Talk:Eastern Romance languages

Duplicate

This article is a duplicate of the Eastern Romance languages article (and it was created in 2008 as a redirect to the mentioned article: [1]). (Rgvis (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC))

Please read the infobox of the two articles. All Balkan Romance languages are Eastern Romance languages, but not all Eastern Romance languages are Balkan Romance languages. I would be grateful if you could read before editing. Borsoka (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Interesting - I did not find the sources used for this article to actually reference "Balkan Romance". Can any of you please help, like maybe the person who added those sources? Thank you.Cealicuca (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Name an Eastern Romance language that is not Balkan Romance. The Eastern Romance list's "Daco-Romance" (Romanian and Aromanian), Megleno-Romanian, and Istro-Romanian. The same languages are listed here as Balkan Romance. 98.15.154.13 (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Should we then redirect this and Balkan Romance languages to Eastern Romance languages? Kwékwlos (talk) 09:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi all,

Yes, I think we should. Aristeus01 (talk) 07:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I mean... Dalmatian is sometimes classified as Eastern Romance but not Balkan Romance, though it doesn't seem particularly frequent, nor enough to justify a split between the Eastern and Balkan Romance pages. Arctic Circle System (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I strongly support this, and also incite someone to WP:BOLDly effectuate the merge already. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Topic 1

User:Node ue wrote: "Eastern Romance and Sardinian share some features, including the mutation of Latin "ngu" to "mb" and "qua" to "ba"/"pa":"

So what? That is indeed true, but it's just one sound change and most likely just a coincidence and nothing more. bogdan | ^Talk 16:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Most likely a coincidence? Prove that it is not because a closer relationship? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.251.68.75 (talk • contribs) 13:27 25 December 2005 (UTC).

We have two similarities out of hundreds of sound changes. Which theory is easier to accept: that they are just coincidences or that the Romanians and Sardinians, who lived in different corners of the Roman Empire, somehow influenced each other. The Occam's Razor says the former must be true. bogdan 22:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know -- out of all descendants of Latin, only two linguistic groups, the Sardinian and the Romanian, manifested those sound changes. Many Sardinian and Romanian words look similar. --Node 06:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you defending your past edit or merely commenting? Alexander 007 07:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Defending it. I can understand skepticism on your part, but it almost seems as if you're just as anti-Sardinian as you are anti-Russian. --Node 01:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It does not surprise me that you label me anti-Russian (though I am against Russian expansionism and aggresion, not against the nationality or even the current nation), but to call me anti-Sardinian is plain childish as well as defamation. How does it "almost seem" that I am "anti-Sardinian"? Alexander 007 01:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"Alex doesn't like my edit: WAAAAAAH! Maybe he's anti-Sardinian! Or maybe I don't even really think that, I just want to defame him a bit. Yeah! Didn't he practically accuse me of being anti-German and anti-Romanian?" It seems that Node was having one of those days today; he just vandalised User:Theresa knott's talk page:[2], [3] Alexander 007 01:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

And thank you for admitting only two linguistic groups. Alexander 007 09:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm? --Node 01:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"Hmm?" is what I'm thinking, Node. Dalmatian and Romanian share a number of sound-changes only between them, and similar words (copsa, coapsa, etc.) but the languages are very different. Alexander 007 01:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, what's the Dalmatian treatment of Latin aqua? This question is not addressed at Node (more likely @ Bogdan who has studied Dalmatian a bit) but to whoever has the datum available. Alexander 007 02:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it has a quite peculiar form, I can guess it's from aquae -> acve -> vi: (here's in a sentence:)

E la vústra súnta búca da bar la vi dumandúa, col fiél e col acáid ve la intoscúa. (1860)

And your holy mouth asks water to drink; with gall and vinegar they poison it.

bogdan 09:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Most likely it is from aqua. I don't know the etymology or if such a mutation is possible in Dalmatian. At a superficial glance looking at that sentence, Dalmatian looks more like Portuguese rather than like Romanian.Alexander 007 09:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous genius (User:24.251.68.75; edits done by this IP to User:Node ue's talk page indicate to a high degree that this is an IP used by User:Node ue, and Theresa knott has concluded that this is indeed so) should realize that in terms of Wikipedia, the burden is on him to cite references that indicate it is more than just a coincidence. Alexander 007 01:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Alex, see WP:AGF. You're assuming I've got some sort of bad intentions here. You could've just asked on my user talkpage if this IP belonged to me (which it does), and I would've told you straight out that it did. This is a violation of AGF... also, your message comes across as a bit brusque, was that your intention? --24.251.68.75 09:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well okay, I apologize Node. You were however rather aggresive yourself in defending your idea. Alexander 007 09:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, those are two sound-changes (-ng->-mb; -qua-> -pa-), but I agree that it is not very relevant to mention this. If it is mentioned, it should be made clear that linguists (AFAIK) do not draw any great conclusions from these features, which do appear to be a coincidence. -Alexander 007 05:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

And FWIW, Romanian and Sardinian are part of only a small handful of languages which are not considered "Western Romance". So whether you consider Sardinian to be "Eastern Romance" or "Insular Romance", it would definitely be silly to include it in a group with Portuguese, Spanish, French, Catalan, Italian, Occitan, etc.

And a sample (in this case, Nuorese):

"Fenòmenu linguìsticu de una pessone o pòpulu chi faeddat in sa matessi manera e livellu duas limbas, ponende s'una o s'àtera sena perder informatziones colende dae una limba a s'àtera. B'at bilinguismu cando unu territòriu, in ue sa zente faeddat zai una limba, est assuzetadu e privadu dae sa soverania o colonizadu, e sa zente imparat sa limba de s'istadu dominadore. A su sòlitu, sunt pagas sas pessones chi resessint a manizare sas duas limbas in sa matessi maneras, àmbitos e usos. Su bonu de sa zente nde connoschet una mezus de s'àtera, chi est assuzetada e faeddada petzi in unas cantas ocasiones. In pràtica, una limba, s'esterna, si impreat in sas ocasiones comunicativas artas, e s'interna pro sas ocasiones bassas, familiares. In custu casu, si faeddat de diglossia."

"Linguistic phenomenon of a person or peoples who speak in the same manner and level two languages, putting the one or the other without losing information from one language to the other. Having bilingualism when a territory, in which the people already speak one language, is associated and privated by the sovereignity or colonised, and the people learn the language of the dominating state. [...] In this case, it is called diglossia."

Yes, the similarity can be notable, I never denied that and I'm aware of that. I have gone through Sardinian texts before, including the Sardinian Wiki. But I (and, unless I'm mistaken, most linguists) am satisfied to view this as convergent evolution. As I understand, Sardinian is more specifically included as Southern Romance, not Western or Eastern. Wikipedia is about citing references, but for the sake of discussion: I challenge you to find evidence that this is not simply a case of convergent evolution. As you said yourself, Sardinian was insular (thus, isolated, at least from Romanian), so I don't consider a connection to Eastern Romance to be worth considering.

Even an argument that the substratum of Eastern Romance and Sardinian was a kindred language is barely worth considering. Even if you suppose the Eastern substratum to be Illyrian, there was no sizable populations of Illyrians or kindred tribes on the island.

A more possible theory is that the Roman colonists who went to Sardinia were from the same stock of colonists who formed the basis of Eastern Romance. But I don't know of any proof of that, or even a compelling reason to propose that. Months ago, I searched through the online Sardinian dictionary and found numerous close parallels: Sardinian circuvoglia, circuvolla, chirchiola, circannoeu all meaning "rainbow". Compare Romanian curcubeu, also meaning "rainbow" and furthermore of unclear etymology. These forms don't seem to be common in Romance, but I'm not sure, I haven't really checked. And this is not nearly enough. It's just too unlikely a scenario. Sardinian and Eastern Romance were isolated from each other and the similarities are due to convergent evolution from Latin.Alexander 007 12:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if Latin "cucurbita", gourd, (in Romanian as "cucurbetă") can be in any way related to "curcubeu". bogdan 14:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. I'll detail this in a few minutes. The Romanian and Sardinian words for "rainbow" have something to do with Latin circus, "a ring", etc., but the details are obscure. I am not saying they derive from circus (the Romanian word cerc and the Sardinian words circu and tzircu derive from circus, not curcubeu), but obviously there is a connection. Alexander 007 14:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Curcubeu looks like it is derived from an ancient *Cucurbius. Could it be related to Latin curvare (possibly Vulgar Latin "curbare", hence Old French "corber") ? bogdan 14:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, there's a Curcubăta Peak in Bihor Mountains, showing another example of cucur -> curcu. bogdan 14:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I still think a connection to cucurbita is unlikely. See the Sardinian words, beginning with circu-, and circu in Sardinian derives from Latin circus. It also makes excellent sense: a rainbow is an arc or ring in the sky. But who knows. I'll study this some more. In Latin there was Cercius as a variant of Circius (a wind in southern Gaul known as "the circulator"), and there was the word curculio (a corn-worm; "a curved creature"), that Perseus says is related to circulus and circus. Perhaps curcubeu derives from some unattested Vulgar Latin form (*curcubeus? *curcubeum?) brought from Italy. Alexander 007 14:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The idea of a link is that, historically if I recall correctly, both colonies (Sardinia and the Balkans) were sort of "abandoned" by the Romans and became rural backwaters almost entirely neglected by the Romans, who had lost interest. I don't know about the Balkan Romance languages situation in this case (I didn't read a lot about their historical development), but I know that Sardinian people are said to have maintained for a very long time a sort of Romance language which tried to imitate "proper" Latin but failed sorely -- Dante Aligheri said that the Sardinians "mimic Latin grammar, just like the monkeys mimic humans". So, while their words sounded Latin enough, they never totally mastered the grammar, and ended up with something just a little bit more complex than most Western Romance languages but certainly not as complex as Classical Latin. Sardinian and Balkan Romance have in common, I think, that they were excluded from many of the changes that effected the Western Romance languages. Speaking of which, I saw some sources which included Italian as Eastern Romance, based on the La Spezia-Rimini line. Is it possible then to argue for a distinction between "Eastern Romance" and "Balkan Romance"? It seems confusing because in terms of the line, Romanian and Italian can indeed be grouped together, but in terms of grammar, they cannot, most likely due to influence on Balkan Romance from the surrounding languages, and perhaps those languages it supplanted.

That's interesting, but that's not what linguists would call a real link between Eastern Romance (as understood in this article) and Sardinian. Rather, that proves my point: convergent evolution, due to some similar historical circumstances as the languages evolved from Latin. I see many more differences between Romanian and Sardinian than similarities. If you change the terminal -u's (which at a cursory glance seem to mimic the Romanian definite article, but this is an illusion) in Sardinian to -o's or -a's, for example, Sardinian begins to look more like Italian:

Sard (o/u)"Fenomeno linguistico de una pessone o populo chi faeddat in sa mattesi manera e livello duas limbas..."'

Ital: "Fenomeno linguistico in qui una persona o un popolo chi parla in la medesima maniera e livello due lingue..."

Rom: "Fenomen lingvistic în care o persoană sau un popor care vorbeşte în acelaşi mod şi nivel două limbi..."

Close to Romanian? Not really. It totally lacks the Latin-like Romanian grammar. Sardinian and Romanian developed from Latin, but on completely separate lines that happened to converge in some areas. Regarding the La Spezia-Rimini Line, I see no evidence that contradicts the accepted theory that Proto-Romanian developed separately from Italian as well; again the similarities are most likely convergent evolutionary paths from Latin, though possibly with a dash of some other factor at work, which I'll have to look into. Alexander 007 12:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, Node, if you're so interested in Sardinian, can you take some time out to clean-up Sardinian language? I cleaned up some stuff already. Alexander 007 12:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Node, both Sardinian and Romanian developed from older versions of Vulgar Latin (due to their isolation, they couldn't get the latest version :-), unlike the other Romance languages. But the grammar and vocabulary of Sardinian is far closer to Italian than to Romanian. bogdan 12:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactamento (is that Spanish? :). Alexander 007 13:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that is in any language :-) "Exactamente" would be Spanish, "Esattamente" in Italian. bogdan

Yes, I remember now :) Alexander 007 13:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the o/u variation is also found within Italian dialects, probably southern dialects. Cf. Salento, dialectical Salentu. Alexander 007 17:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"The Greeks have proven that the so-called Aromanian is actually a dialect of a mixed composition, containing 60% Latin and 40% Greek words and syntax" - This sounds like a very linguistically naive statement. And who exactly are "the Greeks"? Max 23:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd translate that small bit of text above a bit different in Romanian. I'd make it:

Sard (o/u)"Fenomeno linguistico de una pessone o populo chi faeddat in sa mattesi manera e livello duas limbas..."

Ital: "Fenomeno linguistico in qui una persona o un popolo chi parla in la medesima maniera e livello due lingue..."

Rom: "Fenomen lingvistic in care o persoana sau un popor care vorbeste in aceiasi maniera si (acelasi) nivel doua limbi"

Mirc mirc 16:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture caption

In addition to a lot of other problems in this article concerning writing style, I noticed the description or caption on the picture of the Thracian horseman with the Latin inscription says that this form of Latin evolved directly into Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian, while at the same time the rest of the article suggests that proto-Romanian formed north of the Jirecek line, a contradiction. I think the idea that Aromanian formed directly from any supposed Latin spoken in northern Greece (it's dubious whether it was even spoken there during the Empire) is somewhat linguistically simplistic and naive, and seemingly written by someone who doesn't have detailed experience with the study of the language. Sometimes Occam's Razor doesn't always offer the best solution. I noticed many people seem to think the only thing Aromanian and Romanian have in common is that they both came from Latin, as if they were never one language after that, and like they were part of completely different Romanization efforts and periods, which is clearly untrue from a close look at both languages. They just went in different directions, one north and one further south, and received different influences on their shared core (Slavic vs. Greek and other things). Word dewd544 (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Some issues

Regarding the classification scheme of Eastern Romance into "North Danubian" (which only has Romanian) and "South Danubian" with all the others... where is this from? I don't see sources for this. It seems like something more based on geography (by virtue of the other 3 languages occurring south of the Danube) than actual in-depth linguistic analysis and history. Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian are fine in that category of course (although Meglenitic, as stated has a few intermediate features)... but Istro-Romanian is quite likely a medieval offshoot of Transylvanian Romanian, with very heavy Slavic influence that gradually eroded its character over time. It's very hard to see it as a natural development straight from the Roman era in Istria; it just wouldn't be so close to Romanian then. Also, languages like Istriot and Dalmatian are examples of the actual continuation of Romance in that region, not Istro-Romanian. So this is misleading in the article.

Secondly, that part toward the end about the "Vlachs of the Balkans" (referring to the ones in the Bulgarian empire) disappearing or becoming entirely "slavized" is inaccurate, as obviously Aromanians and such still exist and are Balkan... You also have Vlachs of various origins in Bulgaria today. Seems to be a statement that's a bit informal and point-of-view like. Word dewd544 (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Original research

What is the source of this article? Which book contains information about the Eastern Romance languages? Borsoka (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree!

Surely the article needs to be improved (as far as I noticed, there are only two sources), but this is not done through such radical actions. Besides, the other similar articles (Western Romance languages, Italo-Dalmatian languages) are edited in similar ways, with too few inline citations.

On the other hand, the complete deletion of all information accumulated over time (14 years!) is totally unproductive and violates one of the basic principles of Wikipedia: WP:GF. That's why the Wikipedia policy supports continued improvement of articles, not their deletion. (Rgvis (talk) 09:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC))

A template message placed at the top of the article in June 2009 authorized any editors to remove unsourced material ([4]). I removed unsourced content and placed two new template messages asking for the verification of the subject of the article ([5]) on 13 May 2019. The content has not been verified. Feel free to verify the content of the article, but restoring OR is vandalism. Borsoka (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Here is a list showing that the term is not well-defined and rarely used: [[ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C39&q=%22Eastern+Romance%22&btnG=]]. Borsoka (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

You did not prove anything! Did you do the same whith the Western Romance languages and Italo-Dalmatian languages articles? They are in the same situation. (Rgvis (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC))

No, I have not studied them. If you think they cannot be verified either, you should also delete them. Borsoka (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Mass deleted content

This article, along with the Western Romance languages and Italo-Dalmatian languages articles, is part of a series of three articles, developed in parallel over the last 14 years (and part of the larger project about the Romance languages). The mode of editing was similar with all sister articles, receiving too few inline citations at this time.

However, only the content of this article was deleted, while the other two were not affected.

Why was this article destroyed? Why was not the content improvement in this article encouraged? Why do editors who have contributed over the past 14 years to this article are not treated in the same way as editors of the other sister articles (as per Wikipedia:Assume good faith)?

I am very disappointed that Wikipedia has come to work in such an arbitrary way. Thank you. (Rgvis (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC))

I am very disappointed that there are wikipedians who are unable to understand and apply the basic principles of editing, including WP:NOR. Can you refer to reliable sources verifying this article? Please remember, no editor has provided reference to a single reliable source for more than a decade. Instead of making dramatic statements, you should search for reliable sources to verify it. Please feel free to delete the other two articles if you think they purely contain OR. Borsoka (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

What is the subject of the article

@Rgvis:, please try to read the sources before editing the article and avoid mixing different sources to come to you own conclusion. As I have mentioned several times before, the definition of "Eastern Romance" is not so clear-cut as you are trying to describe. For instance, you refer to Posner who indeed uses this expression twice in her cited work, but not in the context you are trying to use it. (She mentions that Sardinian and Dalmatian are variants of Eastern Romance along with Italian and Romanian.) You mixed her sentence with a sentence verified by other scholars' work. Borsoka (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rgvis:, would you please clarify what is the subject of the article based on reliable sources? We are not here to publish the results of our research. If Posner says that Italian and Sardinian are Eastern Romance languages we cannot write that these languages developed in Dacia and Moesia. Borsoka (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Check the other cited sources (maybe "Language Mapping" will help you understand more). (Rgvis (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC))

No, it does not help. Could you explain me why do you think Italian and Sardinian developed in Dacia and Moesia? Which reliable source contains this claim? Borsoka (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Why do I think WHAT? Have you start reading others' thoughts? (Rgvis (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC))

Because you wrote this ([6]). Borsoka (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Based on the cited reference (page 61 of [7]).

As for Posner, you have omitted the fact that, regarding the proposed classifications, she points out the following:

The now most widely accepted version of the Romance Stammbaum is that of another American, Robert Hall Jr, who, having split off the isolates (first Proto-Sardinian, then Proto-Eastern Romance) ...

— Rebecca Posner, The Romance Languages, page 197

So check pages 24-25 from [8]. (Rgvis (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC))

I still do not understand why do you think that all Eastern Romance languages (Italian, Dalmatian, …) developed in Dacia and Moesia? Would you quote scholarly views verifying this strange claim? Borsoka (talk) 08:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You seem confused, no reference has been made to the Italian or Dalmatian languages in the given context. This is probably because you did not check the provided references. (Rgvis (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC))

Did you state in the article that "The Eastern Romance languages are a group of Romance languages that developed in Dacia and Moesia from the local variant of Vulgar Latin."? Yes, you did ([9]). Did you agree above that Dalmatian and Italian are Eastern Romance languages? Yes, you did. Why do you think that Dalmatian and Italian developed in Moesia and Dacia? If you do not think so, why did you claim it? Furthermore, you have not answered my question: what is the subject of the article. I suggest you should read the following article: Malkiel, Yakov (February 1978). "The Classification of Romance Languages". Romance Philology. 31 (3): 467–500. ISSN 0035-8002.. Malkiel states that the term is "controversial" (on page 156). Borsoka (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Your assumptions are wrong, I did not say that "Dalmatian and Italian are Eastern Romance languages" (only that some classifications include Dalmatian as part of the Balkan Romance). And, of course that Balkan Romance languages developed in the area (and not only in Dacia and Moesia, but even in Illyria - see Gabriela Panã Dindelegan; Martin Maiden (April 2013). The Grammar of Romanian. OUP Oxford. pp. 2–. ISBN 978-0-19-964492-6.). As for the subject of this article, it was clear from the very beginning, being consistent with the other similar articles in the given classification (yes, in terms of research, the classification is a complex topic, but among all the classification models, the one based on Hall's is the most used). (Rgvis (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC))

• No, it is not an assumption. It is a fact that I proved above: you claimed that Dacia and Moesia was the homeland of the Eastern Romance languages and also wrote that Italian (and Dalmatian) are included in this group. If you want to write only of the homeland of the Balkan Romance languages, please clarify it in the article in the future. Would you verify that Hall's classification is still widely used? Please remember that I referred above to Malkiel's later article. He clearly says that the term "Eastern Romance languages" is controversial. In recent literature, the term is not widely used, according to my experiences (I can refer even to Posner's work, cited in the article. She only randomly uses this term.) Borsoka (talk) 08:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The "Eastern Romance" term is very contemporary: [10] (Ethnologue). (Rgvis (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC))

I suggest you should read WP:Source. The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages (2016) uses the term "Eastern Romance" three times, without defining it ([11]). The Cambridge HIstory of the Romance Languages (2013) also refers to "Eastern Romance languages" three times, but without defining the term ([12]). The Romance Languages: A Historical Introduction, also published by Cambridge University Press in 2010, does not use the term ([13]). The Romance Languages, first published by the Oxford University Press in 1988, does not mention the term ([14]). None of these books list the term "Eastern Romance" in their index, showing that it is not a widely used terms by specialists of Romance linguistics. The only major work defining the term is Rebecca Posner's The Romance languages, which was first published by Cambridge University Press in 1996. It defines it based on vocalic criteria in accordance with Hall's proposal. If we take into account Malkiel's above quoted text, we can conclude that the term "Eastern Romance languages" is not regarded important by most of the renowned specialists of Romance linguistics and the term is "controversial". For instance, Malkiel mentions that there are linguists who regard the shared Latin vocabulary of Albanian and Romanian as "Eastern Romanceness". So please, try to answer my simple question based on reliable sources: what is the subject of this article? Borsoka (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rgvis:, how do you think the above issues could be fixed? What is the subject of the article, according to you? Based on what works could we develope the article without ignoring WP:SYNTH and WP:Due? Borsoka (talk)

My opinion is that the article respects all Wikipedia standards in all respects and it still has great potential for development. (Rgvis (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC))

OK, I see you cannot refer to a single source based on which you could develop the article. Please do not restore unverified parts. Borsoka (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

There are numerous sources already mentioned. (Rgvis (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC))

But you have been restoring an unverified text. Furthermore, you have not been able to verify that the subject is notable and you have not been able to refer to a single source which verifies that a full article can be developed on this subject. Borsoka (talk) 06:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The subject is notable (in fact, the article has been present for more than 14 years, so far) and the content of the article is supported by numerous references to reliable sources. (Rgvis (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC))

@Rgvis:, why do you restore unverified random list of words? Borsoka (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

"Arbitrary" deletion

Anon, please read the template message which was placed at the top of the article in June 2009. It clearly says that "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed". Why do you think that the deletion of sentences that have not been verified for more than 10 years is arbitrary? Which WP policy allows editors to restore content which was not verified for more than 10 years? Borsoka (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Anon, would you please answer my above questions. Unsourced material will be removed as per WP:NOR. The table both in this article and in the article dedicated to Istro-Romanian language contains a random list of words which is not verified by a reliable source. Consequently, the table contradicts WP:Synth. Borsoka (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I have restored referenced content. (Rgvis (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC))

Which reliable source contains a similar list of words in the context of the article? Can you explain why this list of random words does not contradict WP:SYNTH? Borsoka (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The editing is according to WP:EP. Similar lists are common in the articles content dealing with language groups. (Rgvis (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC))

@Rgvis:, could you quote the relevant text from WP:EP? Borsoka (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I initiated a discussion on this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#Comparative tables of sample words. Borsoka (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Improper French

The table lists that "vivre" is the French word for "alive", yet it means "to live". The proper word would be "vivant"/"en vie"Ragazzostar (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Castelmezzano dialect

The Castelmezzano dialect in Southern Italy has a vovel system similar to Eastern Romance languages but is NOT an Eastern Romance language, in opposition to other Southern Italian dialects ! The categorisation into Eastern Romance languages depends on more than just the vovel system, for example on geographocal division. If the Castelmezzano dialect is included, many other southern Italian must be includest too, maybe all dialects south of a line La Spezia - Rimini. Metron (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

We should have a more thourough discussion about it, since the infobox and the main page's content is also relevant. @Borsoka:, would you tell what you think? Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC))

I have no knowledge about Italian dialects, so I cannot comment on this issue. Borsoka (talk) 01:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Balkan Romance = Daco-Romance

Hi,

I have checked some of the sources mentioned in this article as well as in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkan_Romance_languages article and none of them support the formula "The Balkan Romance languages, also known as Daco-Romance languages". Some of the sources (like Schulte 2009, p.230) don't even mention "Balkan Romance" at all - which is precisely the source used to support this statement (as well as the identical statement in he Balkan Romance article).Cealicuca (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Support removal. Super Ψ Dro 21:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Does vipt a real word(romanian word for food)?

I just could bot find it in use any where. Not even dictoneries... 2A02:14F:172:E50:0:0:8A48:7124 (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)