Talk:Romanian lexis

This article will not be dealing with Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian or Istro-Romanian once they broke away from Proto-Romanian/Daco-Romanian. Alexander 007 06:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Lexis

"Lexis" is a rather obscure word. Why are we preferring it to "vocabulary"? Do articles on other languages do the same? Is this in accord with Wikipedia standards for writing about languages? (I haven't looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages in ages, but this would surprise me.) -- Jmabel | Talk 05:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The reasoning was explained here:Talk:Bulgarian vocabulary#Update. I think this article should as well cover what is described in Lexis (linguistics), therefore vocabulary is inadequate. I am open to other ideas. Alexander 007 05:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

In common usage, though, vocabulary covers all of this. Consider, for example, when we refer to a painter's "vocabulary". The problem I see is that most native speakers of English simply will not know the term "lexis". -- Jmabel | Talk 05:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Further deliberation is required upon this. However, the argument that most American/UK etc. English speakers won't be familiar with the academic, linguistic meaning of lexis [see Lexis (linguistics)] is not that compelling, because other articles have technical terms in the titles, probably even some where a more common but non-academic word is available. Alexander 007 13:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• I agree--Hraefen 15:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  With which one of us?? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, sorry. I agree more with Alexander 007. While I haven't thought much about the relative merits of vocabulary/lexis and what each term includes/excludes, I do know that the argument that 'lexis' is too obscure of a term holds no weight for me. Anyone interested enough to read an article about the Romanina lexis would either know the word already or look it up. Is one of you two contending that 'lexis' includes and/or excludes facets of the language that 'vocabulary' doesn't? I hope that's not a confusing way to put it.--Hraefen 02:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"Thraco-Dacian substrate"

Despite the section title, an overwhelming majority of the words listed have likely to probable cognate with Albanian. This is an issue because though Albanian is pre-Latin, there is essentially no evidence to suggest these words are cognate to the Thraco-Dacian language(s). Basically, to say Romanian-Albanian cognates equate to Romanian-Dacian cognate is pure guess-work.

Furthermore the predeccesors of the Albanians and Romanian speakers likely formed a sprachbund in the Eastern Roman Empire prior to the completion of the Slavic invasions, thereby providing a credible cause for the presence of these words in modern Romanian. RadomirZinovyev 17:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @RadomirZinovyev

I appreciate you taking your concerns here on the talk page where the issue can be discussed at length.

I disagree however with your editing: first of all edits have to be cited or they might be challenged but most importantly, since the edits as they are from your reasoning, are against WP:NOR.

Second, the 90 words are, according to the two linguists cited, certainly of substrate since they reflect phonetical properties found in Proto-Albanian and no longer in Albanian (the use of /tʃ/ in Romanian cioară, but sorrë in Albanian), and because they went trough the same phonetic changes as words inherited from Latin (ex: l turned into r between two vowels), meaning they ended up in Romanian from Latin as well.

I will not revert the edit for a few days to give you time to see and respond. If you see the conversation past that point and want to discuss further, please let me know. Aristeus01 (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)