ongoing linguistic process with a 18th and 19th-century Romantic movement is a total misunderstanding of the literatura." couldn't agree more: languages permanently evolve  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.12.238 (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, this article was, from the beginning, conceived in a way that does not reflect in a balanced way the scientific research in this subject. Many statements in the content are either out of context, cherry picking, fringe theories, or simply represent personal opinions, not confirmed by the source referenced.

Not being sufficiently understood by the editor who created this article, the subject is interpreted and transposed in a personal manner. Basically, much of this article does not meet WP:COPO. (Rgvis (talk) 06:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC))
 * Could you refer to statements in the article which are out of context, cherry picking or fringe theories or represent personal opinions, not confirmed by the source referenced? You may not know, but articles cannot be edited based on general statements which summarize our own thoughts. Borsoka (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, the basic idea of ​​the article is totally unscientific and it only addresses in a personal way the stages of the modernization process in the Romanian language (even suggesting, in a hilarious manner, that the same process continues today).

Secondly, as it has already been seen, when the references were checked, the written texts did not pass the verification test (the statements made were not found or were interpreted in a personal manner). Some examples of edits made in disrespect of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V:, , ,.

By using false balance, the latest edits show an increase in existing issues (in violation of WP:UNDUE, WP:BALASP, WP:GEVAL), and as long as problems have already been confirmed, there is a reasonable suspicion that the whole article does not meet WP:COPO.

Given that there is no reasonable and foreseeable solution to resolve the listed issues (the article should be strongly verified, reference with reference), I do not see anything better than to support a possible proposal for Articles for deletion. (Rgvis (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC))


 * (1) Linguist Graham Mallinson says that "Although one would expect a language to develop most rapidly through contact at the lexical level, there are some syntactic features that demonstrate how Rumanian is gradually returning to the Romance fold" . His statement is clear, he writes of an ongoing process. Do you really think that Oxford University Press publishes hilarious views?


 * (2a) The text you are challenging in your permalink No. 3 is the following: "The re-latinization of Romanian, also known as re-romanization of Romanian, is a process during the development of the Romanian language aimed at the strengthening of its Romance character." Quotes to verify this text are the following: "Members of the Transylvanian School of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries were at pains to demonstrate the Latin orogins of the language. .... Less eccentric, and perhaps for that reason more successful, were writers of the nineteenth century in the other two regions and especially Muntenia ... They also made conscious efforts to add a fuller Romance flavour to Rumanian." "...a number of Slavic loanwords have fallen victim to a strong re-latinization process since the 19th century" (*)


 * (2b) Each sentence in the text of permalink No 4 is verified by a reference to a reliable source. If you think any of the sentences fails to summarizet properly the cited work, please explicitly refer to it. As I mentioned you on your Talk page: "random references to WP policies could hardly be regarded as an explanation. I kindly ask you to be constructive, or one can conclude that you are not here to build an encyclopedia which may have serious consequences. "
 * I just came across this "one can conclude that you are not here to build an encyclopedia which may have serious consequences" and I wonder being the only one deeming this as a kind of a covered threat aimed at intimidating a fellow contributor
 * First of all, I would be grateful if you could sign your remarks. Secondly, it is not a threat. It is a friendly suggestion to an editor whose edits can hardly be described as constructive. Borsoka (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (2c) As to your permalink No 5, you wanted to insert a sentence which hides the fact that the core of the debate about the Romanians' ethnogenessis whether the north-Danubian territories played a role in it. I first deleted it, but later I realised that it is an important sentence for you for whatever reason. You modified the text, and I accepted your version, without modifying it . Why do you pretend that there is a debate about the text? I think it should be improved and I am sure third editors will improve it, but I do not want to wage edit wars on such a non-significant issue.


 * (2d) The text in your permalink No 6 is the following : "Romanian emerged in territories which were isolated from other Romance languages for more than a thousand years." The quote from the cited work which verifies it is the following: "After the arrival of the Slavs, the ethnographic aspect of the region became even more motley. For over a thousand years now Rumanian has stood isolated from the Western Latin region." . Yes, the page number was wrong, but I fixed it. Do you really think that a wrong page number can be regarded as OR?


 * (3) False balance? Texts which explain why re-latinisation occurred? A text which is based on reliable sources?


 * (4) As I demonstrated above, you have not referred to a single sentence in the article which is not verified with a reference to a reliable source. Each sentence that you wanted to challenge above are fully verified by the cited reliable sources (as I also demonstrated above). Please do not continue this type of time-consuming editing. Borsoka (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I second your proposal for Articles for deletion.
 * None of the texts that use the term re-Latinization or synonym give a precise definition and a precise time frame to make it notable enough for a wiki article. The phrasing seems to deal with an undeveloped theory that somehow found its way on the wiki and it is now combining features of two separate (both in time and in nature) phenomenona: The Transylvanian School and its Latinist tendencies and the modernizing of Romanian lexis (part I: from 1850 to 1950) when French was the preferred foreign language of Romanian elites. Therefore we can speak separately of Re-Latinization tendencies of the Transylvanian School or the modernization of the Romanian lexis but putting them together in one article is like building of hut out of driftwood and plastic bags and calling it a beach house. Aristeus01 (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Dear Borsoka, no systematic "replacement of Slavic loanwords by Latin or Romance loanwords" has ever taken place in the history of the Romanian language. It is a reasoning fallacy to imagine that words of a living language spoken by millions can be "replaced" with other words, just like interchangeable elements. Lexemes have precise linguistic functions and a history, nobody can displace them arbitrarily. Words don't simply disappear out of a language to be replaced by other words. It is the common and general use of a lexeme which decides upon its place and role: words can become fashionable or outdated. If some categories of Romanian lexemes of Slavic origin got less frequent, it was only because they became obsolete out of socio-lingustic reasons (e.g. traditional rural vocabulary), not because they were Slavic.

Attributing latinate intentionality and ideological planning to the modernization of Romanian in the XIX century is the one huge fallacy of this article, which is inacceptable and must be remended non-negociably.

I'm afraid I have to ask for examples and solid academic sources about the the Balkan morphological features of the language weakened you claimed. Otherwise it's but WP:OR and WP:NPOV.

Nevertheless, when you conclude with "Consequently, we cannot describe this process as if it were limited to vocabulary.", you have a valid point. I must agree that the modernization of Romanian was more complex than a profusion of French neologisms.

I saw you're a valuable contributor of wp. Believe it or not, I am sincerely optimistic that we will reach consensus. All you need is maybe a little more consideration for fellow contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.12.238 (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your remarks. I always take into consideration our fellow contributors' remarks, but we should avoid OR. Words can be replaced in a living language: the cited reliable sources show that that Romanian also underwent a similar process (I will not repeat the quotes from above). Sorry, I am not in the position to negotiate anything in the article with you as per WP:NOR. If a reliable source makes it clear, that the re-latinization of the language was an intentional process we cannot hide it (for further details I refer to the quotes above under point (1)). Where is any reference to Balkan morphology in the article? Non-existing sentences in an article can hardly contain OR and can hardly be biased. Borsoka (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, now I understand why other contributors on this page deem your behaviour as difficult.


 * As it stands, the article is but a collection of out of context generalisations, cherry picking and fringe theories representing your personal political agenda. Your preferred weapon (because you appear more like a warrior) seems to be interpretations and statements not confirmed by the source. You are infringing so many WP policies, e.g. WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V.


 * If you desire cherry picking lots of conflicting citations, it is definitely not the best way to build consensus, but you can have it.


 * One thing is certain: this article is way too bad to stay as it is, we must work together to improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.12.238 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no political agenda, so I ignore your personal attacks, but I also ignore your references to OR, fringe theories, etc. until you or other editors are unable to prove that the article contains OR, etc. Sorry, but I have no time to discuss baseless accusations. As soon as you are able to communicate as an editor, we can continue the discussion. Borsoka (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "I have no political agenda" sorry, my bad, what I meant was ideological agenda
 * Contributor (Non-registered) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.9.45 (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no ideological, political or similar agenda. Sorry, I will not continue to discuss this issue with you. Borsoka (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

How to use template messages
, before using template messages, please read the relevant WP policies, otherwise your edits can be regarded as a clear sign of vandalism. For instance, the "original research inline" template cannot be placed after sentences which are followed by an inline citation. You put this template after the following sentence: "Romanian emerged in territories which were isolated from other Romance languages for more than a thousand years." The following text from the cited source verifies this sentence: "After the arrival of the Slavs, the ethnographic aspect of the region became even more motley. For over a thousand years now Rumanian has stood isolated from the Western Latin region." . Please remember that I already draw your attention to this. You also put a citation needed template after a text about Friedrich Diez which says that he "was the first scholar systematically studying Romance philology". The text is verified by an inline citation to Rebecca Posner who says: "Friedrich Diez, was to become the first specialist in Romance Philology, at Bonn". If you were a constructive editor, you would have modified the sentence: he "was ONE of the first scholarS systematically studying Romance philology". Finally, you put an "original research inline" template after the word "Nevertheless". Do you think this is the best way to improve the article? Borsoka (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * @Borsoka
 * Firstly: It seems that you still do not understand (or perhaps, WP:OR ??) the following text: "After the arrival of the Slavs, the ethnographic aspect of the region became even more motley. For over a thousand years now Rumanian has stood isolated from the Western Latin region". Nandris refers that, in that year, 1951 (when the text was written), this situation (isolation from the Western Latin world) has been over 1000 years (and continues to exist). Any person with critical thinking, but also common sense, would have realized it right away. The split of the empire gradually took place during the 4th century, Slavs settled in the region starting the 5th-6th centuries, while Latin was used in the Eastern Roman Empire until the early 7th century, so, when Romanian emerged (between the 6th-8th centuries), the territories were not isolated from other Romance languages for more than a thousand years (as you insinuate)!!!


 * Secondly: "Friedrich Diez, was to become the first specialist in Romance Philology, at Bonn" is not the same as "Friedrich Diez, who was the first scholar systematically studying Romance philology" and also, not the same with the current wording, "Friedrich Diez, who was the one of the first scholars systematically studying Romance philology". Again WP:OR ??


 * Thirdly: Yes, in this context, Nevertheless is a cunning language used in order to insinuate that although the Romanian language was characterized (by so many "reputable specialists in Romance philology") as Slavic, today (after this "relatinization" process) has come to be considered as (more and more) Romance. .... WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:SYN ??


 * To be continued.
 * (Rgvis (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC))


 * And yes, the template has been used properly (Template:Original research inline): "The intention of this tag is to nudge fellow editors who may inadvertently (or otherwise) introduce text that appears based upon original research, into supporting such text through demonstrating its previously researched origins. This tag provides a good faith means for editors to allow given text of fellow editors to remain temporarily in a given article until such time as the text's previously researched origins are supported."


 * Your texts are still not supported. (Rgvis (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC))


 * I am afraid you are unable to understand and compare basic English texts. Nobody says that Romanian had been isolated from Western Romance languages before it emerged. Please also read Close paraphrasing.Borsoka (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Nobody, but you: Romanian emerged in territories which were isolated from other Romance languages for more than a thousand years. (!!) (Rgvis (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC))
 * You are unable to understand basic English texts. Borsoka (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sure :)
 * In the meantime, you better try to reformulate. (Rgvis (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC))
 * , Nandris says that Romanian was isolated from Western Romance from around 500 to around 1500. We should reflect this message in the article instead of claiming that Romanian developed isolated from the Western Romance languages from around 950 to around 1950 (that you are trying to suggest). Borsoka (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Nandris refers to the time span between the East-West linguistic separation and the present date (1951), which means "more than 1000 years". As long as the separation period is an intuitive one (over several centuries), it was reasonable to use this wording. In this context, there was no reason for him to refer to 1500, as long as the East-West linguistic separation not only did not end in the 1500s, but also remains a reality of our times.


 * Anyway, I noticed that in the meantime you have realized your own error, by replacing the word "emerged" with "developed". (Rgvis (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC))
 * Do you think Romanians have been isolated from Italians, French, Spanish people during the last 1000 years? I suggest you should read more books on Romanian history. Borsoka (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Unfortunetely for the Romanians, yes. In fact, this is exactly what we are talking about, when we refer to these concepts - "relatinization", "Romance westernization", etc. - which are more complex than they seem.
 * Anyhow, Nandris refers to the physical territory (and its isolated status) as a determining factor of the subsequent evolution. (Rgvis (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC))

Scope of the article
As I understand, in Romanian literature "re-latinization" refers to the process when Romanian adopted a number of Latin and Romance loanwords, thus its predominantly non-Romance vocabulary was "re-latinized". However, in English literature, this term is much broader (as it is obvious from Mallinson and Schulte's texts): it refers also to changes in grammar, which strengthened the Romance character of the language. When we are talking about terminology, we should take into account only English terminology. For instance, goulash can only made of beef in Hungary (as it is obvious from the word: "cattle-breeder's soup"). However, in English-speaking countries we can eat "fish goulash". We cannot say that goulash cannot be made of fish, because "goulash" in English can refer to any soup containing much onion and paprika. Similarly, we cannot use Romanian literature about the use of the Romanian word for "re-Latinization", because we are discussing English terminology. I suggest that the whole section dedicated to (Romanian) terminology should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * now you beginn trolling and spin-doctoring about your own sources, brought by yourself into this article. You`re trying to delegitimate your own sources, since you just discovered they say the opposite of your allegations. Too much is too much. You`re already behaving disuptivly.
 * onion, goulash, fish, English, Romanian, this all is really a pathetic try of spin-doctoring and trolling. It is simply appaling.
 * Contributor(Non-registered) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.9.45 (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I did not bring them into this article. Would you please read my above message? Borsoka (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @Borsoka: "its predominantly non-Romance vocabulary was "re-latinized". Does this conclusion come from your personal research studies? (Rgvis (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC))
 * No, it came from multiple sources cited in the article. You should read before editing. Borsoka (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "thus its predominantly non-Romance vocabulary was "re-latinized"" No offence, but what have you been smoking? The vocabulary of Romanian has always been predominantly Romance, as can be confirmed by documents in Romanian from the 1500s onward. The Romanian used in those documents is perfectly understandable to Romanian speakers today, much moreso than Shakespearean English is to English speakers! An example, and another. There are many more, including the earliest printed documents by Coresi from the 1500s, which I will not link for your targeted trolling. DalbozDuncanthrax (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We edit articles based on reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Primary sources and lexical analyses performed by academics on those primary sources are more reliable than the sweeping statements by the "reliable sources" that you use as a smokescreen to justify your soapbox. This text by Ioan-Aurel Pop, President of the Romanian Academy and Rector of Babes-Bolyai University in Cluj can be considered a very reliable source owing to his credentials (he's one of the most erudite historians of our time - if you reject him you might as well reject every other Romanian with a point of view on his own language). On page 18 he lists several old Romanian documents and their etymological breakdown. I doubt this will enlighten you or sway you from your point of view, since you literally speak from ignorance - you don't know Romanian, so how could you appreciate that documents from the 1500s read the same today? Even if I linked you to scans of those original documents it would not change your mind. You just cherry-pick "sources" to suit your narrative. Very interesting that a Hungarian has such a vested interest in the Romanian language, and with such loaded words. DalbozDuncanthrax (talk) 00:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Did he convince top 100 US universities? If not, then it may only be stated with attribution, see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. About smoking: the basic vocabulary of the Romanian language is Latin, nobody denied that. However, most of other words are either of Slavic origin or are neologisms. And AFAIK the plan of the Latinists to reshape the language essentially failed. If Romanian language became more Latin-like, it was not due to their efforts, but due to its own dynamic in a context of modernization. So, Romanian kids did not learn about it in school because it was a failure. If it were a success, it would have been embellished by nationalists as a recovery of origins (golden age) or something like that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What kind of goalpost shifting is it that requires a published article of the President of the Romanian Academy to convince top 100 US universities? Do other sources meet this level of scrutiny? The proportion of Latin words in the medieval documents mentioned by Pop are indisputable facts, not the subject of opinion. "However, most of other words are either of Slavic origin or are neologisms." This thesis is misleading, since as it has been demonstrated many times starting with B.P. Hasdeu, the words used in circulation are mostly of Latin origin, regardless of what vestiges swell up the lexicon. The same is demonstrated in the lexical analysis mentioned above, where the neologisms are implicitly removed (since they did not exist yet). "If Romanian language became more Latin-like, it was not due to their efforts, but due to its own dynamic in a context of modernization." I agree with you entirely, but the intention of the original author of this article is for the reader to draw the former conclusion and not the latter (see the earliest versions of the article). The whole purpose of the article is to misinform and push an agenda. DalbozDuncanthrax (talk) 03:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not what WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV means. I did not state that Pop is wrong, only that that's not the WP:RS/AC. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Language shift
There is an article dedicated to the process of language shift. If you think, the article does not properly define it, you can modify it. (Actually, it properly defines the language shift in the very first sentence). If there is a wl, there is not explanation for not linking it. Borsoka (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * As already, many times explained, according to Grant, the meaning of the term to which he refers does not correspond to the Wikipedia article to which the reference was made. In this case, a concise explanation is preferred. As per WP:MOSLINK, "Beware of linking to an article without first confirming that it is helpful in context; the fact that its title matches the concept you wish to link to does not guarantee that it deals with the desired topic at all." (Rgvis (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC))
 * , what is the difference between Grant's language shift and the language shift as it is explained in the proper article? The latter defines language shift as "the process whereby a community of speakers of a language shifts to speaking a completely different language, usually over an extended period of time. Often, languages that are perceived to be higher status stabilise or spread at the expense of other languages that are perceived by their own speakers to be lower-status. An example is the shift from Gaulish to Latin that occurred in what is now France during the time of the Roman Empire." Borsoka (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And where is the equivalent with what Grant says? (Rgvis (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC))
 * Do you say that language shift from Celtic to Anglosaxon was different from the shift from Gaulish to Latin? Borsoka (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And, consequently, the connection with the Romanian language would be ....? (Rgvis (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC))
 * From Illyrian, Thracian, Dacian or Moesian to Latin. Borsoka (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So, the Wikipedia article on language shift would not address the current context that refers to the Romanian language (and not to Illyrian, Thracian, Dacian, Moesian, Gaulish, or Celtic). (Rgvis (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC))
 * Yes, it does not refer to Romanian, but it explains the expression. Borsoka (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, I will not wage an edit war on this minor issue. Sooner or later an editor will add the same wikilink. Borsoka (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, everything can be challenged, anytime, but in this particular case, it would be a mistake. If the expression does not refer to the Romanian language, then the link to it does not belong to this article. (Rgvis (talk) 07:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC))

Some inadequacies in dealing with the bibliographic sources
The problem I'm reporting is about text in the sources which does not match the corresponding passages in the article. Meaning that in some places the article does not accurately and correctly render and summarize the content from the source text.

I've prepared a couple of examples to support the editors in their good work.

1. Wexler Paul, The case for the Relexification Hypothesis in Rumanian, in Relexification in Creole and Non-Creole Languages, edited by Julia Horvath and Paul Wexler, Mediterranen Language and Culture, Monograph Series, Volume 13, Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden, 1997, ISBN 3-447-03954-X, 162-188

The WP text creates the impression that Kopitar really worked out a study on the relexification of Romanian. Actually, the original source (Paul Wexler) writes in one short sentence that Kopitar “alluded a suggestion” in this sense, with no further indication or source. A fugitive and unsourced claim in the original text is presented as indicating a real piece of research. What Wexler very cautiously says about Kopitar is not solid enough a proof to cite Kopitar in this context. In order to cite Kopitar, we should find some indications from Kopitar himself mentioning, explicitly or not, relexification: even a slight hint in this direction would suffice, if genuinely from Kopitar.

2. Millar, Robert McColl, Trask's Historical Linguistics. Routledge. Routledge, London&New York, 2015, ISBN 978-0-415-70657-5 p. 292 http://lolita.unice.fr/~scheer/scan/Trask%2015%20(3rd%20ed%20by%20McColl%20Millar)%20-%20Historical%20linguistics.pdf

What the source writes is: ' The Romance language Romanian has borrowed so many Slavonic words that scholars for a while believed it was'' a Slavonic language. '''

Analysing this quote within its context, it becomes clear that the sentence regarding the Romanian language was just one among an enumeration of examples aimed at illustrating that lexical borrowings, regardless of how considerable they are, don't change the nature of the language. The sense of the phrase, as intended by the authors, is that even a Romance language like Romanian has been for a while mistakenly considered to be Slavic, due to the massive borrowings from Slavic. The WP text turns one single element within an enumeration of examples aimed to illustrate a point into something not intended by the authors, namely into a conclusion of the linguistic research. If we want to back the claim that Romanian has been considered for a while as Slavic, we should find a source which really states what we try to demonstrate.

I would suggest that we first fix these two problems, since there are further shortcomings to deal with.

188.104.109.153 (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time and comparing certain texts in the article and in the sources verifying it. I think if you compare the relevant texts, you will always find that the cited sources verify the text in the article (as it is demonstrated by the above comparison). Borsoka (talk) 05:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it would be helpful to specify when was Romanian regarded as a Slavic languages by whom. I really doubt that it was ever a mainstream view. 86.120.222.195 (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a relevant piece of information. Borsoka (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Quotes
Anon, why do you think that we should copy lengthy quotes from scholars works if their core statement can easily be summarized? Please also read WP:3RR, because edit warring may have serious consequences. Borsoka (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC) Borsoka erased many lines of other editors saying: you should copy all quote and not to summarise! Dubious man Borsoka. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.183.100 (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

"So-called"
, please remember WP:English and WP:Due. Works written by specialists of Romanian linguistic and published in English write of the relatinization of Romanian without using quotes or adding the words "so-called". (I can refer for instace to the works of Schulte and Mallinson cited in the article.) Why do you think we should ignore basic WP policies. Borsoka (talk) 03:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "So-called" triggered on a vandalism site I use. And it's not a very encyclopedic term. The article seems to have enough contention that I rewrote the sentence to use "theory". And as I mention in my edit summary, if the concept is wrong, take it to AfD or DR to get outside opinions rather than having a never-ending fight here. Slywriter (talk) 03:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your comment. Re-latinization/re-romanization is not a theory - it is a well-attested process in the development of the Romanian language. Borsoka (talk) 03:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's a misnomer. And I'm still waiting for a source from you that uses this term like it's an established phenomenon, rather than just a label. From your earliest version of the article, it seems you didn't have any. DalbozDuncanthrax (talk) 03:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I referred to books above. You can also read the quotes from linguists in the last section ("Recent trends") which proves that re-latinization/re-romanization continues. Borsoka (talk) 04:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Wexler solely writing "a suggestion was alluded ... by Kopitar" is not enough a source for a Kopitar's alleged work
In the article we have the information: In the early 19th century, the Slovene linguist, Jernej Kopitar, suggested that Romanian emerged through the relexification either of an ancient Balkan language or of a Slavic idiom, instead of directly developing from Vulgar Latin.

As the only source of this information we have the phrase of Wexler: "Such a suggestion was alluded to in the early 19 century by the Slovene linguist Kopitar".

A fugitive and unsourced allegation of Wexler is presented as indicating a real piece of research of Kopitar. What Wexler very cautiously says about Kopitar is not solid enough a proof to mention Kopitar as if he really did a research on the topic.

In order to mention Kopitar, we should find some indications from Kopitar himself mentioning relexification, explicitly or not.

This is a clear case of presenting an opinion as a fact WP:NPOV: Wexler's claim about what Kopitar might have researched is presented as a real research work of Kopitar.

Horea Vêntilă (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, we do not need to refer to Kopitar (as per WP:Source) and the wording ("... Kopitar suggested ...") makes it clear that it was Kopitar's PoV. Borsoka (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "the wording ("... Kopitar suggested ...") makes it clear that it was Kopitar's PoV"
 * The Wexler's wording "Kopitar suggested" only makes clear what Wexler claimed about Kopitar's PoV. We should reword this information according to the source, that is, Wexler mentioned Kopitar as having alluded a suggestion of relexification Horea Vêntilă (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not have time to discuss your misinterpretation of basic WP policies, such as WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Please discuss it at Teahouse. Borsoka (talk) 08:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Latinists

 * For instance, they proposed that the Romanian words for fountain and land (modern Romanian fântână and țară) should be rendered by fontana and ventu

Either write the Latinist word for "land" or change the references to "wind" and vânt. As it is now it is inconsistent. I don't have access to the reference, so I cannot copy what it does. --Error (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your note. I fixed the problem. Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 8 June 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Re-latinization of Romanian → Modernization of the Romanian language – "Re-latinisation" is a biased term and may lead to misunderstandings: there were a lot of administrative terms that were changed because the administrative system changed, but among those terms there were also latin terms like "spătar" which was a function in the state administration and it comes from the latin word "spata" (sword) Thus, while old words were taken out of use, some new ones were imported. Old words, were not just slavic/turkish/greek but also latin. While the new words were mainly french/italian/neo-latin because they fitted better to the latin core of romanian, there were also german words like "pantofi" (from german Pantoffel ) In Western-Europe, starting from Age of Enlightenment, there were a lot of neo-latin borrowings, romanian just got to this "trend" a bit later on. Romanian got modernized in the 19th century, it did not get "re-latinized" Nicu.Obsescu (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide sources for your proposal. Super   Ψ   Dro  16:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Are studies in Romanian good enough? Nicu.Obsescu (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be advised to provide sources from both non-Romanians, but also from peoples not neighbouring them (which may be biased too). American sources are a good example. Super   Ψ   Dro  16:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Re-latinization/re-romanization is the terminus technicus used in the reliable sources cited in the article. Furthermore, the development and change of vocabulary is only one aspect of this process, because re-latinization has influenced (and still influences) morphology as well. Borsoka (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide sources for the claim that the modernization of Romanian language affected the morphology. It affected only the vocabulary, that's why they are only neologisms (that is the terminus technicus ), the language got modernized, not re-latinized. Nicu.Obsescu (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Provide WP:RS that it is not called re-latinization or leave. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not made any statement about modernization. Re-latinization affected the morphology as scholars cited in "Section 3.3 Recent trends" explain it. Borsoka (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose No WP:RS have been provided. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose no sources given by nominator. Super   Ψ   Dro  16:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * This article itself mentions the same problem as I did in the second paragraph of "Terminology":
 * "Linguist Maria Aldea emphasizes that the term reromanizare is not adequate to describe the linguistic process which has enriched the Romanian vocabulary with new words of Latin or Romance origin since the early 19th century.[1] Ioana Moldovanu-Cenușă emphasizes the differences between the "Roman Westernization", which took place in Moldavia and Wallachia under the influences of the Age of Enlightenment, and the "re-latinization" carried out by the representatives of the Transylvanian School and of the "Latinist current".[2] Historian Ioan-Aurel Pop points out that the lack of precision of the terms may lead to confusion, because the Latin character of the Romanian language was already noticed in the 15th century, placing it in the group of Romance languages.[3]"
 * Modernization is a broader term that encompases all the terms mentioned in "Terminology".Nicu.Obsescu (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * But if we took this meaning to the event, it wouldn't be WP:notable and deserve an article, as all languages evolve and take more and more loanwords. What I am trying to say is that the adoption of foreign loanwords by the Romanian language is not particularly relevant as all languages do the same, but the fact that most of those words were Romance is a bit more at least, and it is the reason why there's an article of such a thing. Take in account there are more French loanwords than Slavic words in Romanian, which is pretty relevant and deserves an article for explaining how did this happen. Super   Ψ   Dro  19:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, thanks a lot for your patience! I can see your point, french/italian/neo-latin borrowings are more than the ones from slavic languages because in modern times notions and objects got more diverse than in the medieval times from which slavic borrowings date, but we need to look at the type of neo-latin borrowings, they are all modern words and in order to prove that, we need to look at some list of french borrowings into serbian for example... I found a list here: https://www.ezglot.com/etymologies.php?l=hbs&l2=fra&lang=eng As a romanian speaker i can recognize a lot of these words. Those are neologism in serbian, this is how serbian got modernized. Why do we need to call the same process that romanian went through as "re-latinization" ?
 * Thanks again for your patience! Nicu.Obsescu (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I know nothing about Serbian and the origin of its words but I assume the amount of loanwords from French is lower and comparable to that of Russian words, for example. Since no language particularly stands out as a source of loanwords for Serbian, we have an article called Loanwords in Serbian. Since French and Italian stand out for Romanian, we have an article called "Re-latinization of Romanian" (although a page called Loanwords in Romanian could also be possible). We must also take in account under what intention were words from these languages chosen, which was presicely for making the language more Romance. Super   Ψ   Dro  19:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply! The French-Serbian list i've linked earlier was because the same words serbian borrowed from french, romanian borrowed too. Romanian borrowed more from neo-latin languages because neo-latine languages fit better to the latin core of romanian. Nicu.Obsescu (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Irony
Ironically, the phonetic evolution of words borrowed from Latin is more slavic than Latin. Especially the evolution of most words of Latin origin that end in -(t)io into -(ț)ie. Ilinca2000 (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Some conclusions after the first Nomination for Deletion 17.10.2022 – 24.10.2022
This article presents two major types of fallacies making it severely deficient: fallacious content and fallacious verifiability.

Fallacious Content WP:POINT

The article was created in order to demonstrate a certain view, namely, that Romanian experienced some sort of language shift from an unclear Romance-Slavic mix to a Romance language. The ground narrative proposed by this article reads as: “Since Romanian had problems in demonstrating its belonging to the Romance language family, a huge operation of Latinisation has been organized, in order to make Romanian more Latin”. The whole article is structured as a dramaturgy to serve this basic narrative.

In this article the Romanian language is presented as ''having 'problems' from the outset, initially being like some kind of tangled Creole language with nebulous and unclear status, regarded with scepticism by linguists. In order to solve these 'problems', Romanian nationalists launched a huge campaign of ”Latinization“ to radically change the language into a Romance one.''
 * It goes without saying that these premises are entirely false, devoid of any plausibility and in no way supported by the scientific literature. This article is a blatant example of pseudoscience.

(The full belonging to the Romance language family has been acknowledged already in the pre-modern times and all the more so by the study of Romance languages, people felt no need to over-demonstrate this, no operation of Latinisation has ever been organised. What really happened was a linguistic modernisation, as vigorous as the modernisation of the society in the nineteenth century, mainly through massive lexical borrowing from French, in order to acquire the lexical tools necessary for the new modern era. This is a phenomenon common to many societies, right up to the present day. Attributing latinate intentionality and ideological planning to linguistic modernization is a huge fallacy making this article irreparable.)

Fallacious Verifiability WP:VERIFY

Precisely because the narrative proposed by the article finds no confirmation in the scientific community, quotes are misused in order to support statements in the text: by cherry-picking sources to suit the narrative or, when the references were checked, the original quotes did not pass the verification test (either they were not found or were interpreted in a very personal manner)
 * Some examples of misleading dealing with sources:

- Confirmation bias. The article searches for, favours and interprets only those sources which confirm or support the narrative described

- Excessive use of tertiary and quaternary sources: sources where author D. notes – unsourced – about what author C. tells – unsourced – about what author B. reports about the primary source. Through this indirect method, much information gets lost or distorted

- Reputable primary and secondary sources are deliberately ignored if they do not fit the point of view of the article

- Citing misleading allegations made by certain authors, blatantly contradicting the primary sources referred to and the consensus of the scientific community

- Indication of bibliographic sources unrelated to the claims in the article (no verification at all)

- Undue interpretation of sources, either by distorting the meaning of the source or by blatantly contradicting it

- Vague, scarce and unsourced suggestions in the source are presented as indicating a real piece of reliable research

- Fringe theories presented as solid, consensual works, if they suit the narrative of the article
 * The article displays too many misused quotations just in order to fit the initial point of view. The bias is irreparable. Both in content and verifiability, this article is a mess.

It is actually very regrettable, since the modernisation of the Romanian language was a real historical process and is an interesting and very complex topic, worth an encyclopedic entry. Anyway, not in this blatant simplistic and prejudiced way. I am optimistically looking forward for these terrible flaws to be addressed, in order to avoid a further nomination for deletion. Horea Vêntilă (talk) 09:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOR and WP:SOURCE before coming to conclusion obviously based on your own research. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Re-latinization and re-romanization as synonyms
Sources do use these terms as synonyms. For example: Gess, Randall Scott; Arteaga, Deborah (2006). Historical Romance Linguistics: Retrospective and Perspectives. John Benjamins Publishing. pp. 258–259. ISBN 9789027247889. If there are issues surrounding terminology, these should be added in the section "Terminology" with reliable sources. The lead should be a summary of the article, sources are generally not required. Nevertheless, there are even references confirming the lead specifically now. RF354 (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Process included words from German, French and Italian
It is obvious by looking that only two other languages, this articles has versions in - Serbian and Russian, it serves as an disinformation tool. This gave effect, as there is almost no single Serbian who doesn't believe that Romanian was Slavic language.

It is even supported by Serbian scientific institutes. I will have to complaint on www disnformation.eu on spreading of fake facts. Let me mention that the EU is in process of gathering data on risk that Wikipedia is a national security.

As for the content of the article, the fact that the neologism came from French or Italian, and not directly from Latim, makes the title and rest of it, simply wrong. 178.222.9.115 (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)