User talk:AdiJapan

Please, always write messages at the end of this page. Otherwise I might not notice them. Thank you. — Adi Japan   ☎

Welcome
Hi Adrian,

Welcome to English Wikipedia!

Sorry to welcome you by deleting edits you made. I now see you're a native Romanian speaker. Can I assume that you were being precise when you listed Romanian /o/ as a mid vowel, but /e/ as a close mid vowel? Sorry for the deletion in that case. (Japanese /e/ is a mid vowel, however, and was already listed.)

BTW, when you make an abbreviated language link, you need to use ; otherwise you end up with lots of links to the article on Ll.

kwami 11:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Shape-gender correlation
Hi, even if you weren't the one to first think of there being a correlation between shape and gender in IE languages, it still amounts to original research if you're not reporting on previously published research. Ideally there should be references not to websites but to published journal articles or books on the topic. Of course you don't need to cite a reference for the claim that German has three genders or for the claim that pomme is feminine in French, but you do need to cite a reference (or preferably several) for the claim that there is a significant correlation between shape and gender in IE languages. At the moment, it looks like you were the one who drew up the chart and did the statistical analysis to see what correlation exists. If you were, then this is original research and is unsuitable for Wikipedia. If that's the case, we need to take the page to Articles for deletion and let the community vote on whether or not to keep it. If you're pretty sure that there is published research you can report on out there, then I'd suggest moving it to a user page of yours (for example, you could call it User:AdiJapan/Shape-gender correlation) and working on it there until it's encyclopedia-ready. --Angr/undefined 06:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll nominate for WP:AFD, then, shall I? --Angr/undefined 08:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

More Shape-gender correlation talk
Hey, it just seemed odd to me to pick three languages derived from latin. Why not just use Latin itself? Time has only obscurred whatever original correlations existed. It would be better to use older languages closer to the Indo-European root. The further back you go, the closer you get to those ancient people who for some strange reason gave certain inanimate objects gender and others none.

"Moldovan language"
Salut Adi,

maybe you will have time to look at the Moldovan language. There are a lot of lies there and maybe you can help us. Bonaparte  talk  &  contribs
 * I agree with you but something must be done. Bonaparte  talk  &  contribs

Ronline for Admin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ronline and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Ronline. I have nominated Ronline to be Administrator for English Wikipedia. Let's vote for him! Bonaparte  talk  &  contribs

Bucharest
Thanks Adi!! This article already beats many articles about major world cities and I hope it will soon become FA. Ronline 11:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Daco-Romanian
Hi! My response to the Daco-Romanian issue is at Talk:Aromanian language (Daco-Romanian or Romanian? section. Thanks, Ronline 08:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Alexander for Admin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alexander_007 ,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Alexander_007. I've nominated User:Alexander_007 as admin. Let's vote for him! -- Bonaparte  talk  &amp;  contribs  14:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Our forum
Welcome to the Romanian Wikipedia notice board! This page is a portal for all Romanian-related topics and a place for Romanian editors to gather and socialize and debate. Discussions are encouraged, in both English and Romanian. Post any inquiry under their relevant cathegory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Romanian_Wikipedian%27s_notice_board

--Anittas 18:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Moldovan talk
Impresia mea este ca acea pagina de talk nu este decat un terioriu in care daca nu se schimba insulte, se discuta pe langa subiect. --Vasile 17:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

atac vandal fascist
Second Vienna Award First Vienna Award Treaty of Trianon Ce se poate face? -- Bonaparte  talk  &amp;  contribs  19:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Am adus si o sa mai aduc dovezi, dupa cum ai vazut. Si cu Gr. Ureche, D. Cantemir, samd cine a adus?(asta a fost ieri - nu uita ca eu de 23 de zile nu am editat articolul ca sa va faceti voi loc) Oricum o sa aduc curand ceva dovezi si atunci o sa am nevoie si de sprijinul tau. Pace si numai bine. -- Bonaparte  talk  &amp;  contribs  20:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ai vazut ca am adus acele contributii la articolul "artificial evolution from Romanian to Moldovan".-- Bonaparte  talk  13:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Moldoveneasca
Oameni buni, aici avem nevoie de unitate si de mai multa cooperare intre noi. Node este enervant, ce-i drept. Insa e adevarat ca e si pus la punct cu propaganda anti-Romaneasca iar noi nu venim cu surse care sa-i inchida pliscul. Propun ca sa venim cu articole, nu sa facem copy-paste dar sa dam numai adresa de unde se poate accesa articolulConstantzeanu 22:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Am facut si ceva concret, sper sa ma sustii. -- Bonaparte  talk  15:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Anyway you did a great job if you made it. Actually your example inspired me. You'll have a medal for it.-- Bonaparte  talk  13:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sa stii ca nu cedez asa usor. Eu sunt un invingator. Nu accept prostiile lui copchilu'. Nu suport minciunile. Din cauza lui copchilu' l-am pierdut pe Bogdan.-- Bonaparte  talk  13:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Am suficienta rabdare sa castigam. Dupa aceea mi se incheie si mie mandatul.-- Bonaparte  talk  13:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Poate tu nu iti mai amintesti ce rau arata pagina mai demult. Am si eu rolul meu si vom reusi. Te salut. Succes in Japonia! Sunt mandru de tine si de realizarile tale.-- Bonaparte  talk  13:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Daca nu sunt eu apar altii. Fii convins de acest lucru, de altfel dupa cum ai putut vedea. Aceste minciuni nu pot rezista. Nu au nici o baza. Si nu sunt eu cel mai mare ... . -- Bonaparte  talk  13:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Vrea cineva sa te propuna Admin. Vrei? Bonaparte   talk  15:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Romanian diphthongs
Hi, I noticed that in your edits of Romanian phonology diphthongs and thriphthongs you made the decision to put the circumflex over semivocalic vowels. However, I suggest that you might want to use the symbol that marks nonsyllabic vowels, which I think is what you're going for. I would do it myself without asking, but I figured since it looks like you put your heart and soul into that article I'd ask first. If you want help (it looks like it would be a lot of work) I can certainly assist you in the conversion. AEuSoes1 05:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's disapointing that the has some kinks in it.  Although I think you're probably holding it to a higher standard than I would, I noticed that, which indicates rapid articulation, is missing those kinks you were worried about.  I'm no expert, but rapid articulation is probably close enough to being nonsyllabic that it can work for the article.  AEuSoes1 09:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * All right, I changed the article. But there did seem to be some oddities.

AEuSoes1 04:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * seems incorrect for , both because the two vowels are the same (making it a long vowel, not a diphthong) and because omniglot indicates that it is .  I don’t know your source for the diphthongs and triphthongs, but it wouldn’t hurt to look at what omniglot says they are.
 * The IPA transcription of ceainic ends the word with a palatal stop. That seems like a mistake since Romanian doesn’t have palatal stops.  I'm guessing it's supposed to be /k/ but you're the expert.
 * there are two different spellings for “Undershirt” maieu and maiou. What’s worse is that they are examples for two different triphthongs.  This is either a mistake or the translation isn’t marking the distinction between the two
 * the article indicates that is a vowel, but in the IPA, this is the symbol to indicate palatalization, which makes it sound ridiculous to state that a sound is palatalized before it.  It may just be, as omniglot indicates, a


 * From the pdf it sounds like i at the end of words is /j/. It would certainly palatalize the preceding consonant and I would imagine that it could easily turn into simple palatalization in more rapid speech or whatever.  The thing about  is that it is not even a separate sound.  I think that /j/ would probably be best if it is a separate sound.  If not, then I think we should conform the discussion closer to the way linguists would describe it rather than native speakers; that is, call it palatalization but mention that speakers perceive it as a vowel.  Omniglot says that it is straight palatalization but as we both know, omniglot can be very wrong sometimes.


 * According to the pdf, all of the apicals are dental. If this is the case, we ought to either move all the alveolar sounds to dental or merge them into an apical category and mention that they’re dental.  Although we could also put a dental subscript on every t, d, n, ts, l, and r, I think that that would be unnecessary.


 * It also says that e and o are open mid (including as semivowels). So we might want to change the symbols for those.  I’ve noticed that there has been the wikipedia convention to put sounds that appear only in foreign borrowings in perenthesis.  We should do this for ø.


 * Mention of /ii/ is missing in the pdf, as well as /eo/, /eu/,, /ieu/, /ioi/, /iou/, /uai/, /uau/, and /uəi/. As for undershirt, I think that it's confusing to the reader having two different spellings (not just pronunciations) for the same word.  I recommend changing one of them to another example. AEuSoes1 00:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Romanian Vowel chart
I'm glad you looked up my arguments for removing the links. There is a way to have a link without underlining but I'm not quite sure how to do it. It might be in the code for the Template:CSS IPA vowel chart. If you can find out how, I'd recommend it. Otherwise, I would take the links off because the mid vowels actually are obscured by the underline since they have lowering diacritics. In addition, because they're in a table that indicates their important features, linking isn't nearly as necessary.

BTW, I noticed that some of the examples have the palatalization marker ( superscript j) before the consonant... is that supposed to be a stress marker that someone goofed on? AEuSoes1 05:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's true that you can set whether links are underlined or not, but there is apparantly a way to force it to not do so. I don't think that we should operate with the assumption that a reader will understand that they need to have their underlining taken off for wikipedia to be at its most optimal.  We should go with the assumption that our readers have the most common browser (Internet Explorer) with the most common settings (default I would imagine).  I'll give you a couple of days to figure out how to force a de-underline of links and change it in the Romanian phonology page, otherwise I'm taking the links off because, honestly, I think they're redundant in the table.  AEuSoes1 14:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I came off a bit harsh. I was sorta in a rush to get out the door.  I'm not sure why you say that the default in IE is without links.  It's always been underlined for me on both of my computers (the settings of which I have not changed) as well as public computers that I've been on with IE.  The consensus with IPA is to not link it... I'm not sure what else I can say.  I can tolerate a non-underlined link but I don't want to make the effort to do so.  In addition, the vast majority of vowel and consonant charts on Wikipedia are de-linked so there is also the consistency factor.  AEuSoes1 04:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've started a discussion in the consonant chart templates talk page regarding the underline. What I recommend as far as the Romanian phonology page is to expand the Examples table into something like this:

If the table gets a little wide, you could provide fewer examples.

The discussion about linking IPA is not in Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia:Manual of style (pronunciation) (although after I noticed it I began making changes accordingly and a discussion ensued afterwards there) but twice in Template talk:IPA. AEuSoes1 03:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Surprised
Hi Joe. I just stumbled upon this request for Bonaparte's unblocking here and I saw the list of his main contributions to Wikipedia. I said, hmm, let's see what he could be proud of, and checked a few. Well, I must say I was pretty surprised to see things I didn't think he could ever write. I mean good stuff. What strikes me is that in those articles (I checked specifically his contribution alone) his English is a lot better than in the discussion pages and he is very articulate in a number of very different fields (linguistics, zoology, education, etc.). This is enough for me to realize that he could not have written those articles himself, but on the other hand I was unable to google out even one sentence from those articles. Do you have any idea what could be going on? In some articles he gives books as references, so it could be that he just typed passages from those books. Still, I am surprised to see this side of Bonaparte. Do you know more? — Adi Japan   ☎  18:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I really don't know. He seemed to me a very mixed bag.


 * I don't believe he was merely copying, or at least not as a rule, because often his articles give online sources that had clearly been more or less appropriately paraphrased (although I often followed behind to fix aspects of his English). His work in articles (excepting the occasional edit war, and as against his writing on talk pages, where he was often petulant), is consistently decent, though never dazzling. Usually it is more or less a paraphrase of something from a book or periodical, but in general paraphrase is OK. Especially, paraphrasing a single item in a specialized reference book or a single newspaper story for use in this radically different context should be both academically and legally defensible, as long as the original is credited.


 * Unlike some others, I've never had strong feelings either way about Bonaparte. I originally guessed him to be younger than he apparently is, and now that I gather that he's well into his twenties I find his behavior a bit childish, but I never doubted that he can be a useful contributor.


 * Is it possible that some of his contributions are copyvios? Sure. But I'd be surprised if that proved to be a pervasive pattern.


 * FWIW, many people write better English in articles than on discussion pages. Aşa cum eu pot să scrie mai bun romaneşte acasa cu dicţionar că pot să scrie acum la servici fară dicţionar. Şi este corect aici, este numai noroc. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

html vs unicode
The main reason I reverted is because if we want to switch to the actual semivowel diacritic then it will be a little bit harder. But while I'm here, I was thinking that we should change ĭ and ŭ to j and w respectively. I was talking to a phonologist today who informed me that since no language contrasts the two, it's not an important difference. And it's less cluttery to use the diacritics and state somewhere the difference if applicable. And then since we're not using the semivowel diacritic for i, we can use the actual semivowel underdiacritic since your main objection was that it wasn't centered under i. Apparantly something has changed in unicode so that it isn't an underline, even in the smallest fonts. And THEN since we won't be needing to change them to any other diacritic I'll have no objection to using the unicode character instead of the html code. Whadaya say? AEuSoes1 07:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should go with clarity for the internet browser that most people use, however I am also using Internet Explorer (v 6.026) and it isn't the underline. I don't know what specific changes my computer has made since we last made changes to the diacritic we used.  The best thing to do, I think, is to mention in the article what the diacritic means so that readers will understand no matter what. I said it was easier because e&#774; is easier to change to the semivowel diacrtic than ĕ, at least the way I like to change things.  AEuSoes1 20:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've talked with kwami about this sort of thing as well, and I've read what he said to you. I'm not convinced that what he says is accurate.  Semivowels are a type of approximant and so contrasting the two as he does is not quite right.  He also seems to think of Language as having some sort of solid contrast between vowels and consonants, and that is also not the case.  He is wrong when he says that some languages contrast  and [w] because no language does.  They are, indeed, phonetically different but not phonologically (The English example he put has a stress difference, and if it did not they would be virtual homonyms).  The linguist I spoke to said something similar to what kwami was saying about the articulation.  He pointed out a continuous range that included sounds like like, , , ,  etc.  AEuSoes1 00:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Lexical similarity
Hi, thanks for your new article on Lexical similarity. One suggestion: it might be necessary to include some discussion of the problems associated with the concept, especially with the methods of quantifying it. I'm sure that if people have been calculating such numbers, they must have been aware that there isn't really one single obvious way of counting such similarites. The article as it stands seems to give a mistaken idea to the non-expert reader that these measures are somehow fixed and unproblematic. Lukas (T. 08:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for researching this! I can't access that paper that quickly from here either, but I've now also added the reference to the page. Lukas (T. 07:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To Do
Salut,

I've just created this: Romanian Wikipedians' notice board/to do. If you can, would you please help with populationg the lists?

Multzam Mihai -talk 13:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Japanese
Hi AdiJapan, at Talk:Sound symbolism I certainly didn't want to imply that the part on Japanese sound symbolism was a copyright violation or something. Probably my choice of words wasn't exactly appropriate there; I'm sorry for that, probably got carried away. Hope you'll take no offense. &mdash; mark &#9998; 16:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you clarify this
Hello Adi,

Could you clarify the usage of ' as in <>, <> etc. in Romanian at this discusion. ThxMihai -talk 21:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Romanian nouns
With regard to blank lines I don't have a preference but it is one of the automatic "clean ups" built in to WP:AWB. If you're inclined to change the article back (minus spelling error etc) please go ahead. --Ian Pitchford 07:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Romani din Japonia
Salut! Am vazut ca traiesti in Japonia si vroiam sa te intreb daca nu ai o idee cam cati romanii ar locui acolo. Ne trebuie pt articolul Romanians, sa adaugam cat mai multe tari. Mersi ! NorbertArthur 28 Martie 2006

Aha, pai atunci mersi mult si ne mai auzim. Numai bine ! NorbertArthur 29 Martie 2006

Spiritism
Hi, Adijapan! Could you tell me if is there any article in Romanian Wikipedia about it? If not, could you help me translating it, actually a simplified version of the English article? Arges 02:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Romanian nouns
I've fixed a certain bug and now the mistaken edit is sure never to occur. Thanks for bringing it to my attention in the first place. MOD 11:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Romanian numbers
I'd like to suggest an article about the Romanian number system. There are some interesting (and, to learners, possibly confusing) aspects of Romanian numbers that would merit an article. For example:


 * The use of de as a quantifier — not only between certain numbers and the following noun, but within certain numbers themselves. A student of Romanian might forget, for example, whether a number such as 105 should be followed by de (because 105 &ge; 20), or not (because 5 < 20).


 * When şi should, or should not, appear in a number.


 * Whether, in numbers ending in 1 or 2, there should or should not be gender agreement between the number and the noun.

I find the use of de in Romanian numbers particularly interesting, because it's very different from the way numbers work in other Romance languages. It suggests to me that the entire Romanian number system may have been reconstructed in an analytic fashion long ago — possibly providing a clue to a substratum upon which early Romanian grew.

Richwales 05:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Your new article looks very good. I fixed a couple of very small things.

It might be helpful to have an example with a neuter noun and a larger number ending in 1 — e.g., 101 kg (= o sută una de kilograme, nu-i aşa?) — in order to emphasize the point that the noun really is plural in this situation, even though the number ends with a 1, and that neuter nouns, when they are plural, act exactly as if they were feminine.

In the example 101 dalmaţieni, where you said the de can be omitted for euphony, how is the 1 pronounced if the de is not used? Is it "o sută unu dalmaţieni", or "o sută un dalmaţieni"? (I assume it's "unu", but it might help to say this explicitly.)

Where you say the de is optional if the last two digits make a number smaller than 20, does this apply to numbers ending in 00? If not, you might want to say something like "if the last two digits make a number in the range 1-19".

How do constructions such as "una sută lei" (on paper money) fit into the numbering scheme? Is this just formal, archaic usage?

Richwales 23:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget ordinals! Richwales 14:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, calling the page "Romanian numerals" seems a bit awkward to me. My (native-speaker) sense of the word "numeral" is that it normally refers to a visual symbol representing a numeric concept. "Romanian numerals" sounds, to me, like a counterpart to Roman numerals, Arabic numerals, etc. I would probably prefer "Romanian numbers", or "Numbers in Romanian". Are there any Wikipedia pages about other languages' words for numbers that might provide a comparison? Richwales 15:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Look at the Numeral system page. Although a few of the articles referenced from that page talk about systems of words for numbers, most of the articles describe ways of using alphabetic or other symbols to represent numbers visually.  This is mostly consistent with my sense that "numeral" refers primarily to a visual symbol, not a word.  I understand your concern about "Romanian numbers" as possibly meaning some special kind of counting system.  Perhaps "Numbers in Romanian" would be best, unless someone else can come up with something better.  Richwales 20:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

For the collective numbers (in English), "the" is usually not used between "all" and the number — e.g., "all four tires", not "all the four tires". The only example where I was a bit hesitant to make this correction to the translations was "all the seven dwarfs" — I feel you could keep the "the", but only if it were understood that you were talking about the Seven Dwarfs from the fairy tale or the Disney cartoon. Richwales 06:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Three things that might be worth mentioning regarding ordinals:


 * Pronunciation of words ending in -zecilea: Does the i become a full sound (because it has something after it now), or is it still a short / palatal / almost-silent sound? Stated another way, is the ending pronounced ze-ci-lea (three syllables), or zeci-lea (two syllables)?


 * Usage of ordinals in royal titles (after the name, not before; also, mention that an ordinal is used, as in English, since people who are familiar with other Romance languages might assume they should use a cardinal number instead of an ordinal)


 * (Non-)usage of ordinals in dates (English speakers might be tempted to use an ordinal for the day number, since that's what we do in English)

Richwales 22:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Another topic (possibly part of the section on collective numbers) would be the equivalent (in English) of the + number + noun. For example, "the five permanent members of the UN Security Council". My impression is that such constructions (in Romanian) use cei / cele in the plural, but would tend to use a definite form of un or singur where English uses "the one". It might also be worth talking a bit about Romanian counterparts to pronominal English uses of "one" — such as "not that one, this one!", or "I want the green one", or "this is the one I was talking about". Richwales 02:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Yuri Denisyuk with hologram.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Yuri Denisyuk with hologram.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 09:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A robot is talking to me, and -- funny... -- I'm talking back to it: Yes, OrphanBot, I did provide a rationale for uploading a copyrighted image. Go check. — Adi Japan   ☎  09:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Tehnoton
Adrian, Thanks for heeding the bat signal on ro:WP. You would do us all a big favor if you addded a sentence or two to make it a proper stub. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Noua Dreaptă
I'm trying to improve the article on Noua Dreaptă, which has lately been the subject of revert wars. There was one item on ND's web site that I didn't understand. The site mentioned a campaign against "tendinţa generală de manelizare a României". What does a maneliza mean? I couldn't find this word (or any related form) in my dictionary or in any online reference. If it turns out that this is a vulgar word, I apologize in advance for using it. Richwales 06:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator


 * Buna, poti sa-mi zici si mie ce se intampla cu votul de la wiki moldoveneasca? Si cum de Node ue a facut regulile asa singur. Cunoscand-ul pe Node, o sa manipuleze tot iar apoi o sa contacteze administratia wikipediei si o sa ceara sa fie pus sysop acolo, chiar daca procedeul este clar impotriva regulamentelor wiki. Ar fi mai bine ca noi sa le tragem atentia inaintea lui. Dapiks 20:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Buna am citit mesajul tau cu f. mare atentie.


 * 1) Daca Node a chemat rusi care sa voteze cu mentinerea wikipediei, atunci hai sa chemam pe unionistii romani care sigur vor vota impotriva. Eu deja am instiintat romanii-unionisti( cu Republica Moldova) sa vina pe meta acolo si sa voteze. Daca mai stii alti utilizatori care inca nu au votat acolo, trimite-le un mesaj ca sa stie si ei care e situatia. Mi se pare ne-normal ca Node ue sa cheme toti rusii iar noi sa nu facem la fel si sa nu ne mobilizam.


 * 1) Cu privere la dorinta lui Node de a deveni sysop acolo, noi pur si simplu nu cred ca ar trebui sa-l lasam sa decida regulile de vot asa de unul singur.


 * 1) La punctul cu argumentele de ambele parti, nu stiu daca ai observat dar Node ue e unul singur iar noi suntem extrem de multi. Aici e vorba de cine face mai multa galagie. Din nou ar trebui ca sa instiintam de toti wikipedistii romani si unionisti ca sa mearga acolo la meta si sa-si spuna punctul de vedere.Dapiks 22:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Gdc from Romania
hello

More on Romanian numbers
(I mentioned this a couple of weeks ago, but you might have accidentally overlooked it.) Another possible topic — you might want to add it to the section on collective numbers — would be the equivalent (in English) of the + number + noun. For example, "the five permanent members of the UN Security Council". My impression is that such constructions (in Romanian) use cei / cele in the plural, but would tend to use a definite form of un or singur where English uses "the one" (meaning "the one and only"). It might also be worth talking a bit about Romanian counterparts to pronominal English uses of "one" — such as "not that one, this one!", or "I want the green one", or "this is the one I was talking about". Richwales 20:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Romania as featured article
Romania has been nominated to be a featured article ( See What_is_a_featured_article? for information ), Please cast your vote ( Featured_article_candidates/Romania ) as if it should be or not be approved as a featured article. Your vote counts. -Danielsavoiu 08:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Palatalized Postalveolars
From what I've read about palatalization, postalveolars are already palatalized and so making them more palatalized is phonetically palatoalveolar. I don't recommend changing Romanian phonology accordingly (especially when you're not using [brackets]) because simply adding the <> makes for a cleaner system. However, it's possible to mention this in the article, as well as the palatalized, which (I imagine) is probably just a voiceless. AEuSoes1 02:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Vino la pagina de discutii Transnistria
În 17 septembrie va fi referendum în Transnistria legat de independenţa regiunii. Cu această ocazie probabil multă lume va căuta pe Wikipedia informaţii despre Transnistria. Am încercat să adaug în articol nişte informaţii legate de acest referendum, anume:

- faptul că mai multe organizaţii antiseparatiste au lansat un apel la boicotare, considerînd referendumul "farsă"

- faptul că din 46 de ţări membre ale Consiliului Europei, 45 sînt împotriva recunoaşterii referendumului, numai RUsia are altă părere

- faptul că datele Comisiei Electorale Centrale din Tiraspol au fost schimbate în mod ciudat, anume numărul total de alegători s-a micşorat cu 7% faţă de 2005, ceea ce ridică suspiciuni asupra unei încercări de creştere artificială a prezenţei la vot prin raportarea unui număr mai mic de alegători înregistraţi.

Totdeauna am dat lincurile care dovedesc cele scrise de mine, n-am născocit nimic din burtă.

Userul Willian Mauco, care pare fan Tiraspol, mereu mi-a şters adăugirile. (vezi istoria paginii)

Puteţi vedea la pagina de discuţii Transnistria ce argumente a adus. Anume: ăia care cer boicotarea referendumului din Transnistria sînt foşti KGB-işti, că aşa zice o organizaţie rusească de analiză (a dat un linc pentru asta). Întîi a spus că respectivii nici nu sînt din Transnistria, ci doar din Basarabia, dar i-am dovedit că unii dintre semnatarii apelului la boicot sînt transnistreni. Am fost împăciuitor, i-am zis că n-are decît să adauge părerea organizaţiei ruseşti că antiseparatiştii sînt foşti KGBişti, că n-are decît să-i considere pe cei care vor boicotarea referendumului drept băieţi răi, dar faptul în sine, că s-a cerut boicotarea referendumului, trebuie menţionat. Degeaba, mereu mi s-au şters adăugirile - pentru celelalte 2 fapte nici n-a adus argumente.

A mai fost o adăugire care a şters-o, despre arestarea a 4 persoane din Transnistria care sînt împotriva separatismului (între timp li s-a dat drumul). În cazul ăsta am renunţat eu să mai insist pentru includerea informaţiei în articol (deşi informaţia e incontestabilă), tocmai fiindcă n-am vrut să mă cert prea mult.

În perioada asta cînd agenţiile de ştiri vor menţiona referendumul de la Tiraspol, se va citi articolul Transnistria în Wikipedia poate mai mult decît într-un an întreg. De aia acum e nevoie să existe în articol informaţii despre contestarea corectitudinii referendumului. Nu cer să se menţioneze ca adevăr absolut faptul că referendumul e incorect, ci doar că există unii (OSCE, 45 din 46 ţări ale Consiliului Europei, unele organizaţii din zonă şi din Basarabia) care consideră asta. Vă cer de aceea sprijinul ca să interveniţi pe pagina de discuţii Transnistria pentru a susţine rămînerea informaţiei în pagină şi să repuneţi informaţia atunci cînd Mauco o şterge (eu nu pot să verific chiar 24 de ore din 24). Evitaţi atacurile suburbane, păstraţi ton civilizat. mulţumesc.

Who is William Mauco Here is an article about a Wikipedia celebrity, William Mauco, and his relations with the International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty (ICDISS), an organisation "which seems to be a front organisation for a Kremlin-backed rogue statelet called Transdniestria" (quote from the article) http://0.bypass-filter.com/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZGx1Y2FzLmJsb2dzcG90LmNvbS8yMDA2LzA4L2dvdGNoYS0yLmh0bWw%3D

Edward Lucas wrote about Mauco: "The other lead is William Mauco. He has an extensive record of posting intelligent and fairly neutral entries on Wikipedia, not only about TD but about other unrecognised statelets. Crucially, these predate ICDISS's birthday of January 2006. And he also claims to have been at their conference in Mexico City in April of this year. I have written to him asking to get in touch, and had a friendly email in reply. I am planning to follow up this research in an article in European Voice at the end of August, so watch this space!"--MariusM 08:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Romanian nouns
Cu plăcere. Laurapr\ mesaj  06:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Votează contra ştergerii articolului Heaven of Transnistria
Împreună cu EvilAlex (un tip din Tighina - Transnistria) am creat un articol despre propaganda separatistă a Tiraspolului Heaven of Transnistria. I s-a cerut ştergerea. Te rog ajută-ne să păstră articolul, votînd contra ştergerii. Destul s-a şters din articolul principal Transnistria, Wikipedia e plină de propagandă a Tiraspolului, să avem măcar un articol care explică această propagandă--MariusM 18:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well...
Hi, Adi, and please do excuse me for replying in English: I have a hell of a time picking between "tu" and "dvs.", and I wish to encourage you to use "tu" when addressing me (since I cannot invite myself to do the same, I will carry on in English for now). The thing is, I was going to praise your fine efforts, and I will anyhow assure you that wikipedia in Romanian is low quality only because of the frustrating efforts by many others to make it so.

Without going back on that, I was also going to point out a main example from the ro variant of the article Moldova, indicating that, despite official info issued by the Moldovan state, the official language is still ranked as "Romanian" on that page; I was going to pick other and many relevant examples, some of which (like those on pages dealing with Moldavian subjects) bear the mark of ineptitude because of some users with nothing better to offer than POV pollution. I was going to look again into a user's claim that he has been banned from editing ro:wiki after suggesting that Horthy was not a fascist (this despite the fact that most researchers, on all political sides, have rejected the notion that he ever was one).

My answer, alas, will be shorter: you will note that the page that sparked your interest (i.e.: Danutz's talk page on ro:wiki) now features a reply by a certain user, addressed to me indirectly; if you care to read it, you will see why I don't plan to contribute on that version anytime soon. I'm genuinely sorry, but I cannot deal with that (especially considering that I may be expected to do it on my very own). Allow me to note a very disturbing thing: both Danutz and Bonaparte have questioned my basic right to establish NPOV criteria among what is, basically, "what all Romanians ought to believe" &mdash; and yet, they both have infoboxes saying they're "liberals"; now, if those are the liberals ro:wiki has to offer, I do not want to consider what more radical persons may want to tell me... Thank you, perhaps another time. Dahn 06:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In the last hours I have familiarized myself with ro:wiki more than I ever wanted to, curtesy of some friends I have made on en:wiki. You are an administrator yourself, perhaps you can judge the comments of another admin (User:Danutz, ro:utilizator:Danutz), directed at yours trully:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADahn&diff=77527423&oldid=77511734
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADahn&diff=77534061&oldid=77533038
 * As for Bonaparte... these are the latest samples of him and his sockpuppets:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADahn&diff=77528032&oldid=77527423
 * http://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discu%C5%A3ie_Utilizator%3ADanutz&diff=524401&oldid=524377
 * http://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discu%C5%A3ie_Utilizator%3A82.76.86.64&diff=524404&oldid=524400


 * All the best. Dahn 14:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Romanian intonation
Considering that the list of common phrases in various languages is being used now for comparative purposes and especially since the Romanian transcription is more phonemic, are the intonation arrows really necessary? Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 09:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahh, Spanish (another Romance language) is similar. Heck, English is that way to a certain degree.  If you say "why don't you cry about it?" with rising intonation it sounds awkward, like you're not sure if that's the question you should be asking.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 17:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Deja contribui la Wikipedia Romana
Contribui la Wikipedia Romana sub numele JohnDoe. Multumesc. 326 11:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Mariah isn't French.
Can you please translate [[Media:MariahIntel.jpg|this advertisement]] for those of us on the English Wikipedia that don't speak French, and then post the translation on the description page?



Quotes
AdiJapan, eu cred ca nu da cuvenitul credit este inadmisibil (vezi Rudyard Kippling). Am adugat referinta necesara in introducerea ta. Daca am gresit, iertare si te rog corecteaza dupa cum consideri necesar.

Munehisa Homma
Hello

I am currently researching sources for the Munehisa Homma article I need references to his books written in Japanese. I also need to know what ids the correct way to write his name in English. Anything you can help with to beef up the article. Can you help? Thank you Trade2tradewell 12:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Â and Î
This is a reply to our talk User talk:TheSeinfeld, saying: "Switching an article from one spelling to the other is just as bad in Romanian as it is to replace British spellings with American spellings (or the other way round) in English. At the Romanian Wikipedia we have a policy concerning this, see ro:Wikipedia:Versiuni de limbă română de limbă română. Only in the proces of significantly developing an article (such as doubling its length) is an editor allowed to switch to the other spelling. Also, mixing the spelling rules in one article is not okay. — AdiJapan ☎ 07:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)"

Let me point out that you are making a false argument. I didn't switch the country language for another country level as you imply! I switched from an old form to the official form (I mean, come on, from British to American...come on...). Second, you mention the policy, but in the policy I didn't find anything to point me that an article could not be updated to reflect the new changes occurred in the language and as a matter of fact it is even recommended that "În situaţiile care chiar şi astfel rămân ambigue se va da prioritate normei Academiei Române în vigoare.". I would really appreciate if the article List_of_Dacian_words would keep the official rules of Romanian Academy orthography as they are more accurate to the original Dacic forms and therefore more obvious to demonstrate and memorise.

Cheers,

Peter from Nara, Japan  ☎  01:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You quoted the wrong part of the policy, that is, the part referring to situations where one and only one spelling must be used, such as in article titles and category names. Inside articles that rule does not apply.
 * Let me tell you that the Romanian Academy is not God. It may have law-like effects in schools and other places but not at Wikipedia, which has a NPOV policy. There is a long list of linguists who oppose the new spelling rules on solid scientific grounds, while those who support the new spelling have no arguments other that "let's wipe out all Communist stuff" (which by the way is wrongly applied here -- the spelling reform was not a Communist idea). Many publications use the "old" spelling and that Romanian is not only spoken in Romania, but also in the Republic of Moldova, where this spelling is official. Wikipedia is not the place to give advantage to one or the other.
 * Also, your assertion that in the case of the List of Dacian words the new spelling would be "more accurate to the original Dacic forms" is absurd. Nobody knows if those Romanian words really have a Dacian origin, and even if they do, we don't know what those words sounded like, or if they were ever written in any form. — Adi Japan   ☎  03:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that Romanian Academy is not good or God. But in your first post you use wrong arguments and IMHO wrong references to justify your changes. If you ask me, I rather change it to the old style or even to what George Pruteanu proposed in România literară, nr. 42, 23 oct. 2002 for fun... As for my argument that it is more accurate to the original Dacic form, I agree that is weak and based only on my statistics. I wouldn't call it absurd as you did, but you can forget about it. I am sorry to make such argumentation.
 * To conclude, I agree to agree with you to leave the old î and not â as in the old orthography of the 80's and I am sorry that I was so picky with you, but I tend to be very allergic to fallacies in argumentations (no offense here). Please forgive me...


 * Cheers,
 * Peter from Nara, Japan  ☎  08:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Translation
Hello! A while ago you signed up to help translate articles from other Wikipedias at Translators available.

This page has since become obsolete and has been replaced by two userbox templates.

If you are still interested in translating, you may sign up again by using one of the following userboxes on your userpage :

'''

We hope to see you soon on Translation!

Thank you
very much indeed for fixing --Vintila Barbu 13:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Dacian words
You're welcome. Regards, Mentatus 08:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The dictionary also mentions "Cuv. autoht." which denotes the local (i.e. Dacian) origin. See also the other words which are mentioned by Hasdeu, Russu or Vraciu. I assume that Hasdeu, Russu and Vraciu weren't the only ones who could suggest a Dacian etymology for a word - or is it me who's missing something now?
 * 2) As for the "î" vs. "â" spelling: I didn't know about that rowiki-rule. The entry in the DEX mentions only bârsă, so I thought it would be confusing for a non-Romanian speaker if he looked up the word in the dictionary. Personally I prefer the Academy spelling, but if you want to keep the spelling consistent throughout the article, I have nothing against it.

Questions about map use
Hi Adi. Once,you helped me very nicely to find the appropriate licensing tag for Image:Romania's Resistance 1948-1960.jpg. According to the principle "bună ziua mi-ai dat, belea ţi-ai căutat", I'am bothering you again on a map issue. I worked out a map to illustrate the Ceauşima article. It consists of one fragment of the old Bucharest map (before demolitions) superposed on the current one. The resulting map shows a fragment of the present-day Bucharest map with the demolished area covered by the 1970s Bucharest map. Both maps are touristic, on paper, scanned by me for the purpose. I wonder if a partial superposition of two map fragments can be considered a new work, enjoying free licensing. Do you have any suggestion ? Thanks. --Vintila Barbu 10:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much indeed Adi ! …I still don’t give up hope of placing that map, since I believe that the article needs it quite badly. To evade problems, the only solution which comes across my mind would be trying to change the initial maps out of recognition…And what’s the threshold of “(un)recognizability” ?! The whole endeavour is easier said than done…. Anyway, thanx…Cheers, --Vintilă Barbu 12:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ro.wp
Hey. The first edits by that account are definitely by me, as I was the one who registered it. However, the ones from today are not. I'm not sure how this happened, perhaps someone has discovered my password (which I hope is not the case), I'm not quite sure. However, please indef. block that account so that I can create a new one. Thanks.

By the way, is there any chance you could translate ro:Marius Oprea for me? Its contents can be found at User:Khoikhoi/Marius Oprea. Thanks again. Khoikhoi 02:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much. As for ro.wiki, I'm still "autoblocat". Do you think you could fix it? I'll let you know if I can regain control or not. Khoikhoi 04:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It works! Khoikhoi 04:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The IP you are talking about is from a fairly public place. I can say for certain that someone else made those edits today. If you would like to discuss this more, feel free to email me. Khoikhoi 04:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Just thought I'd leave a comment. It's weird, I'm from Romania too, and I have a relative, who has a son called "Adi" who emigrated to Japan. :) Just saw some of your comments in some articles, nice. Mirc mirc 22:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Not Non-Romanian
I guess you misread my edit. A+Romanus does NOT mean Non-Romanian but Non-ROMAN. I don't know why both you and User:Bogdangiusca cannot understand this. I am not talking about the frontal inflection a in Aromanian, I never said that A+Romanus comes from Aromanian, but from Ancient Greek and Roman[sic!] Therefore do not make wrong conclusions. I did not say that the inflection a- means non-/not- in Aromanian (there is a separate negation particle whose form is ni). I am just saying that according to some new research, the name etymology should not be read and viewed only from the point of Roman + A- (which obviously is not true). Another reading of it is from the Byzantine times namely Α-Ρωμαίων (non-Byzantines) marking them as a separate nation from the others. Eeamoscopolecrushuva 17:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright in Serbia
Hi. That pic of Slovaks in Serbia has been taken from site of Government of Serbia. And as you can see in template everything from state site is in public domain, so I took this image. --Pockey 17:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Ce Mai Faci"
Salut Adi, Thanks for the correction on that...im just starting to learn Romanian on my own with the help of some friends...although one of my Romanian friends seems to think that it's such a useless language to learn...anyways, could you add some common responses to "Ce Faci", like "sunt bine", with all the phonics? Multumesc :P :D --Nat.tang 22:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Salut
Iti scriu referitor la o blocare de pe wikipedia in limba romana, pentru niste vandalisme care nu sunt ale mele. Pe pagina mea de discutii, mi-ai lasat un mesaj cum ca as fi vandalizat pagina http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A2ul_Foltea, dar cum se vede din acest link http://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R%C3%A2ul_Foltea&diff=1092548&oldid=1092534, eu doar am corectat un vandalism, nu l-am facut. De asemenea, mi-ai lasat un mesaj cum ca as fi introdus continut gresit in pagina Filote adrian, care a si fost stearsa. Din nou, nu eu sunt autorul acelei pagini, nu stiu daca se poate recupera istoricul la stergere (pt ca pagina a fost stearsa), dar daca se poate, as vrea sa o faci, pentru a vedea ca nu-s vinovat. Adevaratul vandal a si fost blocat de Alex:D http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discu%C5%A3ie_Utilizator:217.73.161.129 Multumesc.
 * S-a rezolvat, multumesc

Use of feminine adjectives (dreaptă / stângă) for political orientations
I seem to recall reading once that the reason political movements are classified in Romanian using feminine adjectives ("dreaptă" or "stângă") is because these are shortened forms of "mâna dreaptă" or "mâna stângă". (If masculine adjectives were used instead, I suppose the Romanian right-wing extremist group might have been named "Noul Drept"!?!) Is this explanation correct, as far as you know? And if it is, would you by any chance know where I could find a reference for this (in either English or Romanian) that I could cite in a Wikipedia article? Richwales 21:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Romanian nouns
Apologies for the two errors in my edit. I've added language tags to those words in the article text so I won't 'correct' those words again. Thanks Rjwilmsi 07:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi
What does the word Clipe (as in the 3rei Sud Est song "Clipe") mean? Nat Tang ta 21:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello AdiJapan
Glad to talk to you again AdiJapan. The thing is that the Aromanian flag has no reference because we drew it. Here's the explanation why we did this. There are mainly two types of Aromanian flags in use (usually on weddings), the one we drew in fact represents the common characteristics of both flags. The flag that differs a bit from this flag is used by the Aromanians from the Grammos region, who live in the Republic of Macedonia, and the one we put here is used by all other Aromanians in the world. There might be some variations. For example if you go to youtube, see this link you'll see the flag that the Aromanians from Romania use (I know the sun seems a bit different, but its only a variation of the basic design, the sun was made from thread and was not drawn as it is today, so the one we put here is the traditional design not the modern one, and there is one other thing, the modern design usually uses the Vergina sun which is a subject of dispute between Macedonia and Greece, so to avoid any political interference we used the traditional design). There was one other flag in use whose background was red instead of white but as it resembled the former flag of the Republic of Macedonia, the Aromanians decided to use the traditional white background instead. The sources of the flag have not been put on the Internet yet, but there is a very good article in Macedonian in the Зборник „Власите на Балканот“, материјали од Вториот Меѓународен Симпозиум „Власите на Балканот 2002“, Скопје 2003: Димо Н. Димчев „Националните белези на Ароманците: Химна, знаме, грб“ (Dimo N. Dimcev "The National Symbols of the Aromanians: Anthem, flag, coat of arms") (I haven't found a suitable English or any other translation available yet). I know about the flags you are talking about, the second one, true resembles the Aromanian flag we put here, but the sun cannot be blue, can it?:-) The first link didn't worked. Did you find a way to speak to the Eurominority people? I couldn't find a link. We should correct some information, especially in the German form of the word. Please inform us if you can find anything. Thanking you in advance, Eeamoscopolecrushuva 14:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain with sources where did you find palatalization in Romanian?
AdiJapan, you wrote (quote):
 * A final orthographical i after a consonant represents palatalization of the consonant (e. g. lup "wolf" vs. lupi  "wolves").

end quote.

Can you explain with sources where did you find palatalization in Romanian Language?

Palatalization is only in Russian and other languages but not in Romanian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.100.236 (talk • contribs)


 * That sound (or pseudo sound) has been given lots of names and descriptions. For example: "short i" or "shortened i", "devoiced i", "asyllabic i", "pseudo i", and so on. Among others, it was described as a palatalization of the preceding vowel [correction: consonant] by E. Petrovici and E. Vasiliu (see E. Vasiliu, Fonologia limbii române, p. 109). From an articulatory point of view, it manifests itself as a modification of the mouth shape as if you were going to pronounce the vowel [i] but stopped before actually pronouncing the vowel. The best description I have ever heard is: "i-colored consonant release". The consonant becomes just as palatalized as if it were followed by a full [i]; for some consonants this means a proper palatalization (for example [h] becomes [ç], [k] becomes [c]), while for others the effect is less obvious. I'm not sure how much this is similar to Russian palatalization. — Adi Japan   ☎  17:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (I think you meant "palatalization of the preceding consonant".) A lot of the confusion here may be due to the fact that Slavic "palatalization" is generally characterized by a much more noticeable "y"-glide (see the article on Iotation), which is not at all characteristic of Romanian in general.  Richwales 19:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I meant consonant. — Adi Japan   ☎  15:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Romanian Flag Colors
Hi Adi, I see that you made that Romanian flag image, however as I posted in Talk:Flag_of_Romania the colors don't match the colors in article, they also seem to be darker that I remember (there's also a discussion started on Talk:Romania about this issue. I made a image with the values listed in the article, but I don't want to replace your image without consulting with you first. Thanks. -- AdrianTM 18:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's the resulting flag (using values from the article): [[Image:Romanian_flag.svg|100px]] do the colors look OK? -- AdrianTM 20:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah the blue might be a little bit washed out, I don't know I just used those numbers, I don't know how they were obtained and if that's a good procedure. I think that the current flag is a little bit too dark and there's also the problem that it doesn't correspond with the numbers in the article, so I think one thing got to give.... But at this point I don't know what to do... -- AdrianTM 06:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * One thing though, I think the colors of the flag that you made are closer to the communist flag (one can see that in the picture), I think the hues have changed a bit since then, probably to differentiate it from Chad's flag, I do remember the new flags looking closer to the image I made. -- AdrianTM 06:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, so this is the consensus now? (by the way, it doesn't differ from the flag that I uploaded: Image:Romanian_flag.svg -- AdrianTM (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Salut Adi
Salut Adi! What do you thing about my new sig --> ( nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! ). Genius, eh? nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 19:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Romanians
Hi. In the Romanians article there is a section titled "Contributions to humanity". I have no problem with the content it's just the title sounds kind of POV. Do you have any idea for a re-wording? Alex 202.10.89.28 03:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed they have. And you are right about Ceausescu. But it just seemed a bit weird to me as I don't know any other page with a section called that. Don't worry about it - on a closer look it's fine. I think I misinterpreted the word "humanity". Alex 202.10.89.28 09:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

On another note, you may be interested in this: It is a Romanian to Aromanian dictionary/glossary. It may come in handy.


 * No problem. The only place I can think of for getting a dictionary the other way around would be an Aromanian organisation (most likely in Romania, maybe RoM or France). If they have one it might be a paper copy. Here is some information on associations that I found - one of the Romanian ones has an email. There would have to be some Aromanian-Romanian/Romanian-Aromanian dictionaries in circulation considering the minority in Romania (I have a Macedonian-Aromanian/Aromanian-Macedonian one from Macedonia) so you may indeed get your hands on a copy. Take care! Alex 202.10.89.28 11:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

moldovan lang
Sorry, I was looking at this edit. In any case, to quote a newspaper which hates the idea of Moldovan language is against common sense: you never guess what the EU actually said and how it was twisted for political agenda. One needs original quotation or at least a summary from a neutral source. `'Míkka>t 19:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A follow-up: the most recent development: 2007-11-16 "Moldovan language enters the EU through the backdoor". Which confirms what I wrote above about quoting from biased sources.

In may be interesting, though, have a piece about this vigorous legal battle of Romania to ban "Moldovan language" in EU. `'Míkka>t 20:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A6-2007-0427+0+DOC+WORD+V0//EN "Romania reiterates that, according to the facts and scientific evidence, including the interpretation of the Academy of Science of the Republic of Moldova (issued in September 1994), the correct name of the language is Romanian".] --Cezarika f. (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * let me add something that I consider relevant: "The rapporteur fully endorses this official declaration of Romania put forward in the Council on the 9 October 2007 and reminds that the same declaration has also been made by the Romanian authorities concerning the Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part, on accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the PCA.1


 * The rapporteur takes note that in all the 9 agreements with the Western Balkans countries, the Commission used the more neutral formulation “Done at ............ on the ........ day of ........... in the year ............ in duplicate in each of the official languages of the Parties, each of these texts being equally authentic.”


 * He regrets that this formulation was not used in the case of the agreements with the Republic of Moldova and, for the future, recommends the use of such neutral formulations in case of sensitive contexts, such as the present case." -- AdrianTM (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So..? Your conclusion is? See this one "http://www.adevarul.ro/articole/orban-a-eliminat-limba-moldoveneasca-de-pe-site-ul-comisiei-europene/329489 Comisar Leonard Orban eliminated the sintagm "Moldovan language" from European Commision" Cezarika f. (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And Orban is a member of European Commision http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/orban/index_en.htm .. exactly for multilingualism So, EU does not recognize the sintagm "Moldovan language"Cezarika f. (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Chaotic newspaper citations is not the way to write encyclopedia. `'Míkka>t 02:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So now you don't like the content of the EU official document and you blame it on "chaotic newspaper citation", interesting... feel free to use the text that I posted, that's directly from the EU document. -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that EU official statements and documents are chaotic newspaper citations. When an EU Comisar, recte Leonard Orban forbidd the usage of the sintagm "Limba Moldoveneasca" it really meant something. He is the one who deals with Multilingualism in EU. --Cezarika f. (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ro wiki
Will you undo the block? In any case, I'm taking this to the next level: it is inadmissible for a user to be blocked when he is pointing out that an administrator violates copyrights. If I were to use what three admins over there (Radufan, Pixi and Cezarika) have said and done in just the last days, and the accusations brought against me, it would reverberate to high heaven. I'm getting really disgusted of the coterie there, especially since there is not one single policy I can be said to have broken, whereas they are responsible for severe infringements. Dahn (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Check out this comment. Dahn (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I I insist that bringing copyright violations effected by admins to the attention of the community is the proper way, since we trust them to actually enforce the rules. And was what Radufan or Pixi posted there at any point normal? Dahn (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Quick note: you can of course deduce my opinions about the current vote and its "legitimacy" (in all three cases). I do not qualify for voting, but I would have commented by now somewhere over there - I do fear, however, that my comments would only serve to stir up negative votes. On the other hand, the person who initiated the vote is seriously out of line, and knowing what this move was meant to accomplish, I can pretty much say that bells will ring on this side of the divide. One simply cannot treat rowiki as a personal domain, and I gather from what was said that this is the actual intent of that admin (see his theories about different wikipedias having different principles). I do not request of you to relinquish your neutrality on this matter or join me in appealing to a higher authority, but we all know, whatever the vote's outcome, the goings-on there will have hit the fan. Dahn (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou
For your comments, and I appreciate that this has been talked through. Your estimate of two weeks for a changeover sounds about right for the Romanian Wikipedia. Please contact me when you are intending to go through with this and I will put my programming skills completely at your disposal :) - Francis Tyers · 13:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of dumneata
Hi, Adrian. Could you elaborate a bit on what you said about dumneata — that "many old people often use it instead of tu when talking to younger people, in situations where others might hesitate in choosing between tu and dumneavoastră"?

When you said "old people", did you mean really old people (say, in their 70's or 80's)? Would this use of dumneata be expected in, say, someone in their 40's or 50's, speaking to someone in their 20's with whom they are reasonably well acquainted, but not by any means on intimate terms?

Would it matter if the people in question were of the same sex or not — e.g., an older man calling a younger, female neighbour dumneata because tu might imply that they were "involved", but dvs. could be perceived as being rudely distant? Richwales (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:What Ive Done - Linkin Park.ogg
Hi. I wish to dispute the fact of the media in question being non-fair use. With regard to the policy's 3b where "an entire work is not used if a portion will suffice.", in my opinion, a portion of the whole would not suffice for the content described in the article, What I've Done, as the article heavily describes the whole music video in question, and placing the whole video gives much greater encyclopaedic value than rather using a portion of the music video, especially as the media in question is mostly non-repetitive (e.g. the images portrayed are not repeated many times throughout the video). However, instead of using a portion as described in 3b of the fair-use policy, I have reduced the quality a large amount, which is also described as an alternative, so I think, in my opinion, that the media should quality as fair-use under Wikipedia's Fair Use policy. Furthermore, I do not think that this media qualifies as a "Music Sample" (as it has audio/visual content) and therefore should not be subjected to the whole policy of Music Samples, and that the video content of the media in question represents a higher educational value when shown in full. Please also note that the rest of the Fair Use Rationale has been completed, and clearly states the source, and reason for the full-length video clip. Please delay the deletion of this media until a better decision has been made. Futhermore, I would prefer that the media in question be replaced if it is found to be necessary, rather than deleted.

Thank you very much, and I hope that you will see my rationale for using this under fair-use. Adammw (talk) 07:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Moldovan
A lot of "disputed" languages have infoboxes: Croatian language, Bosnian language, Montenegrin language. The fact that some dispute it is no reason to remove an infobox. Moldovan even had an ISO code since the beginning (Montenegrin doesn't even nowadays). 2.4 million people can't be wrong. Also, the fact that census result were manipulated by politics is spurious. There are sources that say Moldovan is a Romance language, like James Minahan's "Miniature Empires: A Historical Dictionary of the Newly Independent States" or Alexander Graur's "Studii de lingvistica generala".
 * The pool is irrelevant: the ones who voted are either blocked indefinitely, stopped editing Wikipedia or seem to be nationalists who like to use ethnic slurs. Also, most of the ones who imposed it were Romanians, known to be educated to contest the Moldovan languageXasha (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The infobox makes no assumption on the distinctiveness of Moldovan. It just notes some facts: where is official, where it is recorded, how many people call their language that way and what it's code is.
 * It seems that Romanian editors here have a problem with understanding English. Minahan clearly refers to Moldovan when it speaks about the most easterly of the Romance language, and he's not giving anyone position, he just states a fact. Ask any native English speaker.
 * Wikipedia doesn't care about what you're sure about, if you can't bring sources to support your position.
 * No, all census had write-in language section (in the Ukrainian and Russian censuses you had to chose between Ukrainian/Russian and write-in, while in the Moldovan there was just a write-in section). Nobody was asked to chose between Moldovan and Romanian. Moldovan speakers appear even in EU censuses (half of the Moldovans in Estonia speak "Moldovan" as native, the other half Russian).
 * I could bring you dozens of Romanian school books that claim Moldovan is not a language; from what I remeber even 4th grade history books claim it. After all, this is the official policy of the Romanian government.
 * I don't challenge the fact that Moldovan and Romanian are mutually inteligible to a large degree, but this has no relevance. So are Macedonian and Bulgarian, and all the 4 languages of the Serbo-croat continuum, but this doesn't prevent them form having infoboxes informing about their official status or number of speakers.Xasha (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Better said, you have no rational way to dispute my other arguments. Acadian French and Quebecois French are both mutually inteligible with Metropolitan French, yet each has an infobox.Xasha (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The same thing can be said here: I live in Moldova and I've traveled to Romania quite a lot. You never visited Moldova. So if Wikipedia would have been written on personal opinions, I would still be right.Xasha (talk) 11:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:AudioScreen.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:AudioScreen.png, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Kelly hi! 14:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Voting
Hi! Here is a voting about Bendery/Bender/Tighina: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bender%2C_Moldova#Statement_of_Title_Solution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.142.252.220 (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Italics, quotations and the MoS
Hi, Adi. I don't want to make a big deal out of using italics in the List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin article (because it is definitely not), the purpose of my edit was to differentiate between the foreign and the English ones, because I don't see why the English terms should be italicized. It would just make the article easier to read if the English translations were not displayed in italics. According to the MOS, the italics are to be Also the MOS recommends to Please note that the example above used double quotes for the English translation. Cheers, Mentatus (talk) 07:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

STOP advertising your favorite newspaper as the the "most read among high quality Romanian newspapers"
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. VasileGaburici (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC) The article already lists it as one of the 3 major newspapers. Which one is on top today is fairly irrelevant for Wikipedia. VasileGaburici (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC) You also gave as "reference" a web page of a TV post owned by the same media trust. That kind of shill bidding may work in Romanian politics, but not on Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by VasileGaburici (talk • contribs) 15:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Origin"
•	Transilvaniae”). The position of “Voievod” as a formal administrative position was only preserved by the Romanians in the Middle Ages. Transylvania was the only region under the Hungarian crown which kept this administrative rank as the highest rank attainable, rather than being re-organized into Comites as the other regions of Hungary were, by using the title of Voievod, it is evidenced that the Hungarian crown was somehow necessitated to recognize an older political institution in Transylvania. Romanians had used the title of “Voievod” before Transylvania was conquered by the Hungarians and continued to use it afterwards in Wallachia and Moldova, only Romanians retained this title others adopting King, Tzar or Khan.[6] •	The Hungarian word for Christmas, Karacsony, is derived directly from the Old Romanian word for Christmas “Cracion” which is itself derived from the Latin “creation” meaning “birth.”

These are one of the downright lies in the article Origin of the Romanians. Ask Wikiprojekt Hungary or a linguist, or a notable historian. This article is using Wikipedia as a nationalistic forum. It is a bunch of fals astatements. It is not worthy Wikipedia. A common feathure of the Romanian policy is to falsify history in their own favor, trying to prove they are Romans just because they were occupied by Romans for 250 years some 2000 years ago. It has many authors, yes, but this doesn't add to the accuracy of the text. Quite simply, the whole article it’s big lie full of false arguing about inaccurate false "facts".

Sólyomszem (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Eu cu cine votez?
Wikipedia_talk:Notability/RFC:compromise ;) VG &#x260E; 13:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

iadrian_yu
Hello, you can come to my page to see the my answer to number changing in Vojvodina.

Greetings from Timisoara. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iadrian yu (talk • contribs) 12:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, can you check again my page. iadrian (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Adi, could you please look at this question from Iadrian yu? I think you'd be more qualified to answer it. Thanks. Biruitorul Talk 16:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, about something else, how can i improve a rating of some article except by expanding it ? Thanks iadrian (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Eu banuiesc ca harta este buna, doar ca censusul este acomodat :) . Nici o problema, am sa fac mai mult research pe tema asta. Multumesc mult pentru informatii. iadrian (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

History of the Moldovan language merge
Based on the discussion in this article's talk page, I made a proposal and gave its rationale. You are receiving this standard message because during the last 12 months you have editted either this article or its talk page, or both. Dc76\talk 00:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Images for deletion.
Hi. I saw your complaint about Image:Waves reflecting from a curved mirror.PNG and Image:Parabolic reflection 1.svg. I have proposed deletion of both images. You might be interested in contributing to the discussion. The former is at Images and media for deletion/2008 November 11, while the latter is at .--Srleffler (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Mikkalai
It was redirect after user name change. No content/history. `'7bubyon>t 06:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

New article
Read this, the crown prince of Japan is about to pay a visit to Vietnam, I would like you to create an article about it, thank. 98.119.177.171 (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. You forgot to mention what you would expect me to do.
 * 2. Wikipedia is not a news agency. Articles are supposed to discuss subjects that are encyclopedic. A visit of Japan's Crown Prince to Vietnam is most probably not notable enough for it to deserve an article in Wikipedia. Only historic events such as Obama's inauguration qualify for that. You could write about Naruhito's visit at Wikinews instead. — Adi  Japan  06:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's right, above, I wrote I would like to create, it should be I would like you to create. But I think this visit is very important, because it's the first a crown prince visit Vietnam. 98.119.177.171 (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm too busy and I know too little about the subject. Besides, I am sure this subject is not notable enough to have a separate article in Wikipedia. You could, however, add the information about this event in the article on Japan–Vietnam relations. — Adi  Japan  06:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Monosyllabic /oa/
This is from Chițoran (2002), regarding the two diphthongs: "'They both occur exclusively in stressed syllables, but there are, for example, fewer phonological restrictions on the occurrence of the diphthong . There is only one, in fact: the diphthong never occurs in the final syllable of a prosodic word. As a consequence of this restriction, there are no monosyllabic words containing .'"

A subsequent footnote says:

"'Among recent French loanwords there are forms such as voal 'veil', trotuar 'sidewalk', anuar 'phone-book', culoar 'hallway' (here in orthography). The vocalic sequences in such forms are best treated as glide-vowel sequences rather than diphthongs. The mixed orthography (either u or o) supports this view, as does the absence of alternations with a monophthongal vowel, characteristic of the native diphthongs.'" So of the examples you gave, she's explicitely knocked out voal and, although she doesn't explicitely say that doar doesn't count (it is, after all, not a French loanword), I suspect that it may also not be an exception. She is, after all, a linguist and a native speaker. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 17:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's something new, but it's a distinction that I'm becoming more aware of as I learn about diphthongs. If your French is better than mine, you can take a look at Kaye & Jonathan (1984).  Padgett (2007) might also be enlightening, though I haven't taken a close look at it myself.  You can also take a look at the cited sources in Spanish phonology that talk about the distinction between the approximant  and non-syllabic .  Oh, and for an English alternation with a monophthong (at least for my dialect): vagina - vaginal (though this requirement for Chitoran is specifically for Romanian).  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  03:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Spelling in Romanian numbers
Hi, Adrian. Just FYI, I stuck a note on User:Ayceman's talk page just now, suggesting that he consider taking the spelling question to Talk:Romanian numbers rather than continue the existing edit war. Richwales (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Moldovan lang.
Didn't ro.wiki once (a few months ago) had a news article which said that the language is officially called just "Romanian" now? I can't seem to find the Wikinews article right now, but here's one from Gardianul. Diego_pmc Talk 09:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

IPA
Hello, Adi. Congrats on the IPA stuff - your storm of edits popped out on my watchlist, and man was I impressed. Since I'm just about illiterate in IPA, and you definitely master the ropes, could I please ask you, if and when you have the the time, to IPA a couple of more pages in need of it? I'm thinking of Alexandru Macedonski, Alexandru Bogdan-Piteşti, Mircea Nedelciu, Dan Lungu, Mărgărita Miller-Verghy and Mateiu Caragiale (stuff that has interested me recently, and where IPA could really be an improvement). Btw, having seen your similar edit on Mircea Eliade, how would you feel about including a clue to its commonplace (if mistaken) English pronunciation? "meer-CHE-ah EH-lee-ad" or something is how "they" say it. It's that I'm guessing it is so widespread by now that merely the Romanian pronunciation won't do. Cheers, Dahn (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't apologize: that was very quick by my own standards, and you're talking to the father of delays. Allow me answer your points one by one (I'll add more on Tzara in a new post there, to keep it simple - hopefully Kwamikagami‎ won't mind.
 * There is an intrinsic something about the sourcing problems you mention: it is very hard to source any such things, I would imagine. Not impossible, though. for one, you're doing a very good job already. Another thing is that the pronunciation may turn out to be unexpectedly indicated in foreign-language reference works. But yes, there is a pretty significant risk of original research in any scenario. I mean, many can simply be determined by common sense or familiarity with the vernacular, many still will have informal sources (that back this relatively trivial info as editorial "expeditions", but can' actually be used in the article). And, what's more, how does the text tell its reader where the info came from without the reference? I would tend to "delegate" on these matters and avoid the issue sooner and later by not having pronunciation guides attached to any article, but it is bound to become an anomaly - and sources may actually turn up for just about any case. But I digress.
 * Well, as I mentioned on Kwamikagami's talk page, my mastery of IPA sucks: I may be able to read it (in part), but I risk making a big fool of myself if I try to use it. This is probably why you missed my point about Eliade. You see, what I meant was not that we should use the "meer-CHE-ah" style in the article. Quite the contrary: I find it an eyesore, and redundant to IPA. What I was trying to point out, using something other than IPA (and hopefully avoiding making a fool of myself) was another pronunciation to Eliade, which, although technically incorrect and irritating to most Romanians, has become commonplace in many verbal references to him (him being a man who spent half of his life lecturing to people whose knowledge of Romanian is equivalent to my knowledge of Klingon). Now, I don't even know if my way of transcribing that pronunciation into the system I think I master better than IPA is correct - the shortcomings in my musical ear itself may get in the way. My suggestion was that, especially if you have heard this pronunciation before, you could "translate" it into IPA. And of course: the proposal to have both versions is merely something I am putting up for your consideration. I have no preconceptions about my proposal being useful to anyone, nor do I think it is an imperative to have both variants in the text. It would be equivalent to having the the IPA equivalents of both "cho-RAN" (Ro) and "cee-OH-run" (Fr) in Emil Cioran - possibly helpful, but by no means vital.
 * Your list (and this subject to further scrutiny):


 * I think the academic way is actually French stress, but, yes, the variant you suggest is probably the most widespread. I tried to verify one reference work I have around (Mic Dicţionar Enciclopedic, 1977), but, although it offers IPA help for "Salisbury" et al on the same page, it seems to assume there's nothing ambiguous about Saligny (where there's no IPa to speak of...)
 * Yes, French-style, though I've definitely heard both.
 * I wanna say "la-ho-VAREE", but I find it impossible to distinguish between 3 and 4 syllables.
 * Definitely "ma-gea"
 * I think it's "VER-ghi"
 * Ah, yes. See note 1 in the article for that. I encourage you to add both versions though, so at least foreign users know what Cioculescu meant (again, I couldn't do more than that myself).
 * ş, as far as I know, but its repetitive rendition as j may indicate that people were also reading it that way. the s was his own design, and completely arbitrary to norms.
 * Here it gets interesting. Ovid apparently wrote his name with a s, and only with a s. Whatever Nicolae did, history recorded his name with a ş. To what measure this reflects differences in pronunciation is anybody's guess, but I suppose one can't go wrong with only ş for Nicolae and both for Ovid (even if it turns out to be incorrect, s is bound to have left some traces in culture). Dahn (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Btw: please let me know if I can come back with such requests in the future - I realize answering them may not be your top priority, and that you may want to edit something else altogether. I'm happy whenever our editing areas meet, but I also don't want to be taking your interest in the same things for granted. Especially since my own commitments are so easy to make and so hard to maintain... but you know that already :). Dahn (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

A big thank you. And you're entirely right about Lahovary - I had myself realized since that, while I was still and always placing stress on "y", some lapse prevented me from noting that this would have to imply a split in "vary" (see my musical ear "disclaimer"...). So I was actually pronouncing it the same as the latter variant you mention, but the sourced version is always best.

On Densusianu: I think it's like the French Ovide, or at least this is how I heard it on the few occasions I recall hearing it. And to your "I am aware that most readers can make little use of the IPA transcriptions", I can't help myself but say "sure, but now they have no excuse!" :) Dahn (talk) 10:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

New installment
And again hello. If you have the time, please consider IPAing Ion Creangă, Harap Alb, Dănilă Prepeleac, Eugen Taru and Editura Ion Creangă (as you can see, I've been quite obsessive these past days - the articles circle each other). Dahn (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Sandu Florea. Dahn (talk) 08:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Dahn (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I almost missed your message, because I forgot to check the history for my page and it got "crushed" under a newer post - which is why I'm running a bit late with my reply. You're most welcome: I'm excited that there's at least one Ro editor other than me who remembers them fondly (I for one didn't have them, but I did borrow it, and then I tried my best to avoid returning them...). As much as I loved them, I loved the hobbit version she did more, and I still picture a hobbit should look like that (not like Elijah, not even like Tolkien's drawings). But I really grew up with the period when she illustrated Hauff, and I still get all choked up when I remember it.

Also: It's a good thing you jumped ahead and added the IPAs, because I really didn't know how to format the bilingual stuff, and unsure who I was supposed to ask about the Magyar version (or about how different the two versions are). In any case, I would have come up with it only in my next "installment". Dahn (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Lazăr Şăineanu
Hi. Lazăr Şăineanu could use IPA (and a French one as well?). I would also be thrilled if you gave it a proofreading, since it's most likely a subject in your area of interest and, quite obviously, competence. Dahn (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks excellent, and thank you for all the careful edits, as well as for the positive appraisal (undeserved as it was: I really was "uncharacteristically" sloppy writing the article).In my defense, the keyboard I have is crap, the editing window sometimes hickups on me, and my eyes get a bit strained now and then. Still, allow me to say that you and Bogdan are the first two persons I would go to for checking the entire "Work" section - I'm not perhaps entirely blind when it comes to linguistics and related subjects, but I sure am severely myopic (when in doubt, I usually follow some links and see where that gets me, but that system has its obvious limitations). I'm happy that it has your okay, and I'm even happier that you found it interesting.
 * I think Şeineanu doesn't really need its own IPA (it's intuitive after the first, and would make the lead itself harder to follow). Btw: is there a system in place for removing the "Romanian pron." part (or other such) in front of the IPA sample but keeping the links? I mean, it may prove necessary in other cases to have several IPAs around for words in the same language, and it would look rather repetitive and cumbersome to follow the same constrictive template over and over. Just in case that happens somewhere in the future, what do you think should be done? To illustrate, suppose, for the sake of argument (only because I can't think of a decent analogy) Bucureşti and Bucale become both as used and as tolerated. Would the lead for Bucharest be "Bucureşti (Romanian pron. [whatever in IPA]) or Bucale (Romanian pron. [whatever else in IPA])" (which admittedly is a tad repetitive), or is there a way to render this as "Bucureşti (Romanian pron. [whatever in IPA]) or Bucale ([whatever else in IPA])"? Dahn (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Awright! Thanks for showing me that. Dahn (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the real purpose of my visit were not the comments below, but: Ivan Turbincă. Also, does Coronini need an IPA (or two, or three)? The name is pretty international, but the alternatives (Pescari, etc.) aren't. In case you're wondering, it's supposed to be pronounced the "Italian way" - I figure it was named after the Italo-Austrian soldier; it's intuitive, only I couldn't find any source specifically mentioning this. Dahn (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Great!
 * Concerning Sainean: technically, you're right, but we can safely presume it is a rendition of his name as it was in Ro; the pron. is approximated from that rather exotic signature, skipping its imperfection. That said, I have actually seen it around with a ï, but not in versions he signed himself: see for example, here - that, presumably, could be the "benchmark". Maybe we can add it as our reference for the French IPA? Dahn (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject TRANSWIKI
You are invited to join WikiProject TRANSWIKI and join the sub language project of your choice. The aim is to draw up a full directory of missing articles from other wikipedias by language and build a team of translators to work at bridging the gaps in knowledge between other wikipedias. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 17:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Direct Google Books links in references
Hi; I don't know what made you think I was objecting to your adding of a Gogle Books link on the grounds of its being commericial; I wasn't.

I'll cite a passate from Template:Cite book/doc: "url: URL of an online location where text of the book can be found. Cannot be used if you wikilinked title. If applicable, should point to the specific page(s) referenced. Do not use this field to link to any commercial booksellers (such as Amazon.com). The ISBN link is a much better alternative which allows readers access to the books in their own countries or through their own choice of source, including Amazon, Google Books, thousands of libraries, and more."

As you can see, giving a direct Google Books link is discouraged, because the automatic ISBN link already offers the reader a wide choice of sources, including Google Books. The "url=" parameter should only be used for books that can only be found in a non-standard source (one not included in the ISBN link).

Thank you. --LjL (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If I may bud in, I actually agree with LjL here. It's also that goggle booking seems to have encourage some editors to cite only sections of books that actually treat a subject thoroughly, in the one place where it's convenient for them to do it (the one mention out of 1,000), which, if you think about it, makes this entire project look sciolistic. Also, the links tend to rot. Dahn (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't get it. I tried the particular case we're talking about, both my way and your way. Using my way I could start reading the book in no more than 2 seconds. Using your way I had to open lots and lots of internet pages, discard those that don't have the book, discard those that have it listed but don't let you read it, discard those that require logging in, etc. and after so much trouble I was left with Google Books, the only place that had it.
 * Why on earth would we put our readers through all this ordeal when we can simply give them both the direct link to the specific Google Books page and the ISBN so they can find the book elsewhere if for some reason they don't like Google Books?...
 * I'm genuinely trying to understand your reasoning. I guess I'm missing something. What is it? — Adi  Japan  16:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Mainly what Dahn said: link rot, little guarantees that the Google books will stay there in the same place. But I understand your point about ease of reaching... I'd say that, ideally, the ISBN page should automatically tell you which particular sources actually have the book available. --LjL (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure Google is smart enough to leave a redirect if they change the URL structure. But even if they don't, at least for some time our readers will be able to easily access the book. We can't make plans for eternity. When the link will rot, we will still have the ISBN. Until then we are better off providing the direct link. After that, things will be just as good/bad as without the link.
 * So, what do we do? — Adi  Japan  02:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Working on Translating an article
Hello.

Is there a word for "haunches" in Romanian? I'm not looking for hip... I'm looking for a word that's meaning includes the whole upper leg and butt. :p or whatever is closest thing...

Much much thanks; brilliant day upon thee. :)

haha I forgot to log in. and sign my name. eh. --207.177.111.34 (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I know there is no word in Romanian for haunch (meaning hip + buttock + upper thigh). Frankly, I don't think I ever wanted to say anything about those three body parts as a set. If I really needed to talk about them I would name them one by one: "şold, fesă şi coapsă". — Adi  Japan  05:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Unblock on ro.wp
Mister adyjapan, goodafternoon! Please give me the right to edit pages on ro.wiki .I understood my errors !! Thank you very much! (Njirlu (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC))


 * No, you haven't understood your errors. You just made them again, in Aromanian language, Aromanians, and Template:Aromanians. — Adi  Japan  14:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

sul "usurp" in ro.wikipedia
Hi, AdiJapan: I requested a "usurpation" of username "Pion" in ro.wikipedia.org on 26/04/2010. But still have not received any feedback about if it is finished. Could you help me check with it? ro:Wikipedia:Schimbarea_numelui_de_utilizator Thank you. --Pion (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! --Pion (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Fundoianu
Well, I think that the most frequent variant in Romanian is actually "B. Fundoianu" as it appears, for instance, on and throughout the Martin-Daniel edition, which also uses "Benjamin Fundoianu" - we can assume that "B." is for "Benjamin" more often than it is for "Barbu", especially since, by comparison, "Barbu Fundoianu" is quite rare (restricted romlit searches give me 2 results for "Barbu Fundoianu" and 6 for "Benjamin Fundoianu", 1,090 for "B. Fundoianu"; similarly, observatorcultural has, respectively, 1, 70 and 559). Indeed, the Fondane pronunciation comes with its a French "Benjamin".

About the phrasing, I'm thinking we could go with: "Benjamin Fondane ([French pron.) or Benjamin Fundoianu ([Romanian pron.]; born etc.)". Maybe "Barbu" deserves to be listed as more than a passing variant, in which case we could perhaps use: "Benjamin Fondane ([French pron.]), Benjamin Fundoianu or Barbu Fundoianu ([Romanian pron.]; [second Romanian pron.]; born etc.)". Dahn (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Dahn (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Nah, I'm with you on this one as well. And thanks for teaching me that code thing. Dahn (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Medgidia
It was my OR experience, as someone born and raised in the region (i.e. in Constanta). Also, etimologically, the dgi in Medgidia is the the representation of the same turkic sound represented by ge in Dobrogea (represented by 'c' in Modern Turkish). Of course, Romanian having no other "native" words with this letter cluster to compare with, may ear may be just unaccustomed to some sort of "short" d (OTOH, dictionaries recommend a pronunciation without 'd' for both bridge and cambodgean, although I doubt the relevance of these words in this context). Listening to the videos on the website of the local TV channel, I could hear a distinct 'd' only for one speaker. this book says "O mentiune aparte facem pentru oiconimele de orginie turceasca incetatenite in Dobrogea cu africata sonora: Demirdja, Demirge, variante ale lui Demircea <tc. Demirci; Medgidia, cu variantele Medjidia, Megedia, Mecidia < tc. Mecidiye, Regep-Cuiusu < tc. Recep-Kuyusu". To my best understanding, the affricate is the sound represented by "dj" or "ge".Anonimu (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Makedono-Vlachs


Domnule AdiJapan cu regret constat ca doriti in continuare sa faceti jocurile politico-securiste de la Atena. De unde asteptati dumneavoastra sute de carti scrise in limba engleza sau greaca care sa ateste denumirea etnica de MakedonArmani? Poporul Macedonean intra intr-o etapa de revigorare. Vor veni si aceste carti... Va rog sa atasati aceasta poza la sectiunea "Language" pentru ca reprezinta o maxima importanta pentru singura noastra denumire ETNICA ce in scurt timp va deveni INTERNATIONALA. (Makedonovlah (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC))

Si inca ceva: La multi ani pentru 1 Decembrie ! (Makedonovlah (talk) 10:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC))


 * I didn't ask for hundreds of English books on Aromanians. But those books that do exist use this name: Aromanians, not Makedo-Vlachs. Wikipedia doesn't write about the future, it only collects what there is already out there. If you say those books will come and your preferred name will become international, then let's wait for that to happen first. Wikipedia is not the vehicle for that change. — Adi  Japan  11:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Editor Appeals Need Translations
Hi AdiJapanThanks for all your help translating during this year's fundraiser. The fundraiser has greatly benefited from all your contributions. Currently, the appeals from Wikipedia editors Kartika, Liliaroja, Abbas and Joan Gomà need to be translated and localized. Also some core messages need to be updated for certain languages. You can find all translation requests at the translation hub on meta and you can follow the progress of the fundraiser in real time by tracking the fundraiser statistics. Also for those of you who haven't already, you can subscribe to the translators-l mailing list for all new requests and major changes. Many thanks for your help in truly making this a global fundraiser that you can edit. schapman  —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Dacia
 Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards! --Codrin.B (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize the site
I have created music do you like kindergarteners are we talking? You care for others, even without a party 's selfishness. I can fully semantic. The score at the end of last year, spending about 1 hour, and He finally made, I entered the music is sincerity. Other Users also this erasing did. This score is a kindergarten you accept the idea, but it is what you think. Do not erase unconditionally. Why can not you do delete,?

Despite continuous warnings of others to blame for the work to clear it does not go into such discussions, suggesting to block indefinitely.--218.48.38.218 (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Your Yoda-like English funny is. But I cannot fully semantic...
 * Anyway, stop vandalizing my user page. I've already warned you. — Adi  Japan  04:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * YOUSUCK! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achun1111y (talk • contribs) 05:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Care to elaborate? — Adi  Japan  06:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Feedback
Adi, please forgive me for not paying the subject as much attention as I think it deserves - I'm swamped in "real life", and I keep getting distracted by a goal of filling some redlinks here and there. For now, I have tried to assess the issue you present as best I could, and I must say that I find both arguments carry some weight. The "Moldovan/Moldavian language" name carries some historical significance, which might be enough for a separate articles on all POVs, regardless of whether they are unscientific or not. I myself divide all talk of a separate "Moldovan language" into the ignorant/atavistic/pre-modern type and the bad-faith/communized/willingly unscientific type - I do believe that this view of mine mirrors the scientific consensus, and this consensus should eventually prevail in the article itself, regardless of whether the name encourages belief in the artificial. But, just as well, the same observation could lead to a radical solution, such as redirecting Moldovan language to Controversy over linguistic and ethnic identity in Moldova (maybe under a more stylish title?) or such. So it really is an issue of which technical solution you prioritize.

However, let me also point out that, based on the aforementioned scientific consensus, you may find it suitable to expand on the purely scientific perspective in the article Varieties of the Romanian language (again, I fail to see why we don't have it under the more rational and objective original title Romanian dialects). Perhaps a separate section for Romanian in Moldova? Incidentally, the whole "Varieties..." article could benefit from a keen eye and a well-written expansion, and I can think of no better person than you to tackle that globally and accurately and intelligently.

Incidentally, while I believe ethnic identity is always subjective, and the defense of that subjectivity is a human right, I too think that linguistic realities are decided by scientific consensus. If I wish to, I may call myself a Crocodilian, but I cannot arbitrarily call the language I was taught at home and in school the Crocodilian tongue. That is simply not my call to make. Dahn (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A point often repeated (probably since the Golden Age) is that "limba română nu are dialecte, ci doar graiuri": this somehow makes it "more Latin than Italian", which has many dialects, thus implying that Romanians are the "true" descendants of Trajan, etc. In fact, getting some to acknowledge that Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian are separate languages, and not dialects of Romanian, has been a struggle. Anyway, it's probably that line of thinking which led this guy to move "Romanian dialects" to its current title. Whether that's scientifically supported is another matter. - Biruitorul Talk 14:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see - that was an oeuvre of the "Romanians =/= everybody else" police... Hopefully Adi'll fix it somehow. Dahn (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

On Urechia: sure, that's what I picture. I've never heard anybody using the "hard" i in reading that name (nor voicing the ă in Urechiă, for that matter). Okay, back to the salt mines I go :). Dahn (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and most of all thanks for this. I usually tweak the pictures myself, but where I'm at at the moment I don't have any graphics program running (and, in any case, you did a much better job, I'm sure). Dahn (talk) 12:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Spanish dialects and varieties. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I have given the same notification to IP: 200.127.171.46. Cnilep (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
 * 3) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * I thought the map of languages spoken in Spain was relevant to Spanish dialects and varieties, as an external link, nothing more. If 200.127.171.46 thought the link was in the wrong place, why then didn't he/she move it to the right place? I don't care, I was just trying to do something useful, I'm not going to waste my time on this. You guys can sort it out. Thanks for letting me know, anyway. — Adi  Japan  10:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that you were acting in good faith, doing what you think is best for the project. But you need to be aware that reverting the same article three times in a day, even for good reasons, is considered edit warring and can get both editors blocked. Cnilep (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Infinitiv lung/scurt
Ok. Poate că „înainte de dormire” e folosit mai rar, dar asta doar pentru că se folosește mai des „înainte de culcare” (care e tot infinitiv lung) - compară acum cu „înainte de a se culca”. Apoi mai adaugăm complement de scop („spre cumpărare”), de mod („prin oprire”), de loc, indirect, atribut, PLUS valori verbale, de imperativ (iertare!, păstrare la -2 C!) și conjunctiv („se cuvine mulţumire Dumnezeului nostru.”). Eu sunt convins că dacă privim cu mintea deschisă (și trecem peste problema Microsoft e rău - de parcă asta ar avea vreo importanță) o să vedem că în realitate în vorbire infinitivul scurt e mult mai rar și mai livresc decât infinitivul lung (compară „înainte de pornire” cu înainte de „a porni”, „înainte de plecare” cu înainte de a pleca și mai sunt „n” exemple).

Plus, mie de exemplu nu îmi sună deloc ciudat formule ca „dormire”, „cinare”. Mi se par mai degrabă alternative la conjunctiv, dar nu mă opresc pe stradă când aud așa ceva. Mă opresc (exagerez puțin aici) în schimb dacă aud formule ca „a cina”, „a dormi” în vorbirea orală. În scris astea din urmă sunt obișnuite dar nu și în vorbire. Și eu de exemplu nu cred că le-am folosit vreodată altundeva decât în scris. În schimb infinitivul lung îl folosesc toată ziua, și refuz să cred că asta se întâmplă doar în zona mea (eu sunt convins că la fel se întâmplă în toată țara). Tu de exemplu folosești mai des „a pleca” decât „plecare”? Eu n-aș crede, dar dacă tu zici mă forțez și te cred.

Apoi, eu așa știu că infinitivul lung se substantivizează prin articulare, altfel rămâne verb, dar poți să mă contrazici, eu nu am acuma gramatica la îndemână (dar o să caut). Mai trebuie menționat că și neologismele primesc un infinitiv lung - ex. tăguire, ceea ce eu cred că arată că infinitivul lung e departe de dispariție. Referitor la fraza respectivă, din câte îmi amintesc eu, ea nu a fost inventată în articolul despre limba română, ci provenea dintr-un alt articol despre o altă limbă romanică (sau despre limbi romanice în general - vezi de fapt fraze e prezentă și în articolul Romance languages). Ai putea să verifici unde e mai veche.

P.S. Mă gândeam acum, cum spui "ora de cinare" sau "ora cinei". Eu tind să cred că prima variantă. --Danutz (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, fraza respectivă a apărut prima dată în articolul despre limba portugheză în iunie 2002, modificată apoi de User:Ryguasu în octombrie 2002 (practic atunci a apărut fraza în forma asta). Adevărul că în limba română lexicul este latin în majoritate, iar în limba scrisă este aproape exclusiv latin (și limba vorbită urmează încet-încet limba scrisă în ceea ce privește vocabularul). Uite ce scrie la ru.wiki „Значительное количество славянских лексем, доля которых достигала 30 % всей лексики румынского языка, превратилось в архаизмы и историзмы, но и сейчас славянские корни составляют около 20 % разговорной речи румынского и 5-10 % письменной” (30% total cu arhaisme, 20% limba vorbită, 5-10% limba scrisă). Și cred că tendința e de a elimina complet aceste cuvinte de origine slavă (din reflex, nu din cine știe ce integraționism latin), pentru că multe dintre ele nu sunt adaptate la fonetica din română (chiar dacă ele folosesc cu siguranță alfabetul român, cuvinte ca „izbăvesc” sau „ispravă” pur și simplu sună foarte dur în comparație cu alte cuvinte). Este același lucru care se întâmplă cu multe cuvinte englezești și motivul pentru care Academia a și refuzat să accepte scrierea fonetică a unor cuvinte gen „western”, pentru că ele nu se simt ca aparținând românei, chiar dacă le folosim zilnic (asta a fost o paranteză). --Danutz (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Îmi pare rău, nu sîntem de acord într-o mulțime de privințe, dar mi-ar trebui prea mult timp ca să-ți explic. O parte din diferențele de opinie dintre noi sînt probabil din cauza graiului sau idiolectului tău particular, diferit de limba standard, iar o alta din cauza unor noțiuni de lingvistică pe care nu le stăpînești (gramatică, evoluția limbii, normarea limbii etc.).
 * De fapt nici nu mi-e clar ce anume e relevant din toată discuția asta, pentru că încă nu am stabilit care e scopul acelei fraze în articol. — Adi  Japan  14:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Uite ce e, eu nu sunt lingvist, nu pretind să fiu lingvist și domeniul meu de activitate nu are legătură directă cu limba (deși trebuie să cunosc româna bine în domeniul acesta). Totuși exemplele pe care ți le-am dat eu mai sus sunt de bun simț, nu le-am căutat într-o carte. Repet, mi-e greu să cred că nu ai auzit vreodată spus „înainte de cinare”, „înainte de plecare”, „înainte de pornire” (și câte exemple ai mai vrea), dar ai auzit mai degrabă „înainte de a cina”, „înainte de a pleca”, „înainte de a porni”. Apoi spui că asemenea construcții nu fac parte din limba standard? Sincer nu vreau să fiu jignitor, dar revino-ți, nu eu am inventat frazele astea, eu doar ți le-am redat aici. Ele vin „din topor” (nu cred că mi-am inventat eu o altă limbă română, dar cine știe, cu stresul din zilele noastre nu se știe când o iei razna!). Nu înțeleg de ce ești atât de înverșunat (după cum ai văzut, fraza din articol s-a dovedit o simplă întâmplare și nu cine știe ce conspirație), și sincer nu mă interesează. Dar stai liniștit că simplul fapt că nu rămâne în articolul respectiv cuvântul „cinare”, asta nu scoate infinitivul lung din limbă. Eu doar am vrut să-l pun ca o variantă alternativă care există în română, dar nu se întâmplă nimic dacă nu rămâne acolo. Noroc. (p.s. despre scoaterea din limbă a elementelor slave, eu doar am spus o părere - așa mi se pare că se întâmplă și cred că am un pic de dreptate) --Danutz (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Danutz, nu sînt înverșunat deloc, eu nu vreau să demonstrez nimic prin articol, n-am nici un interes în afară de calitatea lui. Pentru mine limba nu e cîmp de bătălie, e obiect de studiu. Eu nu vreau ca limba să fie așa sau altfel, ci o observ cum e ea. Dimpotrivă, la tine văd un pic de înverșunare.
 * În legătură cu infinitivele lungi, unele se folosesc curent (plecare, pornire), iar altele foarte rar, practic niciodată (cinare, dormire). Dar chiar și atunci cînd infinitivul lung se folosește, el este totuși la concurență cu infinitivul scurt. O formulare ca înainte de a pleca nu este deloc o raritate; dimpotrivă, vezi pe internet: "înainte de a pleca" e de vreo zece ori mai frecvent decît "înainte de plecare". N-am din ce boală să-mi revin, astea sînt fapte de limbă pe care oricine le poate verifica simplu cu Google. Iar o formulare ca "înainte de cinare" nu există pe internet deloc, nici măcar o dată, de sămînță, în timp ce "înainte de a cina" există de mii de ori. Concluzia e evidentă: dacă tu spui frecvent "înainte de cinare" înseamnă că ai o un idiolect aparte. Atenție, nu spun că asta e rău sau bine --- repet: eu studiez limba, n-o judec ---, spun doar că nu așa vorbesc românii în general. Am și eu particularitățile mele de vorbire, pe unele le știu, pe altele nu, unele rare, altele mai puțin rare. Dar aici nu e vorba de mine și de tine, ci de limba română așa cum e vorbită ea.
 * Fraza din articol încă nu m-am lămurit ce scop are. Ce află cititorul din comparațiile acelea? — Adi  Japan  16:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Eu nu spun "înainte de cinare", dar nici "înainte de a cina" sau "înainte să cinez". Pentru că eu și alte milioane de oameni nu folosim verbul "a cina". Dar îl cunosc, ceea ce înseamnă că există. Totuși forma "cinare" nu îmi sună straniu, pentru că la fel, ea există (presupun că e un mecanism undeva în creier care o face să mi să pară naturală, dat fiind că e formată după același șablon ca "pornire", "plecare", "formare" ș.a.). Este și motivul pentru care "profilare", "tăguire", "surescitare" îmi sună natural, deși nu le folosesc. Asta nu e o particularitate lingvistică a mea, e o chestiune generală. De aceea eu pe ușa restaurantului aș putea scrie "ora de cinare: 19:30" și nu cred că cineva ar fi prea surprins sau i s-ar părea greșit (nici nu cred că e greșit gramatical; e greșit?). Oricum nu cred că trebuie eu să-ți demonstrez că folosim mai des infinitivul lung, e să zic așa o axiomă. Dacă tu crezi că nu îl folosim, sau că folosim mai des infinitivul scurt în vorbire, așa să fie - mie mi-e clar că nu folosim aproape deloc infinitivul scurt în vorbire (după părerea mea, cel mai des folosim conjunctivul, apoi infinitivul lung și abia apoi cel scurt, dar e adevărat că infinitivul -atât lung cât și scurt- sună ceva mai pretențios). De asta cred că mai corect ar fi fost să avem ambele variante în articol.
 * În fine, legat de frază, dacă e acolo sau nu e acolo asta nu cu mine trebuie să discuți (eu doar am vrut să-ți arăt că provine dintr-un alt articol, și anume Portuguese language), dar poți să începi o discuție aici.
 * P.S. Despre Google: "înainte de plecare" e doar un exemplu (ca să nu mai vorbesc că ai eliminat din start varianta articulată "înainte de plecarea la..."). Dar ce zici de "după plecare"? Compară mai bine "citi" cu "citire", "pleca" cu "plecare", "căuta" cu "căutare", "profila" cu "profilare" dacă vrei să obții rezultate mai bune. --Danutz (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Toată discuția asta a pornit de la unele afirmații făcute de tine pe pagina lui Anonimu: . Afirmațiile, în particular cele relevante pentru fraza din Romanian language, s-au dovedit a fi false, iar cea mai importantă dintre ele --- că „forma cinare e folosită en-gros în română” --- accepți și singur că e falsă.
 * Spui că „mai corect ar fi fost să avem ambele variante în articol”. Nu ar fi fost mai corect deloc, pentru că varianta cu cinare e nenaturală, e potrivită cu forța. Îi spuneai lui Anonimu că scopul acelei fraze e „să arate aproprierea de limbile latine”. Pentru a atinge scopul ăsta tu încerci să forțezi o exprimare artificială. Pînă la urmă accept și o exprimare artificială, dar vreau ca cititorul să fie avertizat. Altfel articolul riscă să dea impresii greșite despre cît de mult seamănă româna cu latina.
 * Faci în continuare afirmații ciudate (cea cu axioma, cu varianta articulată, cu după etc.), dar sînt deja irelevante, așa că nu mai răspund la ele. Dacă totuși ții mult să afli ce am de contestat, întreabă-mă. — Adi  Japan  07:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Fii atent, eu nu am spus niciunde că "înainte de cinare" e mai puțin folosit în vorbire decât "înainte de a cina", așa că îmi mențin afirmația că folosim mai des infinitivul lung decât cel scurt când vorbim. Faptul că tu zici că nu, asta nu schimbă realitatea (bine recunosc, poate e doar o impresie, nu am numărat niciodată exact de câte ori aud o variantă sau alta). Și cu asta vreau să pun punct discuției pentru că nu are rost. Poți însă să arunci o privire la ro:infinitiv, pentru că am adăugat puțin material și acolo.--Danutz (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Afirmația că folosim infinitivul lung mai des decît pe cel scurt este mult prea generală și nu ne folosește la nimic. Poți să ți-o menții voios, pentru că n-am de gînd să te contrazic. Alegerea tipului de infinitiv depinde enorm de contextul sintactic, de verb, de determinări etc. Există situații în care se poate folosi numai infinitivul scurt și altele în care merge numai infinitivul lung. Discuția la modul general e irelevantă. Aici vorbeam strict de structura "înainte de a Vinfscurt" vs "înainte de Vinflung". Dacă ai fi destul de sincer cu tine însuți ai experimenta puțin pe Google și te-ai convinge care structură --- din cele două, nu altele --- e mai frecventă. Restul sînt divagații inutile. — Adi  Japan  09:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Nu-i chiar așa, mie mi se pare că depinde și de topică și de context (de ex Înainte de a cina fac... vs. fac înainte de cinare). Apoi depinde și de limba vorbită vs. limba scrisă (pe Google limba e scrsă). Dar dacă ambele variante sunt corecte (undeva am citit că verbele care nu acceptă infinitivul lung substantivizat sunt foarte rare și era dat exemplu „a se preta”/pretare), nu înțeleg de ce nu putem să avem și varianta cinare, ținând cont că textul acela e în rubrica „Clasificre și limbi înrudite”, și infinitivul nostru lung e singurul prezent în unele limbile înrudite, ca italiana.
 * Despre Google: Totuși eu nu m-aș încrede enorm în Google. De exemplu Google dă 22.000 de rezultate pentru „a cina” și 19600 pentru „înainte de a cina” - nu ți se pare puțin ciudat? Dacă nu, îți spun eu că e ciudat, și de fapt numărul acesta mare este o aiureală, după cum o să-ți arăt în rândurile următoare. De fapt cele 19600 de rezultate sunt oglinzi ale articolelor Wikipedia în care e inclusă fraza respectivă și tot felul de pagini care repetă același text (îmi e greu să-ți explic exact, dar Google poate indexa o pagină și de mii de ori, pentru că el găsește adrese diferite la care se află acea pagină - de exemplu pagina „Romanian language” se găsește și la și la ). De fapt dacă te duci frumos pe a treia pagină de rezultate de pe Google (am făcut căutarea doar pe limba română), îți apare un mesaj „Pentru a vă prezenta cele mai relevante rezultate, am omis câteva înregistrări foarte asemănătoare celor 26 deja afişate.”  Deci rezultatele pentru „înainte de a cina” sunt de fapt 26 (pagini în limba română) sau 73 (dacă vrei neapărat să faci căutarea pe toate paginile, inclusiv cele în limbi străine - însă acolo unde apare „a cina” în engleză e în articolele Wikipedia sau oglinzile Wikipedia). La fel pentru „înainte de a distribui” sunt 42 de rezultate iar pentru „înainte de distribuire” sunt 83. Mergi tot timpul pe pagina 10 a rezultatelor căutărilor pentru a vedea numărul real de rezultate. Poți să te joci puțin în Google ca să te elucidezi că nu mint. Și acum dă-mi voie să te citez: „Dacă ai fi destul de sincer cu tine însuți ai experimenta puțin pe Google și te-ai convinge care structură --- din cele două, nu altele --- e mai frecventă”. --Danutz (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Nu faci decît să confirmi ce am spus mai înainte: alegerea dintre un tip sau altul de infinitiv depinde de o mulțime de factori. Ai adăugat și tu cîțiva, dar asta nu înseamnă că m-ai contrazis. Vezi? Sîntem de acord. Din cauza asta nu trebuie să discutăm în general de infinitive, ci exact de formulările astea două: "înainte de a cina" și "înainte de cinare". Nu trebuie să schimbi nici structura, nici verbul. Exact, nici verbul, pentru că la unele verbe infinitivul lung a ajuns să fie folosit independent de verb: mîncarea e mai întîi alimentul și apoi acțiunea de a mînca, ieșirea e mai întîi ușa și apoi acțiunea de a ieși, petrecerea e mai întîi distracția și apoi acțiunea de a petrece etc. Chiar și atunci cînd infinitivul lung denumește în continuare acțiunea verbului, există o mulțime de verbe la care infinitivul lung se utilizează mai des, iar între ele o fi și distribuire. Dar toate astea sînt divagații; obiecția mea principală este că înainte de cinare nu se folosește. La fel ți-a spus și Amator Linguarum la ro.wp, independent de mine (eu adineauri am observat discuția). Tu nimic, Batman, Batman.

Într-adevăr, constat și eu că Google dă niște numere imense și pe urmă le dezumflă rău. N-am știut că face asta. Atunci să repetăm testul. Și ca să evităm copiile după Wikipedia excludem rezultatele care au cuvîntul fereastra. Iată rezultatele:


 * "înainte de a cina" -fereastra --- 23 de rezultate
 * "înainte de cinare" -fereastra --- 0 rezultate

Din cele 23 de rezultate la prima variantă o parte sînt copii. Eliminîndu-le rămîn aparițiile astea:


 * 1) Sfântul Evanghelist Ioan arată că, înainte de a cina, Hristos a spălat picioarele
 * 2) pentru o sesiune de cumparaturi in faimosul magazin Harrods, inainte de a cina într-unul dintre
 * 3) Aşa cum zice tata, ai datoria să faci dragoste înainte de a cina.
 * 4) Se va vizita Muzeul Madame Tussauds inainte de a cina la un restaurant londonez
 * 5) Inainte de a cina in oras, mananca acasa
 * 6) dezmortiti-va intr-unul din parcurile luxuriante inainte de a cina
 * 7) Inainte de a cina impreuna, Scarlett Johansson si Ryan Reynolds au mers
 * 8) Inainte de a cina, serviti un aperitiv la Captains Quarters
 * 9) Dumnezeu: Înainte de-a cina,. Noi aşa ne vom ruga
 * 10) exista acest obicei ca sa li se spele picioarele, inainte de a cina.
 * 11) patul aşternut, îl făcuse înainte de a cina.
 * 12) a afirmat presedintele Bush inainte de a cina cu cei doi lideri asiatici.

Rezultatul e oricum același: raportul dintre numerele de apariții este zdrobitor. Nu spune nici dracu înainte de cinare. Nu e pe românește. Și atunci nici Wikipedia nu trebuie să spună, mai ales într-un articol despre limba română. Știi probabil că în orice descriere a unei limbi se dau eșantioane pe cît posibil incontestabile.

Acum spui că ar trebuie să punem în articol și la română cinare pentru că infinitivul lung apare și la alte limbi. Păi dacă scopul eșantionului este de a ilustra o comparație între limbile romanice, atunci ele trebuie prezentate așa cum se vorbesc, nu așa încît să pară cît mai asemănătoare. Și astfel ajung din nou la teama mea, că scopul ascuns (poate inconștient) al eșantionului e să arate cît de mult seamănă româna cu latina. Da, sună a teoria conspirației, dar latinismul e boală grea la români. Au trecut secole întregi de la primele simptome și încă nu ne-am vindecat (vezi reforma din 1993).

Limba trebuie prezentată în articol nici mai așa, nici mai așa decît este. — Adi  Japan  15:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Tu vorbești serios? Pentru că apare de 23 de ori în Google, expresia „înainte de a cina” și „înainte de cinare” nu apare, asta înseamnă că nu există? Dar eu ți-am mai spus, noi rar folosim verbul „a cina”. Vrei să mă apuc să scriu pe 23 de site-uri „înainte de cinare”? Pentru că e deja comic ce spui. Finalizare nu ar fi atunci un exemplu bun (dacă distrbuire nu e)? În DEX e definit doar ca „acțiunea de a finaliza și rezultatul ei”, fără alte sensuri. Totuși Google are 441 de rezultate pentru „înainte de finalizare” și doar 373 pentru „înainte de a finaliza”. Și să nu uităm că mai există forma „înainte de finalizarea...” care mai dă alte 492 de rezultate. Asta dacă tot vorbim de „infinitivul lung substantivizat”. Apoi, mâncare, Google are 468 de rezultate pentru „înainte de a mânca” și 453 pentru „înainte de mâncare” (+26 pentru „înainte de mâncarea”). Totuși nu ți se pare că sunt măcar alternative? Eu pun punct aici discuției pentru că pur și simplu nu are rost. Eu am deja o sursă care spune că sunt foarte puține verbele care nu acceptă infinitivul lung substantivizat (ți-am dat mai sus exemplul „a se preta”). Mai caut una în care să se spună negru pe alb că aceste construcții sunt corecte și forma cinare se va întoarce în articol, că vrei tu că, nu vrei tu. Dacă nu o să găsesc (nu mă pot apuca să iau toate cărțile la rând), ghinion, nu o să scrie în articol (dar asta tot nu înseamnă că lumea nu folosește formele astea). Nu uita totuși că niciunde în vreo carte nu scrie că o astfel de formulare este incorectă. --Danutz (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * „Tu vorbești serios?” --- Da.
 * „Pentru că apare de 23 de ori în Google, expresia „înainte de a cina” și „înainte de cinare” nu apare, asta înseamnă că nu există?” --- Nu neapărat, dar e un indiciu puternic. Avem două variante, una confirmată prin uzul pe internet, cealaltă total neconfirmată; tu pe care o alegi?
 * „Vrei să mă apuc să scriu pe 23 de site-uri «înainte de cinare»?” --- Poftim?! Deci sugerez că aș fi scris eu cele 23 de pagini cu înainte de a cina? Sau ce trebuie să înțeleg din asta?
 * „Pentru că e deja comic ce spui.” --- Care parte?
 * „Finalizare nu ar fi atunci un exemplu bun (dacă distrbuire nu e)?” --- Nu. Finalizare se folosește în alte contexte, are altă tranzitivitate, ține de alt registru, figurează în dicționare. E alt verb și se comportă altfel. De-asta nu merge să-l iei ca reper.
 * „Asta dacă tot vorbim de «infinitivul lung substantivizat».” --- Ai uitat să recunoști că am avut dreptate cînd spuneam că infinitivul lung poate fi substantiv și fără a fi articulat. Între timp văd că te-ai documentat și ai ajuns la aceeași concluzie.
 * „Apoi, mâncare, Google are 468 de rezultate pentru «înainte de a mânca» și 453 pentru «înainte de mâncare» (+26 pentru «înainte de mâncarea»).” --- Iarăși, e alt verb, cu altă frecvență în uz și alte particularități. Mîncare figurează în dicționar și cu sensul „prînz, cină, masă”.
 * „Mai caut una în care să se spună negru pe alb că aceste construcții sunt corecte și forma cinare se va întoarce în articol, că vrei tu că, nu vrei tu.” --- Nu se pot da verdicte generale pentru construcții. De altfel construcția asta e corectă, ți-o spun eu, dar asta nu înseamnă că toate verbele pot intra în ea.
 * „Nu uita totuși că niciunde în vreo carte nu scrie că o astfel de formulare este incorectă.” --- Scuză-mă dar ai carențe în a înțelege ce este normarea limbii. Se discută explicit numai greșelile care se fac, de obicei cele frecvente. Rămîn necriticate o infinitate de exprimări nenaturale, pentru simplul fapt că nu le auzim. E diferența între cele două sensuri ale noțiunii de gramatică: pe de o parte gramatica din cărți, unde se expune o teorie a felului cum vorbim, iar pe de alta e gramatica din mintea fiecăruia din vorbitori, adică numărul imens de reguli pe care le-am deprins inconștient. Văd că te-ai uitat pe cartea lui Ion Coteanu. Uită-te ce scrie pe ultima copertă: „Fiecare om are în mintea lui o gramatică, pentru că altfel nu ar putea să vorbească, să înţeleagă ce spune el însuşi şi nici ce spun ceilalţi.” Citește în continuare. În plus aici nu e vorba de corectitudine în sensul limbii literare, ci de naturalețe. Există o infinitate de exprimări care nu încalcă nici o regulă scrisă a gramaticii, și care totuși nu apar în vorbire, pentru că nu sînt naturale. „Înainte de cinare” e una dintre ele.
 * Dar bănuiesc că și lucrurile astea tot degeaba ți le-am spus, deci ai dreptate, discuția nu are rost. — Adi  Japan  05:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Transylvanian varieties of Romanian
No, forte interesant ;-) --Codrin.B (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

With due apologies
Adi, it didn't even occur to me that you experienced the earthquake, and I must apologize for my tactlessness: I only caught vague news of the events here in Romania, and, out of inertia, they never got a chance to really settle in my mind; for you it must have been horrific, and I sincerely hope you and everybody you care about in Japan are safe and sound. I can't begin to imagine what it must be to deal with such a shock, and everybody who did is already a hero in my book. Hang in there!

Concerning the articles: yes, I saw them, and even linked to them, and I believe Anonimu has an IPA question. They are very good articles, and badly needed, allow me to thank you as I disseminate the links further.

On Samurcaş: I think it is SamurCAŞ, at least this is the variant I have been hearing (wrong or right as it may be). I tried finding an audio sample to verify this, but so far nothing popped up. Dahn (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you're okay, and I really hope Japan itself pulls through as quick as you did. And many thanks for the quick fixes, not to mention to trouble you take every time looking this stuff up. Dahn (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure I noticed: lately, my watchlist came with a wall of AdiJapans, and, as usual, you're doing a great job. (I presume you didn't get more feedback because others are likewise constructively tangled, or absent. I would have mentioned it earlier, but I tend to go virtually incommunicado when I'm accelerating work on a "big" article - which is what I had been doing through the early stages of your "rampage".)

The couple of times I actually heard the name, it was like Eva. Dahn (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Smooth stuff with the audios as well, kudos! Btw, should we mention that in Moldavia they also say eşti tătar? Dahn (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hm. I've always taken chinezărie to mean something kitsch, or needlessly complicated. I think the literal version would be păsărească, but I'm not sure if it meets the same register (though I note other entries also seem to follow terms more probably translatable as "gibberish"). Dahn (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

stressed monosyllables
Answered on my talk page. (Short answer: Yes, that's what I do.) — kwami (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Dobrogea
Does the version with the accent on the second syllable really have any currency? I've only heard this version (rarely) on (national) TV, and the CNA explicitly marks it as incorrect. A quick check in the video archives of local (Neptun TV) and national (TVR, Pro, Realitatea, Antena, Prima) stations didn't provide any example of such use, so I'm inclined to remove that pronunciation from the article altogether per undue weight.Anonimu (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you were right to switch the order, because indeed Dóbrogea is much more widespread. The reason I put the variant Dobrógea first was that I remember very clearly it was the only accepted pronunciation, at least some years back (Dóbrogea was specifically being pointed out as incorrect). As such, I even thought that adding the variant Dóbrogea as a variant in the article was an act of courage, or sort of. (I myself pronounce Dóbrogea, which was one more reason to hesitate and choose the second place for it.)
 * I wouldn't give much weight to the CNA monitoring reports, although realized by (young) linguists, especially since in the same list you cited I see pronunciation mistakes that are not really mistakes, but more or less accepted variants: tráfic, cortej, furíe, sălbatec, déosebit [de + adj.], topogan.
 * I don't think we should delete Dobrógea altogether. It is highly unlikely that a pronunciation that was just very recently the only one recommended is now suddenly negligible.
 * Unfortunately I don't have access to any Romanian dictionary that gives pronunciations for proper names. As far as I know there is none on the internet (but if you know any I'd be thrilled) and the closest decent Romanian library from me is half a world away. — Adi  Japan  07:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any book listing pronunciations of toponyms, so even I'm not that far from Romanian libraries, I wouldn't know where to search. A search on GBooks shows however that "Dó-bro" variant is always considered the right one. See for example this 1977 article in the journal of the Romanian Writer's Union: Prea adesea se spune profésor şi nu profesór, dúşman şi nu duşmán, símbol şi nu simból, prevédere şi nu prevedére, táxi şi nu taxí, bólnav şi nu bolnáv, carácter şi nu caractér, Dobrógea si nu Dóbrogea. (profesor is the only word for which the "wrong" accent has also become accepted). This 1948 US book (search for Dobrogea) also explicitly notes "Rum. dô'-brô-jā" (it also notes "Bg. dô'-bròó-jā" while "Eng. dô'-brōō'-jə", although I'm not sure what's with the double accent). A 1997 Merriam-Webster uses the same for the Romanian variant.Anonimu (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The author of the 1977 article admits he's not a specialist („după informațiile mele pe care specialiștii le-ar putea oricînd confirma”), which wasn't really necessary, since what he says suggests it anyway („asemenea abateri afectează cîteva sute de cuvinte cărora dicționarele noastre le indică accentul, dar pe care vorbitorii le pronunță după bunul plac”). In his list of "mispronounced" words, all examples except Dobrogea concern a stress shift towards the beginning of the word, which is a phenomenon well known to Romanian linguists, criticized by the more prescriptively-inclined, but nonetheless accepted as an unavoidable reality. More than half of those words are given in dictionaries as secondary stress variants (bólnav, símbol, dúșman, carácter), and by "secondary variants" I mean they are accepted, whereas one has even taken up the preferred position (profésor). But if we do consider that article to be a reliable source then it comes to show that indeed the stress pattern Dobrógea does exist (even excessively, according to the author), which is an additional reason for us to mention it in our article. Wikipedia is not supposed to be prescriptive (what there should be), but descriptive (what there is).
 * The two American sources are useful in choosing the Dóbrogea as the first variant, not to exclude the other. — Adi  Japan  05:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Romanian names
Hi, I have noticed that you transcribe the Romanian name "Ioan" as [iˈo̯an], that is, two syllables with a vowel at the beginning. I've also heard it pronounced as a one-syllable word (as I think the Spanish "Juan" is pronounced) with a triphtong where the first sound is a semi-vowel ([ˈjo̯an]), or as two syllables with a rounded [a]: [jo̯ˈwan]. Do you think there are regional differences in the pronunciation of the name? Just being curious. Have a nice day!--Mycomp (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The two-syllable variant is the one occurring in most careful pronunciations, so I chose it for Wikipedia. One-syllable pronunciations for Ioan are careless or hasty, and consequently unfit for teaching foreigners how to pronounce Romanian names (especially if those foreigners are TV announcers or other people who have a large public). Besides, a pronunciation with a triphthong such as [jo̯an] are even more difficult for them than [iˈo̯an], which is difficult enough already. The two syllable pronunciation is also supported by similarity with the word ioanit, which the dictionaries say is pronounced as [i.o̯aˈnit], that is, with vowel+diphthong.
 * I had the same dilemma for the name Ion, which is also pronounced in two ways, and I chose the two-syllable variant. It is homonymous with the physics concept of ion, also pronounceable in two ways in Romanian, but for which dictionaries choose the two-syllable variant.
 * The fact is that in Romanian the contrast between a vowel (particularly i) and its respective semivowel is significantly less distinct than in other languages. Many words have phonetic variants in this regard: o-bi-ect / o-biect, zi-ar / ziar, pi-o-ni-er / pio-nier, fi-as-co / fias-co, de-o-da-tă / deo-da-tă, and so on.
 * And this is without even beginning to talk about dialectal differences. To answer your question, there are certainly differences in the pronunciation of Ioan; for instance Crișana, Maramureș, parts of Banat, as well as other areas of Transylvania, the diphthong oa is pronounced as a single vowel: [ɔ] (that is, an open sort of [o]). Also, as dialectal speech tends to be less careful and more hasty, I'm pretty sure the i in Ioan would usually be realized as a semivowel. — Adi  Japan  05:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * PS. I never heard the pronunciation [joˈwan]. By the way, the pronunciation [jo̯ˈwan], with semivocalic [o], is impossible: the first syllable doesn't have a vowel. — Adi  Japan  05:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation.--Mycomp (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Voting Error
Hi Adi-- I'm not part of the election committee anything, but I read your message on election talk page and it sounded insanely frustrating, so I wanted to write you a note encouraging you not to give up. Hopefully the election committee members will get back to you about your error shortly, but if they don't, I'd suggest you email your vote preferences to the committee ahead of time. During the tallying process, they can make certain that your vote is included.

Additionally, I've been trying to get people to make 'voter guides' that share and explain their election preferences. If you want to summarize your position and your rationale for voting, it might help others avoid having to spend the same amount of time that you did to research and rank the candidates. --Alecmconroy (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being so sympathetic. But I'm just a guy, possibly on the other side of the world, so nobody actually cares if I can vote, especially not the organizers (see, no one has answered my complaint yet). I'm not going to worsen my fate by wasting even more time on this.
 * A voter guide would be one more time trap for people like me to fall in. I voted the way I voted (well, tried to) for the obvious reasons: the Board members should be mature, clearly-thinking people, who have experience with Wikimedia projects, who have as diverse backgrounds as possible, and who are accustomed to international and cross-cultural matters. That's about it. I must admit that with one or two exceptions I didn't actually think this year's candidates were good for the job, so I had to choose from what was available.
 * Cheers! — Adi  Japan  03:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. I tried again and it worked. — Adi  Japan  04:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Haiducii
Hi. Someone recently [ added] a representation of the singer Haiducii's stage name in the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet. I removed this because I couldn't see any evidence of a Moldovan connection. Do you agree? Or is there some issue here that I'm not aware of?

Also, assuming there were in fact some proper reason to include Haiducii's name written in Moldovan Cyrillic, I wondered if the form proposed by the other editor (Хайдучий) is correct. I would have expected this word (definite plural of Haiduc / Хайдук) to be written Хайдучи (without a final й). Rich wales (talk · contribs) 16:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, Rich! It's been quite a long time!
 * As far as I know there is no need for a Cyrillic version of the name, unless we also include transliterations in other scripts. So yes, you were right to remove it.
 * My knowledge of the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet and its usage rules is probably less than you expect. But I'm pretty sure think the transliteration Хайдучий is correct. I added the IPA transcription in the article and you can see why I say that. (The previous transcription was wrong in two places.) It's becoming increasingly hard to find carefully written texts in Moldovan Cyrillic, so I can only confirm this use of -ий in less than highly reliable texts. More than 100 years ago, when the letter ǐ was still in use in the Romanian alphabet, the word would have been written haǐduciǐ. Current spelling rules just dropped the hat off the ǐ.
 * I can guess why you're asking about the final й though. Many Romanian speakers now pronounce words like lupii with a monophthong at the end:, so probably you learned this pronunciation. Many other speakers, however, preserve the second i as a semivowel: . In fact there seems to be a whole story of how speakers retain the full in some cases and reduce it to  in others. Unfortunately I have no source for it, I can just tell you that, from my own observations, there are about a dozen possible situations of this final -ii, which various categories of speakers pronounce (or, more precisely, perceive) one way or another. At one extreme, in words like membrii or tigrii only few speakers perceive the final , whereas in studii and ulii most speakers perceive it. The case of haiducii is somewhere in the middle: about half the people I asked about words in the same class (lupii, ochii) perceive the end as  and the other half as . —  Adi  Japan  03:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Two observations:  First, I frequently hear the semivowel -i as a devoiced (whispered) sound when it follows another vowel.  In final -ri, the palatalized consonant itself seems to lose voicing under the influence of the devoiced (and essentially unpronounced) final semivowel -i.  This was definitely the case with my mid-1980's teacher's speech (he was from Cluj, in case this might be a regional thing).  Second, it's been my understanding that the semivowel -i was normally represented in the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet via the soft sign (ь), not й.  See Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet, for what that article may be worth.  If I get a chance, I'll try looking in my local university library for any books printed in Soviet-era Moldavia using the Cyrillic alphabet, and maybe photograph a few pages as source material.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 03:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, ь can only come after consonants, and represents the so-called palatalization in words like nori. On the other hand, й can only occur after vowels, and represents the semivowel  in words like noi. The two can never occur in the same phonetic context, so minimal pairs are impossible to find, and as such it's hard to say if they are allophones of one phoneme or two distinct phonemes. The current Romanian orthography uses the same letter for them, i, and speakers don't find this intriguing at all, so you could argue the two (actually three, including the full vocalic ) are one phoneme. Why they are written differently in Cyrillic? It must be because that's how they are used in Russian, I don't know.
 * The use of the obsolete letter ǐ must then be seen as an intermediate step in the transition from Cyrillic to Latin in the second half of the 19th century. It used to represent both the palatalization and the semivowel. Minimal pairs can be found between the vowel and the semivowel (such as the two distinct words written vier) and between the vowel and the palatalization (for example mări, two distinct words again). But such ambiguities are so rare and easily solved through context that using a separate letter to avoid confusion was judged to be meaningless, and simple i came to be used for all three cases. — Adi  Japan  12:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I found a few books in the university library printed in Moldova during the Soviet era. One of them (Дикционар Ортографик ал Лимбий Молдовенешть, published in Chişinău in 1978) has a detailed section about each letter.  The section about й gives one example with ий (копий) — and, of course, the title of the book has лимбий.  The section about ь says this letter should not be used at the end of singular nouns ending with ч, adverbs like аич, атунч, нич, and чинч, or words like тотуш and ярэш.  I can get you copies of the quick-and-dirty photos I took of parts of the book using my iPhone; e-mail me (so I have an e-mail address to send the photos to you).   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 02:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on a new article I'm writing
Hi. I'm working on a biographical article on George E. Crothers — an important alumnus, trustee, and benefactor of my alma mater, Stanford University (and not to be confused with George Crothers, the Irish cricket player). Once the page is in decent shape, I'm planning to nominate it for DYK. If you have any time to go take a look (User:Richwales/Drafts/George E. Crothers) and give me feedback, I'd be grateful. Thanks. Rich wales (talk · contribs) 03:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Romanian numbers with "de"
Hello, Adi! Please check this modification regarding the use of the preposition "de" within the Romanian numbers, I'm not sure if my phrase is understandable enough (maybe you could rephrase it). Also, I see now (after I decided to write you) that you are the original author of that paragraph; I hope you agree that this is the correct way. I did not find an explicit source, only this book excerpt. Razvan Socol (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right, thanks for pointing it out. I edited the paragraph to simplify the explanation (and made other changes too). The problem is that things are not so straightforward. There is a hesitation in natives' speech in using de with numbers like 101, 1001 (even 102, 1002), etc., although the simple rule states no de is needed there. Many people say o sută una de povești, o sută unu de milioane (or even o sută una de milioane!), o mie una de chestii, etc. Unfortunately it's hard to check this use on the internet (at least to make sure it's not just my own hesitation), because numbers are almost never spelled out. I will check a couple of detailed grammar books on the issue, but it's going to take some time. — Adi  Japan  15:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

it.wiki
Hello... I'm sorry, unfortunately I'm not directly in contact with any Italian administrator outiside of Wikipedia, but I already sent a message (here on en.wiki) to another Italian user who surely is. I just hope he finds the message.

However, I wish to let you know that I really, really appreciate your effort, and that of other Romanian users, in trying to give some international visibility to the issues of the Italian Wikipedia. It's quite a bad moment for us, so... thank you for supporting us, really. Friendly regards, --MLWatts (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, how stupid I am! I had forgotten the "Email this user" fature available on user pages... a few moments ago (as soon ad remembered it) I managed to sand an email to an Italian sysop directly. This way it's much more likely that the message will be found soon. Thanks again for your help, and thanks for the words you wrote to me... they were very significant to me. Yours, --MLWatts (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * All right, I've seen that our good old sysop lady Austroungarika added the Romanian text. Thank you very, very much, also in the name of other Italian users, readers and... well, people. Cheers, --MLWatts (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Thankful Barnstar of Freedom and Friendship
May I ask you to award this barnstar to any other ro.wiki user who contributed to the translation of our banner? Thanks again, --MLWatts (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Congratulations for the great leap forward that your country has just made! I never liked Berlusconi. I hope the technocrats will fix the things he ruined. And thank you for the quite unexpected and very flattering barnstar, which I don't believe I really deserve, but which I have just forwarded to the guy who does: . As a closing greeting I would say "Forza Italia!", but you might get me wrong... Anyway, keep up the good work! — Adi  Japan  14:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ahahahahaha, all right! Thanks again :-) --MLWatts (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Romania
--Codrin.B (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Stress (pun appreciated)
Hi, Adi. To the best of my knowledge, it's: Batzaría, Filítti, Saniélevici. Dahn (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't reply in time (only looked over it this week), but I admit I was shaken. I'm hoping for the best, and I wouldn't want to make it worse by prying or expressing even more worries. Having been in a similar situation myself, I understand the fear and disgust. (Feel free to delete this post, btw.) Dahn (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And people keep asking me why I never contribute there, or why I was so keen on asking for a regulatory supervision of the entire project. Adi, I am sorry you have to go through this, and I will discontinue any of my own (few) interactions with Romanian wikipedia until such time as proper action is taken - that man is blackmailing you. It is one more piece of putrid shit in the long chain that still keeps Romanian wikipedia under ever-slipping into the control of the mentally disturbed and the morally deficient. If I were really the activist some of those people claim I am, I would make yours a cause celebre; but I have immeasurable respect for you as a friend and as a decent human being, and I will instead say that I will support you no matter what, with all of what I can possibly spare as an editor. Given the real-life implications of the threat, it would have to be your call whether or not you want me to, say, try and notify the stewards to start looking into how the project is handled and by whom.
 * Indeed, until such time as the editor is banned and the posts stricken out for ever (and provided even this option does not prompt him to actually seek his real-life "vengeance"), it is best for you to avoid interaction with him. Dahn (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That whole thing was a no-biggie. See my reply on Dahn's talkpage. --Ondskan2 (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And who here lacks morality, really? The one who made the threat of disclosing Adi's poor working morale to Adi's managers, or, Adi who prays on his employer's trust and spends his time on Wikipedia? If Adi was given permission to surf the net on working hours; or if Adi is innocent of these allegations, then Adi should have nothing to fear from his managers. On top of that, Dahn is also guilty of promoting corruption so yes, "mentally disturbed" and "morally deficient" indeed. --Ondskan2 (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Name of this language in Moldova
Hi. Although I'm sure most will agree that the recent editing by that IP editor (which both [ you]] and [ I] reverted) is not appropriate — and I've given the IP editor a warning for edit warring — I do wonder whether it might be legitimate to expand the first paragraph to acknowledge that the name limba română is used in Moldova (in addition to limba moldovenască). Do you agree? And if you do, what do you think might be an accurate and sourceable way to say this (possibly borrowing some of the sources already used in the Moldovan language article)? — Rich wales 17:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I edited the paragraph and added info about what the language is called in Moldova (all three names). I didn't add sources, but I think the link to Moldovan language means that the reader can expect to find a detailed explanation, and sources for it, in that article. Besides, Romanian language has a section on the legal status of the language in Moldova, with sources. I would say that is enough. But you can of course edit the paragraph further and add sources if you see fit. — Adi  Japan  15:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This looks good to me (possibly with the addition of a source or two, if such can be easily found). Thanks.  —  Rich wales 15:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Yuri Denisyuk with hologram.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Yuri Denisyuk with hologram.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. — Adi  Japan  09:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  13:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, regarding the "Unsolved severe personal attack on Romanian Wikipedia" section, let me remind you of what our sockpuppetry policy says."Alternative accounts have legitimate uses. For example, long-term contributors using their real names may wish to use a pseudonymous account for contributions with which they do not want their real name to be associated, or long-term users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users. These accounts are not sockpuppets. If you use an alternative account, it is your responsibility to ensure that you do not violate this policy. And then, Privacy. A person...may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area."At least by our policies, you're permitted to use a second account to avoid real-life consequences from editing, as long as you're heeding our policies and not actively saying that the two accounts are different. If I understand correctly from Google Translate, the "Păstrarea disputelor într-o zonă restrînsă" section of ro:Wikipedia:Clone permits basically the same thing.  Nyttend (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Misunderstanding?
Dear Ady,

I really appreciate all your dedication to the topic, not only on wikipedia but as well in other places such as the softpedia forum where you are quite active. I added yesterday a link to a website that holds free resources with free pronunciation, and free phonetic transcription, which is unique over the internet(for the Romanian language). There are several hundreds of such basic words on the page that I've previously added. I've seen that you were quite fast to qualify my edit as "Spam" which I find to a certain extent unfair, but just to explain you the reasons why I dared to add it: I checked before the first page in the External Links section: http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/rom-uni.htm and I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw such a rudimentary way of explaining the way a few Romanian words should be pronounced. I'm sure that you do agree with me, that wikipedia is intended to help the public at large by making available free accurate and complete resources, this is why I dared to add my webiste on the External Pages section.

I must admit that I'm fairly new to wikipedia, so please excuse my clumsiness in dealing with the way wikipedia (I hope this is the right place to place my comment).

I have a lot of respect for you, especially because of your many contributions to the Romanian language cause, but I have to disagree with you on the way you kind of easily dismissed the wikipedia concepts that I fully support of being free, complete and accurate. Waiting for your feedback I will undo your changes, and I wish you a nice day. Learn Romanian (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I admit that spam didn't describe your edit well enough, so probably I should have found a better term. For your edit to be obvious spam, your external link must have been placed on several pages. But it was spam in the following multiple senses:
 * Judging from your username (and now from your statements), the link promotes a website where you are the owner or where you have at least some personal interest.
 * You placed the link at the top of the section, just like most spammers do, without regard to the importance the link might have had in context.
 * The quality of the material you linked to is not exactly at a level compatible with an encyclopedia level, but visibly amateurish.
 * Let's forget for a moment that you are in fact in a conflict of interests here. Let's only judge the value of your website from the Wikipedia perspective. Romanian language is an encyclopedia article, and as such it does not specifically or primarily target readers who want to teach themselves Romanian, but people who want to find knowledge about this subject (not a "cause", by the way). Even if some readers do want to learn Romanian, they still deserve links to materials that are of high quality, hopefully reliable sources made by competent people. Your intentions with the website are wonderful and praiseworthy for the amount of effort and the fact that it's free. But Wikipedia needs better links.
 * By now you must have started wondering what gave you away. Well, specialists in language teaching would certainly know that all forms of a fi starting with an orthographic e are actually pronounced with, for example este is pronounced , not . Also in phonetic transcriptions, specialists know how to enclose whole sentences within slashes or brackets, not every word by itself. There are also other tell-tale details. And then there is the "About us" page, which seems to say that the whole website was made by people who have just learned Romanian form books, CDs, or friends. That is, not by people who can actually teach Romanian so well that their work can be cited in Wikipedia.
 * I'm not sure what your complaint is about the first link in that section. It is a list of the SAMPA phonetic transcription for Romanian sounds (no, it doesn't explain how to pronounce Romanian words). It's not IPA and it's not a phonetic alphabet that I like, but it is a phonetic alphabet, one that some specialists used to prefer or still do (it has some advantages in digital communication, which explains why it looks rudimentary). And the page is maintained by John Wells, a phonetics professor with the linguistics division of UCL, a prestigious university. That's what we call a reliable source.
 * See WP:ADV for more details, in particular where it says, "you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked". — Adi  Japan  13:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Ady, First of all, I'm an honest person, that doesn't like to lie. I could have pretended to be a person that was mesmerized by the website, and then propose it incidentally to be added, but I didn't since I do prefer transparency and honesty.

Thank you for checking the quality of the materials. I'm aware of the wrong phonetic transcription of the forms of the verb "a fi", the difficulty is that redoing the audio files is not that easy... it does take some time, and for a free website it takes even longer.

You are right I'm not a specialist, but I'm not pretending to be one. As you have mentioned on that page, besides the issue with the verb to be, there are very few other issues, and the issue with "je" from "este" represents 0,3% of all the words on that same page, and as I mentioned above I'm about to correct them.

You have spotted 2-3 issues, that I believe only professors of linguistics might have spotted, and that are to sometimes not that well known, or can be controversial...

I will give you an example that I'm working on, which is controversial, (it's true that the forms of the verb to be are not controversial).

You know as well as I do, that there are no resources of IPA transcriptions of Romanian words, and trying to prove that what I've done it's not good, it's ok, but on the other hand, it might be better to help with an honest advice, rather than consider that that resource is worthless. With regards to the slashes, I'll be more than happy if you could provide me with a reference to anything (book, website) that could explain it. Please note that I did some research on the subject, this is why I'm genuinely interested in such a resource that I couldn't find, hence my mistake (noticeable I guess to the trained eye only, and to my mind not that important..).

I have all the respect for professors, and specialists, but I believe (and hope that you agree with me), that IPA is much more used than SAMPA, and having a page that refers to IPA phonetic transcription is more interesting than the one of SAMPA(that was my logic when I decided to put it above the SAMPA link, not to necessarily have it the first in the list).

The major added value that you did not mention is the audio files that are very important to learning any language.You can place links to 500 phonetic systems, how many normal persons do you know that can understand them...?

You mention that the page has an encyclopedic value, however there is a dictionary at the end of the External links right? ok... and I placed a link with less words but of a similar nature.

I have no comment on the "About us", if this is the criteria to allow a link or not to the External Links section, I wonder how does the dictionary at the end of the section...

Generally speaking, I'm the type of person that would try to build something, and help improving it, rather than saying no it's not good, it's rubbish. It's so much easy to destroy rather than build something isn't it? I also feel that since wikipedia is the space for all people to contribute to, we should not have double standards, and allow something that was there from the very beginning (10 years ago when nobody was checking), and be now 10 times stricter because now there are more volunteers to check it.

I fully respect all the other links in the External Links section, their authors and the work they have done, being a content builder myself, and not a copy paster, I fully understand what it means to gather all the materials and make them available for others for free. My only comments about the other links are meant to highlight the fair and equal treatment that all links in that section should receive.

Please feel free to remove my link, place it in the middle, or at the bottom. I will not undo the change. I do believe that in the year 2014 when we have smartphones, internet everywhere curved TVs we could help the people at large by offering them a sample of the language with very many useful examples, together with the IPA transcription (with it's faults as you mentioned that I will correct).

Once again I admire your work and keep up your relentless efforts of promoting high quality Romanian language content.

Learn Romanian (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your honesty and openness. Admitting you are the author of that website and that you are not a specialist in language teaching was the right thing to do. So was accepting that other people decide the fate of your link. I will remove it from the article, for the reasons I mentioned yesterday.
 * Thank you also for the other details your website. If you need advice about improving your phonetic transcriptions or other parts of your project, I think I can help. However, Wikipedia is not the proper place to talk about it, as this discussion no longer concerns the encyclopedia. For that you will need to contact me elsewhere. Cheers. — Adi  Japan  12:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Well
You address no linguistic issues nor set out your "qualifications" to speak on this issue. That is: what is the difference between the (composite) perfect and the preterite in Romanian? You have not even addressed the issue by means of saying you are a Romanian speaker. It seems to me that you might be a Wikipedia "control freak." What right, in any event, have you to dictate what Romanians/Academics say about the language? For goodness sake, grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.92.110 (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Archive
Hi, this page is too long. Please archive it. 80.246.130.151 (talk) 10:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Requests and Questions
Hello. I want to transliterate/transcribe a number of Romanian proper nouns into the Thai alphabet (to be used in the Thai version of Wikipedia), but currently I have the problems as follows:
 * Could you add the IPA transcription for Drochia and Taraclia? I am not sure if the sequence ia in these names is considered a diphthong or two vowels in hiatus.
 * Do the a and the u as in Ceaușescu really belong to different syllables? Would it sound unnatural to native speakers if one pronounces them (or other sequences of two vowels in hiatus) as a diphthong?
 * I have read that the phonetic realization of the Romanian vowel /o/ is the mid vowel [o̞], but the Thai alphabet has no letter to represent the sound [o̞]; it has only the letters for the close-mid /o/ and the open-mid /ɔ/ (they are not precisely at the same height as the cardinal vowels though); for example, /tōː/, /tɔ̀ː/, /lók/, /lɔ́k/, /pròːt/ and /plɔ̀ːt/. So, in order to transcribe the Romanian /o/ [o̞], I have to choose between the letter for (close-mid) /o/ and the letter for /ɔ/. Could you suggest which one would be closer to the Romanian /o/ [o̞]? --Potapt (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, Potapt. Thanks for contributing to the Thai Wikipedia on Romanian-related subjects.
 * Unfortunately, I don't know enough about how Drochia and Taraclia are pronounced in Moldova; in particular I'm not sure where the stress is. I'm pretty sure they both end in hiatus though. I don't know if that helps.
 * Yes, Ceaușescu is pronounced with [a.u] in hiatus, but a pronunciation with a diphthong would not sound unnatural. In fact, native English speakers pronounce it with the diphthong [aʊ] and it doesn't sound too bad. Ideally you should try to find the right balance between being faithful to the Romanian pronunciation and providing an easily pronounceable adaptation to Thai. Quite often that means making compromises (I've had the same problem in transliterating Romanian names in Japanese).
 * Yes, Romanian /o/ is mid. I know nothing about Thai vowels, but looking at the monophthong chart in Thai language, it appears that the close-mid [o] is a better approximation to the Romanian /o/, while the open-mid [ɔ] is very open, almost like [ɒ]. If this information is correct, then I'd suggest using the close-mid vowel.
 * I'd recommend looking for Romanian<->Thai dictionaries, Romanian language learning tools designed for Thai natives, news from the Thai embassy in Bucharest or Romanian embassy in Bangkok, and so on. But you've probably already thought of that. — Adi  Japan  08:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your answers, Adi. Yes, I have looked for the news or publications from the embassies but they use transcribed names quite sporadically in a handful of texts, so I have to find other ways.


 * As for the pronounciation for Moldovan names, the information you gave me are useful. The stress is not phonemic in Thai language (although we tend to stress the last syllable of each word), so we don't need to represent them in the orthography. In order to check the syllabification, I usually use https://dexonline.ro/ and https://www.dictionarroman.ro/, which are the great sources even though they don't contain a lot of proper nouns.


 * As for Thai /ɔ/, I find that the vowel chart in this article (p.4) is a bit more accurate, because I feel like /ɔ/ is produced at a higher position than /ɛ/ in Thai, so it isn't that open. I have searched for the spellings used by Thai people who live or have lived in Romania and found that, in most cases, they use the letter for the open-mid /ɔ/ in order to transcribe Romanian /o/. I browsed through the list of Romanian words on Forvo.com and listened to some pronunciation clips. Personally, I feel like Romanian /o/ in those words tend to be more open in closed syllables, but I am not very sure. I will do more research before settling on this. --Potapt (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Glad I could help. The choice of mid-open or mid-close /o/ is up to you, although in order to obey the verifiability policy of Wikipedia you will need to look at how Romanian words have been transliterated into Thai in reliable sources. You might find maps of Romania or Eastern Europe in Thai geographic or touristic publications, where at least larger cities are mentioned, some of which have an o, like Botoșani, Craiova, Constanța, Brașov, etc. — Adi  Japan  02:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I found TV news stories on YouTube about Drochia and Taraclia and added the IPA transcriptions in the relevant articles. Both names end in hiatus. — Adi  Japan  03:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 16:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 15:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 20:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I need a translation of a sentence, into French

 * 1) The sentence is: "Welcome to the first stage, of the fourth international program of MAL's method, the internatinal training course of MAL, 2021"
 * 2) By "program" I mean, like in: "governmental program", or "educational program", and the like.
 * 3) By "stage" I mean: phase/part/step (Actually the "program" consists of a few stages).
 * 4) I know to use GoogleTranslate, but I need a native translation.
 * 5) Additionally, I would like to know how to pronounce the whole translated sentence (including "2021"), so please add also the transcription in IPA (or in Latin letters, as close to the original pronunciation as possible - if you are not familiar with IPA). Please mark also the stress, e.g. by adding an apostrophe before the stressed syllable (or by typing the stressed vowel in a capital letter).

185.24.76.178 (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm not a native speaker of French, so I don't qualify. And you don't seem to know enough about French phonetics to be able to use an IPA transcription in any meaningful way, so you don't qualify. — Adi  Japan  06:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Even not a near native speaker of French? You are registered here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Translators, as a translator into French (or from French), that's why I asked you to translate my sentence. As for French phonetics, I'm very good at it (and at IPA), but I'm bad at French grammar. 185.24.76.183 (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)