Talk:Moldovan language/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

other issues

  • also Chernivtsi oblast is not in the east :), not rather north. :) anyway, this is super-minor.:Dc76\talk 19:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
According to census data, Moldovan in mainly spoken in the eastern part of the oblast. Xasha (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
People from Noua Sulita district tend to call themselves Moldavians (just over half of them do so, and just under half-Romanians), while those from Herta, Storojinet, Adancata tend to call themselves Romanians. However, they all speak the same variety/dialect - Moldavian. Just as 4 million other people in Romania.
This article is not a linguistic issue, it is a political issue: can one call Romanian language Moldovan, at least in some instances, or can not? So, it makes more sense to separate the things: to talk in some sections(s) about linguistic issues (Moladavian variety, etc), and in other section(s) about political issues. And again, citing like this "X said that, Y considered that, Z claimed that" should be totally ok. We are not giving our weigh to things, but the credibility of X, Y, Z does. We only cite X, Y, Z.:Dc76\talk 14:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, the Romanian idosyncrasy about the unity of the Eastern Romance language doesn't hold much water. In other parts of the world, languages less different than Moldovan and Romanian are considered separated languages and nobody contest it. This is all about the expansionist policy of Romanians. I don't need anyone to tell me what I am and what language I speak.Xasha (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
What you are and what language you speak is your own business. I am not telling you what you are or speak. What holds water and what does not is for scholars to tell, not for us. We can only cite them. What is in other parts of the world is in other parts of the world. What happens in Madagascar is no precedent for Moldova. If nobody contests it there, then maybe they are separate. If so many contest here, then maybe they are not.
Just as you don't wish anyone to tell you what to think of yourself, please don't tell me that, either. I am Moldovan, and I am Romanian, and please don't dare call me expansionist in my own house. Please be specific: that Romanian, and call him/her by name, when you say someone is expansionist. I am not giving you arguments like "this is occupants' theory". Even if I think it is, I only say "this is X's theory", where X has a name. So, keep to yourself what you think, and please don't call anyone expansionist.
Even better, I'm ready to forget about "expansionist" and just focus on the issue. I repeat, "X said Y (source, citation), Z claims T (source, citation)." That's the only way it goes on WP. Your or my interpretation, while at heart to us, mean nothing to outsiders. They want to hear all claims, and have them sourced, they don't want to hear the conclusions we draw or our interpretations. :Dc76\talk 18:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Divine origins

The notion of a distinct Moldovan language, of [[God|divine]] origins

Xasha, can you please stop adding nonsense to this article? Thanks. bogdan (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As nonsensical this may seem, this is much more true than the one presently in the article. (according to all major religions)Xasha (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Moldovan language is the name of the Romanian language in Moldova. That's not an opinion, that's the consensus in linguistics, regardless of what politicians on either side say. bogdan (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No, the thing that nobody can deny is that Moldovan is the official language in Moldova, and that Moldovan and Romanian share their literary form(with very minor lexical exceptions). The rest are just personal opinions.Xasha (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Your logic is flawed. You have a problem when linguists consistently say "Moldovan is Romanian called under a different name", and never vice-versa. --Gutza T T+ 20:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It's just the bias of the big entities. How often do you hear that "Romania united with Transylvania"?Xasha (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You don't, because it never happened. That is, unless the government's in Alba Iulia or something. --Gutza T T+ 20:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Romania kept its government, its laws, its structure, etc. Transylvania adopted the Romanian law and political administration (division into judeţe, etc), not the other way around. bogdan (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Romanian Academy

It is stated that Romanian Academy is the regulating authority for Moldavian language. Is that really so, can somebody confirm?--Moldopodotalk 23:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldovan is not formally regulated.Xasha (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
hmmm, not even by the Moldavian Academy of Sciences?--Moldopodotalk 14:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Anyway, big question, what has Romanian Academy of Sciences to do with regulation of Moldavian language in Moldavia?--Moldopodotalk 14:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldopodo's edits

Moldopodo, First of all, this piece belongs to the articles History of the Moldovan language because it is not about the modern language. Second, Kantemir wrote "Valachiae et Transylvaniae incolis eadem est cum Moldavis lingua, pronunciatio tamen rudior, ut dziur, Vlachus proferet zur, jur, per z polonicum sive j gallicum; Dumnedzeu, Deus, val. Dumnezeu: akmu, nunc, val. akuma, aczela hic, val: ahela." I.e. by Kantemir, vallachians and transylvanians spoke the same language, only with different accent. And therefore it is a very philosophical question : isn't it Kantemir used the term "Moldavis lingua"/lingua moldavorum (language of Moldavians) in the meaning of what we call now Romanian language, rather than he spoke of separate Moldovan language. So this piece actually may be belongs to History of Romanian language. This question may be decided only by expert linguists, not by reference to Kantemir. Mukadderat (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Cantemir speaks of Moldavian language spoken by Moldavians. Please, do check the last two chapters of Descriptio Moldaviae. This is quite clear and there is no ambiguity. However, he never mentions anything relating to Romania (poor Cantemir did not know this term would exist one day). As for the History section of Moldavian language, certainly it does belong to it. I have much more to develop on the History of Moldavian language article, and then we could make a nice summary to put on the main page of Moldavian language article. As for "Valachiae et Transylvaniae incolis eadem est cum Moldavis lingua, pronunciatio tamen rudior, ut dziur, Vlachus proferet zur, jur, per z polonicum sive j gallicum; Dumnedzeu, Deus, val. Dumnezeu: akmu, nunc, val. akuma, aczela hic, val: ahela." I. - where exactly did he write it? Thanks in advance for your answer. --Moldopodotalk 00:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
As for "Valachiae et Transylvaniae: I cut and pasted it from your reference (wikisource of Descriptio). Mukadderat (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what Cantemir said. You should not add your interpretations of primary sources to Wikipedia. If a modern linguist uses Cantemir's work when talking about Moldovan language, fine, use that, but don't do the interpretation yourself. bogdan (talk) 09:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, it does matter very much so. Let's put it clear. I have made no interpretation whatsoever, if I had interpreted, please provide an exact diff to prove exactly where and how and when. Now, when you say Cantemir spoke of anything else than Moldavians and Moldavian language you lie. It's easy as this. It's not even an interpretaion, it's a banal uncovered lie, and you have already tried different excuses, from "no it's not about Moldavian", "no, you don't know Latin", to "you are interpreting", and the most surprising "it's about Romanian" (Romanian is an absent word in the entire work of Cantemir).--Moldopodotalk 10:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
You're just trolling and I don't intend to waste my time with you. I'm just saying that it's absurd to claim that a 1716 work is not a primary source. bogdan (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Please remain civil and stop lying (I am referring to your bad faith translation and intrepretation of Descriptio Moldaviae), or provide otherwise a diff to support your accusation of trolling. Descriptio Moldaviae - is THE primary source.--Moldopodotalk 12:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldopodo, Yes, Cantemir called the language (in Latin) by name that may be today interpreted as "Moldovan language". But the exact meaning of the latin term is "language of Moldavians". Strange it may sound, but "language of Moldavians" in 17th century is not necessarily the same as what we call today Moldovan language. For example, there is Turkish language and there is Ottoman Turkish language. As you may know, languages evolve thru time. I don't know details about Moldovan/Romanian, but it is quite possible the language of Kantemir times may be called Old Moldovan language or Old Romanian language. Mukadderat (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Mukadderat, No, Cantemir called the language Moldavian, not only it is based on my translation, but also on translation into other languages, as Russian or Moldavian for example. There is no need to look for interpretation, it is what it is - it is quite plain. NOTHING is mentioned eiher about Romanians or Romanan language there. And if you insist on this - this is a mere orignal research and POV interpretation, or in my simple straight words: it is a lie to say what the text does not say, either explicitely, nor implicitely. Cantemir had not described, nor mentioned the term because it was inexistent and had no practical applcation at that time. Neither Romania, nor Romanian language, nor Romanian nation existed back then. These "Romanian" notions certainly do exist today, but the scope of this article is not to describe their origins/history - so it is completely irrelevant here on the talk page about Moldavian language. You forgot to answer my question, which chapter was your quote from, which para? Thank you in advance. P.S.... about evolution of the language, do not know much about Turkish lanaguage, so I cannot understand your comprison. As for Moldavian, funny enough, as old as the Cantemir's chronicle may seem, the writings and analysis of Cantemir are perfectly valid today and are fully applicable to the Moldavian language of 21st century, with almost no modification at all (except the major one: the alphabet).--Moldopodotalk 19:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Neither Romania, nor Romanian language, nor Romanian nation existed back then. "

See what Miron Costin says about this in 1675:
"Măcară dară că şi la istorii şi la graiul şi streinilor şi înde sine cu vréme, cu vacuri, cu primenéle au şi dobândescŭ şi alte numere, iară acela carile ieste vechiŭ nume stă întemeiat şi înrădăcinat: rumân. Cum vedem că, măcară că ne răspundem acum moldovéni, iară nu întrebăm: ştii moldovenéşte?, ce ştii românéşte? Stă dară numele cel vechiŭ ca un teméi neclătit, deşi adaog ori vrémile îndelungate, ori streini adaog şi alte numere, iară cela din rădăcină nu să mută. Şi aşa ieste acestor ţări şi ţărâi noastre, Moldovei şi Ţărâi Munteneşti numele cel direptŭ de moşie, ieste rumân, cum să răspundŭ şi acum toţi acéia din Ţările Ungureşti lăcuitori şi munténii ţara lor şi scriu şi răspundŭ cu graiul: Ţara Românească." wikisource:ro:De neamul moldovenilor
... Although we call ourselves Moldavians, we don't ask Do you know Moldavian?, but Do you know Romanian? ..
bogdan (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Very interesting, and a mention about this surely has its place in the article, at least as anecdotal reference. The problem is that Cantemir clearly gives morphological and grammatical description of Moldavian language, whereas Costin (at least in this particular phrase you citedm I haven't read the entire work yet) simply tells us how Moldavians answer in his own view. Contrary to Cantemir, Costin's story really does sound as a fairy tale because there is no attempt to justify anything scientifically, as Cantemir did. He merely expresses his own opinion, not comparing it to any other or making any research whatsoever. Do you have a translation link somewhere, to modern Moldavian language I mean, or to English, or Russian or may be Ukrainian? Just to make sure certain terms are well understood and correctly translated --Moldopodotalk 15:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Costin explicitly records that Moldavians called their language Romanian (românéşte) not Moldavian/Moldovan (moldovenéşte). I have never heard of any secondary source questioning Costin's honesty! There was no identity related controversy back in the 17th century, Costin had no reason to lie. And, yes, Cantemir calls the language Moldavian. Vasile Lupu (also 17th century), on the other hand, had the Carte româneascǎ de învăţătură ("Romanian book of learning") published; it was the first written code of laws of the Principality. However, I fail to see the impact that this has on an article about the official language of the modern Republic of Moldova. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Catalan / Valencian precedent

The Romanian / Moldovan controversy is not unique. Here is the lead of the article on Valencian. Valencian (valencià) is the historical, traditional, and official name used in the Valencian Community of Spain to refer to the region's native language, known elsewhere as Catalan (català). Even Moldovan officials agree that the languages are identical. They merely claim that Moldovans have the right to call their language as they have always had. The article should stress this from the lead section, anything else would be giving undue weight to fringe theories. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 04:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that none of the facts in the lead can be disputed: 1. that Moldovan is the official language of Moldova. 2. that Moldovan and Romanian have the same literary form. So I see no need to politicize it further. Xasha (talk) 08:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Stating that Moldovan is an alternative name for the Romanian language is not a political statement, but a scientific one. The purpose of the article is not to reach compromise between a dominant scientific view and a fringe theory. It is perfectly legitimate for Moldovans (or Valencians) to call their own language as they wish. However, introducing the doubt about Moldovan beeing an altogether different language from Romanian (or Valencian from Catalan) is misleading the reader. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I am inclined to agree with Plinul - point 2 kinda does differentiate them more than it should. Perhaps the "Valencian" solution would be best (or at least, more neutral), with a further explanation that colloquial Moldovan differs from standard Romanian on a dialectal level (or something like that). --Illythr (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
We already have something about that : "There is no particular linguistic break at the Prut River, Moldovan and Romanian forming a dialect continuum." Xasha (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but the war is centered on the first sentences of the lead section. Maybe it could be abated by applying this version without compromising NPOV. Sort of like 1. The official language of Moldova is (called) Moldovan. 2. It is essentially another name of Romanian. 3. The spoken colloquial form differs from the standard blablabla... --Illythr (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
If you or anyone else has a specific proposal, please post it below under a new header (on the talk page). You can omit the ref tags for the moment.Xasha (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused as to which portion of Xasha's latest edit is a reversion of an "edit with deceptive summary, partly in an unidentified language". Xasha, could you please help us out with a more detailed explanation here? Thanks. Richwales (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Deceptive since no RS was removed, as the summary claimed, as for the second part I didn't understand what he meant by "concensous"... now I see that it may have meant consensus, but at that time it seemed like something about a census.Xasha (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, no ref was removed. However, I fail to see how Minahan, for example, who states: The Moldovan language is Romanian, although the distinction between Moldovans and Romanians remains may be used to reference the statement: Its literary form is shared with the Romanian language as is the case in the current version of the article... Plinul cel tanar (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed the lead to better fit the sources, since none made a distinction between "literary" Moldovan and "spoken" Moldovan. Such a distinction, besides being unsourced, would also be pseudosientific since a language is not defined by slang. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The distinction is made in most Moldovan sources. The only slang here is the literary form, since it's hardly ever used outside written documents.Xasha (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No, many Moldovan sources claim the right to use the name "Moldovan" for the language and argue its historicity (some arguing that the designation is earlier than "Romanian"), others simply state that Moldovan is Romanian, the highly controversial Stati claims that Moldovan is an altogether different language. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You're not familiar nor with Moldovan sources, neither with Stati. Please don't speak based only on what you've heard around or what the Romanian press says.Xasha (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith and remain civil. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

New lead section

I suggest that the first sentence in the lead section be changed to Moldovan is the official and most common name given in Republic of Moldova to the country's native language known elswhere mostly as Romanian. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Not good. It ignores the quite important phonetic and lexical differences between spoken Moldovan and Romanian.Xasha (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Not more important than those between the English spoken by a Scot and that spoken by an American from Texas. Or Western Catalan (Valencian) from East Catalan (particularly the dialect spoken in France). Or Flemish from standard Dutch. Or Cajun from standard French. But more importantly, this is what almost all sources say, including the Moldovan President, the Moldovan Academy, and almost all linguists aside from Stati. Moldovan is another name for Romanian. We may discuss dialect problems afterwards, but the lead should stress the quasi-unanimous scientific view. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I made some changes.

So that the text is consistent with the sources and with the content of the article. Dpotop (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And I reverted your edits because: 1.the pdf from the EU site is just a guide to recognize languages, and has no scientific authority. 2.the only official language of Moldova is Moldovan. 3. cyrillics are still used by thousands of Moldovan speakers in Moldova and Transnistria and, unless things have changed in the last years, are the standard way to write Moldovan in Russia and Ukraine.Xasha (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
You don't deserve an answer. However, the other readers should really understand that (1) an official document is an official document, (2) official means having official status, and (3) who cares, the paragraph I replaced only talks about official status, which is exactly what mine talks about, too. Dpotop (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually the readers should read Dpotop edit and see that 1) there's no official document 2)Russian is as official in Moldova as Romani language in Romania 3) shows the refusal to accept facts by the above user. Xasha (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW: The wine bottles in the "Moldovan culture" box are cool. Dpotop (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Make a new footnote for the Moldovan Constitution

The current footnote (Number 1) is a dead-end. The constitution can be read in whole in English and Romanian/Moldovan at the following links:

Raoulduke25 (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually would be better since, as an official site of the government, is more reliable.Xasha (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael I of Romania

Attn Romanian wikipedians: Please help resolve the issue in Talk:Michael I of Romania.

P.S. I find it quite surprizing that no one paid attention to my notice at wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board, so I am posting this request here, since it seems that Romanians flock here in numbers. `'Míkka>t 19:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Also check out Talk:Moldovans. Seems to be quite the hit right now. --Illythr (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
<shrug> Obviously, to meddle into affairs of another state is much more fun than own history which is probably boring since schoolyears. If they don't care about their former king, all the more I am removing it from my watchlist. `'Míkka>t 23:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you can ask user:Biruitorul about this. He seems to be quite fond of the guy. --Illythr (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


Somebody can explain to me about what kind of official language in Transnistria is written in the article? As the administration of the region is not recognized, we can talk only about the language usage in the region. I propose to remove the "as well as one of of the three official languages in the the breakaway territory of Transnistria". --serhio talk 16:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It is an official language by nonrecognized administration, and we can talk about it. `'Míkka>t 16:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Serhio, I don't necessarily see this as a problem though. I mean even though the separatist government is not internationally recognized, the region is de facto under its administration. Essentially what that clause means is that "the Moldovan language is considered official by the unrecognized breakaway Transnistrian government," which after all is true, only in more concise form. TSO1D (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the last major battle over the usage of the word "official" around PMR authorities, settled on a "bracketing solution" - that is, since the PMR is not recognized as a statal entity with its entire legislative infrastructure, we simply note that PMR itself is not recognized, thus implying that the rest of its institutions is not recognized as well, avoiding the need to "unrecognize" them at every mention. --Illythr (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


Can we please agree on an introduction for the article (or more precisely the first paragraph). This seems to be the main point of contention in the edit war that led the page to be blocked, and it hasn't been resolved yet. I propose something like: "Moldovan (also Moldavian) (limba moldovenească), written with Latin script, is the official name given to the Romanian language in the Republic of Moldova, where it has the status of "state language".[source] Written with the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet, Moldovan (лимба молдовеняскэ) is one of the three official languages of the breakaway territory of Transnistria." TSO1D (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No. This ignores census results, historical use, and, most important, the colloquial language.Xasha (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
How about "Moldovan (also Moldavian) (limba moldovenească), written with the Latin script, is the name of the official language of Republic of Moldova. It is essentially identical to the Romanian language. Written with the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet, Moldovan (лимба молдовеняскэ) is one of the three official languages of the breakaway territory of Transnistria." --Illythr (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
How about: ""Moldovan (also Moldavian) (limba moldovenească), written with the Latin script, is the name of the official language of the Republic of Moldova. It is essentially identical to Romanian, the two languages sharing the same literary form. Written with the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet, Moldovan (лимба молдовеняскэ) is one of the three official languages of the breakaway territory of Transnistria." TSO1D (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Even better. --Illythr (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The part with the name doesn't work. We don't have "Bosnian is the name of the official language of Bosnia". The rest is more or less OK. Also, the article lacks an infobox, required by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes).Xasha (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Xasha, the problem is that the Moldovan language as a concept only exists in relation to the Republic of Moldova. In any other place it would be called Romanian, and even in Moldova it is only a matter of the name. That's why it makes sense to begin the intro by explaining that Moldovan is what the official language of Moldova is called, even though its written form is identical to Romanian. But if you prefer another version, please explain what that is. TSO1D (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Huh? What about all these Ukrainian, Russian etc nationals who declare their language to be Moldovan (even in an EU countries such as Estonia)? Should we just ignore them? What about all references to the Moldovan language before 1924? Simply dismiss them?Xasha (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, we do have Valencian, which is "the historical, traditional, and official name" etc, so, as long as the description is neutral and accurate, why not? Since Valencian has an infobox, so can Moldovan, as long as its contents is formatted the same way (i.e. "Moldovan, Romanian" and so on). --Illythr (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
That wouldn't work. Moldovan speakers in a dozen countries don't call their language Romanian, even if other citizens of the same countries call it that way. Also, Moldovan has a unique ISO code, which Valencian doesn't.Xasha (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you guys misunderstood me. I was answering Xasha's question about the part of the intro where it begins with Moldovan being the official language of Moldova. I'm not necessarily against an infobox. I guess we could take the Romanian one but also add the name "Moldovan" up top like they do for the Valencian one with Catalan. TSO1D (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I misunderstand you, seeing as how I approve of your suggestion. I think this last suggestion best as it seems (to me, at least) be the most NPOV: We have a country. It's got an official language. They call the language Moldovan there. It is pretty much the same as Romanian. --Illythr (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


Langauge infoboxes are for articles on languages, obviously. This article, however, is about the name of a language, while the linguistic details are already included in the article about Romanian. This is only natural, since all linguists agree that Moldovan and Romanian are one language. We have tried several times to fit a language infobox here, but it didn't work:

  • How do you classify Moldovan if nobody considers it a separate language?
  • How do you count the speakers if at censuses they had to choose between two names of the same thing?
  • Then what ranking does it have?
  • What body regulates the language, if the Moldovan Academy of Sciences uses the term Romanian?

These are critical pieces of information, without which a language infobox cannot exist. The simple fact that Moldovan has a language code is definitely not enought, and in fact this information is already mentioned in the article.

I agree with any of the three wordings proposed by TSO and Illythr.

I'm afraid what we have here is an attempt to prove that Moldovan is a separate language, while the specialists say otherwise. Wikipedia should reflect their view, not "ours". Remember that Wikipedia is not for propaganda. — AdiJapan 18:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of invoking WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I'd like to point out that the aforementioned Valencian as well as Montenegrin do have infoboxes, even though they're but names/dialects of their respective parent languages and their creation was purely political. To address the individual points:
  • Since official Moldovan is almost exactly the same as Romanian, it can be classified the same way with putting "Moldovan, Romanian" together.
  • According to their census choice.
  • I think we can cannibalize the Romanian infobox to modify it the way it was done for the Valencian one (although I foresee this as a major point of contention in the future).
  • I believe they'll have to convert to using "Moldovan" this autumn, but since Moldovan is the same as Romanian, I see no problem in listing MAS as the controlling body. --Illythr (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
MAS has adopted the same orthography rules as RoAcad. AFAIK MAS calls it Ro, not Mo [1]. So, technically speaking, MAS regulates the use of Ro on the territory of Mo. Meaning that Mo is not regulated by MAS. As for the infobox, something more than "Romanian (named Moldovan in Moldova)", i.e. more than pointing out it's purely a diff name, hm, sounds like assasinating Franz Ferdinand. The cleanest way to do it would be Mo having its own infobox, wikilinking Ro's. It's up to Moldopodo or someone else to find out the regulating body and some scientific sources more recent and more reliable than of the early 18th century (like Cantemir), which, hm, is older than the steam engine (scientifically speaking). adriatikus | talk 19:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, since Mo is just another name of Ro, and since MAS remains the regulating body of the main language used on the territory of the Republic of Moldova, I see no problem in naming MAS its regulating body. --Illythr (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Hm. No, MAS regulates the use of Ro in Mo. Saying it regulates "the main language" is like saying that Mo is spoken in Bucharest, because Mo is another name for Ro. Since this is a naming issue, let's stick to facts. MAS names it Ro, so MAS regulates Ro in Mo. If Voronin, or the Parliament, or the Education Ministry, adopt the rules published by MAS for Ro, than it's their business, and the regulating body is Voronin or the Parliament.
The problem is not we don't know the facts. The problem is facts are named differently. Since WP mirrors the reality, let's not use here "direct implications" (perfect fitted for anything else), because Mo propaganda doesn't follow logics. Let's use only quotes. MAS names it Ro, then MAS has nothing to do with Mo. adriatikus | talk 20:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
But Ro is Mo (or vice versa?), just under a different alias, so, while it could be said that Mo is spoken in Bucharest, it would be silly. On the other hand, since MAS did adapt the Ro rules for use by the main language used on the territory of the Republic of Moldova, doesn't that make it the governing body for that language? --Illythr (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
You're right, only in part. In order to deal with it and try not to profane Franz Ferdinand, let's check *facts*, and then, only if safe, use "direct logical implications". Fact: MAS calls it Ro. Fact: Official lang in Mo is Mo. Fact: Mo and Ro are identical. If we use logical implications, we'll and up with a mess. E.g. because MAS calls it Ro in order to show it opposes Mo politics of renaming the language (but this is not fact, is our conclusion, since we have no evidence). Oh, and MAS didn't adapt, but copied (as in republished and used) RoAcad rules (it's not "something like", it's "identical to"). And where from is this expression, "main language"? Is it from MAS? Then we should write: "The main language in Mo, named Ro by the MAS and Mo by officials, use the Ro ortography rules....". If it's not MAS, but officials using the expression "main language", then we should write "The official main language in Mo, officially named Mo, uses the orthography rules of Ro as published by the MAS which names it Ro and has adopted the rules of RoAcad rules in 2001,....". Or something like this... :)) adriatikus | talk 21:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, another fact is that it was MAS that adapted copied the RAS rules for use in yada-yada. Doesn't that make the implication unnecessary? As long as we avoid calling out the True Name of *that language* (Shhh!), we may be spared from the wrath of the demons guarding it. BTW, the expression is my own original research placeholder name used to cheat the demons mentioned above. :-P --Illythr (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
All I'm saying is facts, logic and propaganda don't go hand in hand. For this reason, let's stick to facts only (logic offends propaganda and propaganda offends logic). Let's refrain to: «it is X saying something based on that quote». Because if we try to be logical, we end up saying the official lang in Ro is Mo and in Mo is Ro, or else. We should stick strictly to quotes and let the reader come to its own conclusion. (minor: it's RA, not RAS). Basicly, no yada-yada, just bare facts. :P adriatikus | talk 21:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
To avoid the yada-yada, I can't seem to find an explicit official mention tying mo and MAS together. Hm. --Illythr (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If this article were about a language, it would contain information about sintax, morphology, phonology, and so on. But since, according to linguists, Moldovan is Romanian, the whole article would then be a mere redirect, wouldn't it? This makes it clear that the subject we have here is not in the field of linguistics proper. Instead, it is about the political controversy around the name of a language.

If an infobox is added, I will demand to see the sources: What language classification ever mentions Moldovan? I mean textually, not by way of deduction. Who says that Moldovan is regulated by MAS? Also, taking the number of speakers from census data represents our interpretation (i.e. original research) of those data. Given the naming controversy, most probably a linguist would just add up the numbers of those who answered "Moldovan" and those who answered "Romanian" to find out the total number of Romanian-speaking population of Moldova. Anyone who has read anything about this subject understands that the census responses in the language section were not simply language-based, but also politically or ethnically motivated. We can't just take census numbers as reflecting a linguistic reality. — AdiJapan 18:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue (same as with Valencian, Montenegrin etc) never was about a linguistic reality, but a political one. For the rest - see above, although I'm not sure what you mean by original research regarding the census. --Illythr (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Well then it should be obvious that there is no place for a language infobox in this article. Valencian and Montenegrin are no reference, since other Wikipedia articles are not a reliable source. Besides, each such controversy is different. In the particular case of Moldovan, there is a clear consensus among linguists that this is not a distinct language or dialect. All that's left is politics. Why then have a language infobox in a politics article?...
Simply taking census data is original research because it boils down to making the assumption that only those 2 million people speak Moldovan, when in fact all Romanians do, that is, over 20 million people. How can we state the number of Moldovan speakers without making any interpretation of the census data? We can't. — AdiJapan 10:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Moldovan, Romanian
Moldovenească, Română
Native to Moldova, Romania, European Union, Bulgaria, Canada, USA, Russia, Spain, Ukraine, Israel, Serbia, Hungary; various communities around the wider Balkan peninsula and beyond.
Region Southeastern Europe, some communities in the Middle East
Native speakers
24 million
22mln as Romanian (sources) 2mln as Moldovan (sources) 
Official status
Official language in
As Moldovan:
As Romanian:
 Vojvodina (Serbia)
 European Union
Regulated by Moldovan Academy of Sciences (in Moldova)
(should be sourced)
Academia Română (elsewhere)
Language codes
ISO 639-1 md, ro
ISO 639-2 mol, rum
ISO 639-3 mol
Well, if you can find an outside reliable source on the placement of infoboxes in Wikipedia, I'd be most interested to see one. ;) In the cases of Valencian and Montenegrin, as can be gleaned from their respective articles, Valencian is but a name of Catalan, whereas Montenegrin has the same motivation behind the political force driving it to officialness (I wonder if anyone has accused the government of Montenegro of Stalinism yet?), so, in case of Valencian, we have a nearly 1:1 match (except Valencian doesn't have its own ISO code).
I still do not see where the interpretation is. The census says: "60% Moldovan, 16.5% Romanian". Please point out original research in the following statement: "60% of the population of RM speak Moldovan 16.5% of RM speak Romanian".

Well, something like that. I stole all the numbers from the ro infobox, so don't kick me if they're all wrong, we're talking general structure here.

What I meant was that "other crap exists" and we don't need to do here what others have done with the articles on Valencian and Montenegrin. What we need to do is judge things individually. We have this question: Is a language infobox appropriate in an article about a political controversy? I say no. You seem to say yes, although you do seem to understand that we're dealing with a use–mention distinction: This article is not called "Moldovan language" because it talks about a language, but because the political controversy happens to be called "Moldovan language". Having a language infobox here is almost as wrong as having a plant taxobox in Apple Inc..
It is perfectly okay to quote the census results, "60% Moldovan, 16.5% Romanian", but it's not okay to state that same information as if it reflected the reality, because we have reliable evidence indicating that all those 60% + 16.5% actually speak the same language. A parallel: It's okay to quote the Bible where it says that God made everything in 6 days, but we cannot state that as being the truth about the origin of the Universe.
The infobox you placed here is full of statements you won't find sources for, I mean textually about Moldovan, without including our own inferrences. Besides, if this is the same info as in the article Romanian language, why copy it? Why is it not enough to link that article here? — AdiJapan 08:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Eh, the article is about the "Moldovan language", which is 1) The state language of Moldova; 2) A local dialect of Romanian; 3) A controversial attempt at Language secessionism. An infobox is thus useful in dealing with all three, by providing census data as well as underlining the essential unity of standard mo and ro by pointing out that the difference is in name only.
I'm not sure if you're reading me right. The infobox is a clone of the Romanian one, as it deals with the same language. All it adds on top of the original is the name of that same language as it is official in Moldova. Both of your parallels are thus completely off the mark, as the existence of a separate language is not even implied (note the "As" parts). On the contrary, the unity of the two is asserted.
What references would you like to see? That Moldovan and Romanian are the same language? That this language (officially) goes under a different name in a certain area?
PS:Whoa, who wrote the "in Romanian" section in that article? O_o --Illythr (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Come on, for #3 (a controversy) you surely don't need a language infobox. The same goes for #1 (state language of Moldova) because all you need to say is that the Constitution of Moldova uses this term. As for #2, that is actually a different subject so it should go in a separate article. Romanian does indeed have local speeches --- about just as different as Texan English and New York English --- but the geographic distribution of the Moldovan speech does not match the territory of Moldova. In fact, in this linguistic sense, there are much more Moldovan speakers in Romania than there are in Moldova. Let's not mix things up.
The current version of the article does imply the existence of a separate language where it says that "Moldovan is the official language of the Republic of Moldova". The reality is the other way round: The official language of the Republic of Moldova is called Moldovan in the Constitution and possibly other official documents. "Moldovan" is a name. For it to be a language it is necessary that those who are specialists in the field of languages say it is so. Well, they don't. — AdiJapan 17:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree there. I think that #1 deserves an infobox, as long as it's the same one as Romanian and #2 is what this "language" really is, thus making it a good place to explain not just the Moldova-specific controvercy but also the dialect itself (regardless of geographic location and census data). In fact, I think the article should primarily focus on the dialect and only have a section about the controversy. I suppose that if the article had been named just "Moldovan", there'd be much less revert warring over its contents. Sigh.
As long as that is immediately offset by the next sentence - I don't think it's all that bad, although I would rather reformulate the "the two languages" part. Hey look, Austro-Bavarian actually does have an infobox, if only as a dialect... --Illythr (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Changing the name to Moldovan won't improve anything. On the contrary, you'd have to disambiguate it from Moldovans.
I don't think I made myself clear: "Moldovan language" as used by politicians and "Moldavian dialect" as used by linguists are two distinct subjects. They mean different things and you can't have both in one article.
The comparison with the Austro-Bavarian doesn't hold. That is a dialect recognized by linguists, while the same linguists say that Moldovan is an "alternate name". (Read the section on Moldova.)
But hey, do whatever you please. I've stated the facts, I tried to explain them, all seemingly to no avail. I got tired. You probably believe that whatever I say should be dismissed or at best taken with a grain of salt, since I must be in a conflict of interests. Well, I'm one of those who think the NPOV is something to be achieved internally, not by negotiation with the other side. As such, I have nothing left to negotiate. — AdiJapan 09:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I still don't see how this case differs from Valencian, which is also but a name of Catalan, but oh well. No consensus - no infobox... This wasn't a negotiation, btw. --Illythr (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Consensus doesn't mean unanimity.Xasha (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Moldovan language and the EU

It seems that about a fourth of the body of the article is dedicated to this silly matter. Considering how minor and inconsequential this issue is I propose removing this section altogether. Anyone opposed? TSO1D (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It was originally important to whoever added it to "prove" that Moldovan is outlawed in the EU. Since the EU had washed its hands in this matter, the whole section can probably be cut into a single sentence stating that the EU is neutral on the issue. --Illythr (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you prove EU washed its hands on the matter? Appolodor din Damasc (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Why, that is, or rather, was, written in the article... Hey, Xasha, surely, that one statement sums up the stance of the EU on that matter - "Call it as you want, we're not interfering, let's all live in peace, bros."? --Illythr (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
There was another statement that said Romania has accepted the Moldovan language as a precondition for joining EU (as part of the acquis), so it has to live with that.Xasha (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Mhrrrm, didn't read that part... Uh, whatever. --Illythr (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I didn't read it either, I became bored after the third sentence, which is why I tried to abridge it that way. But I see Xasha's point, the last quote directly contradicted the earlier claims. So I substituted this quote for the other one and I tried to simplify the passage a bit. Hopefully everyone will be satisfied. TSO1D (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


Xasha labeled the article with an WP:Original Research tag. Could he or anyone else who believes this is justified please explain what specific problems they perceive with the article. TSO1D (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead is OR. Moldovan is, according to the Moldovan constituiton, the official language of Moldova, not one of its names. Moreover, people in Russia, Kazakhstan or EU (Estonia), who are not Moldovan citizens and have nothing to do with Moldovan officials, still call their language Moldovan. The current lead imposes the view that "Moldovan" is just imposed by evil Moldovan communist government, with nobody "really" calling it that way, fact that is contradicted by census results and centuries of use. Xasha (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
You're talking about this sentence: "Moldovan (also Moldavian) (limba moldovenească), written with the Latin script, is the name of the official language of the Republic of Moldova."? You mean you want the part about "name of" to be removed? That would actually make sense, since it is the language that is written in the Latin alphabet, not just its name. I'll change it. TSO1D (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It still misses the part about Moldovan speakers outside Moldova. After all, they are about 15% of the total speakers. Xasha (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
You want to include in the article information about people in other countries who have declared their language as Moldovan? I don't think anyone has a problem with that as long as the information is sourced (preferably by citing the respective census results). But I don't understand why you think that the introduction somehow contradicts this fact. I am especially confused about what you regard as original research, since the first paragraph only has three main points: 1) The Moldovan language is the official language of Moldova 2) Moldovan and Romanian share a literary form 3) Moldovan is official in Transnistria. All three of these facts are well-sourced and almost universally accepted. TSO1D (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
So, I take it, the only problem with the lead section is the absence of speakers from outside of Moldova who were counted as "Moldovan-speakers"? This hardly deserves even a "globalize" tag. All it needs is sourced censa data. --Illythr (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
In its current state, the lead is to Moldovan government-centred.Xasha (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Well then, propose something! --Illythr (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, Xasha, if you still disagree with the introduction as it stands, please propose some specific changes or at least be more specific about what you would like to see changed. Otherwise, the tag should not remain up. TSO1D (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Something along "Outside Moldova, Moldovan is also spoken as a minority language in RU, UA and KZ".Xasha (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Or, rather, "Moldovan is also recognized as a minority language in Ru, UA, and KZ. (sources)" --Illythr (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
That would mean putting a long list with all the countries that have reported Moldovan language in their census results, even if that means under 200 speakers, as in the Baltic republics. And what about those states that include it under "Other" just because they're too few speakers (relative to that country's population)? Maybe "[Outside Moldova,] Moldovan is also spoken by sizable minorities in RU, UA and KZ." (4,200 in KZ being a reasonable threshold for "sizable").Xasha (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It shouldn't be matter of factly referred to as a language, at least without some clarification, since Romanian is spoken in more places than where Moldovan is recognized as a separate language. I'm not sure that 4200 is sizeable, but ok. Important is mention of recognition. (Huh, the Baltic republics recognize Moldovan?) As for "Others" - I don't think the two-and-a-half speakers this includes really warrant a special mention. --Illythr (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
One guy and we have recognition. If we were to believe Stati, even Romanian ethnologist have found people claiming to speak Moldovan in at least two places west of the Pruth. Just that Romania doesn't recognize their right to self-expression. I doubt any other country cares enough to actually join the two categories (Romanian-speakers and Moldovan-speakers). So your formulation still wouldn't resolve the current tagXasha (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I meant official recognition. By the state, that is. Since Romanian is "default", Moldovan can be mentioned only when it is explicitly present as an option in a country's census. --Illythr (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Most census forms, including the Moldovan one, have write in language question. So I doubt any country (except Romania maybe) have even "Romanian" as one of the standard answers.Xasha (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Hm, ok, then not as a choice option, but as a result, since those are usually filtered (so that no Hobbits, or Martians (along with whatever languages they speak) get into the result sheet). --Illythr (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me like Xasha has been working hard to become the pro-Moldovenist version of "Bonny" :) Dapiks (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
He lacks the socks... --Illythr (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
All my edits are based on reputable sources, mostly Western. If I were to adopt Bonaparte's mentality, Wikipedia would be full of quotes from Stati's book.Xasha (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think his post-ban version is guilty of using any sources at all... --Illythr (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Major revamping: intro and history sections

As User:TSO1D has fully reverted my last edit, considering it as a "drastic change", I would like to discuss with the community, to see what is so drastic about it:

Moldovan also Moldavian (limba moldovenească, Moldavian pronunciation: [moldoveniascɛ], also graiul moldovenesc) is a Romance language spoken today around the world by 2.5 to 4.5 million people as a native language, and by about 2.5 to 4.5 million people as a first and/or second language, with significant speakers in Ukraine and Romania. Most native speakers of the language live in Moldavia, where the language originated. The rest live in western and southern Ukraine, eastern Romania, Italy, Spain, Canada and Australia. Moldovan written in Latin alphabet is the official language of the Republic of Moldova.[1][2][3] Written in the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet, Moldavian (лимба молдовеняскэ) is also one of the three official languages of the breakaway territory of Transnistria.[4]

Moldavian is a descendant of the Latin language of the Roman Empire, as are languages such as Portuguese, Spanish, Italian and Catalan. Its development, contrary to most other Romance languages was not influenced by the Celtic languages of Roman Gaul and by the Germanic language of the post-Roman Frankish invaders. However, 20% of the language was influenced by the Slavic languages. Moldavian language shares with the Romanian the literary form.[5] Contrary to the majority of Romance languages, Moldavian had its first alhabet - the Old Cyrillic alphabet. Between 1940-1989, the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet had been used.

Moldavian has two assigned ISO codes mo in ISO 639-1 and code mol in ISO 639-2 and ISO/DIS 639-3.[6]

This version is too much in line with the "Ro is a dialect of Mo" idea. Unless you resurrect Cantemir to testify for you, this won't get through. --Illythr (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
It contains some inaccuracies and misses some points: the phonetic form is awful, and looks more like what a Russian speakers would read the name written in Moldovan Cyrillics (even if Cyrillics are more adequate for writing Moldovan, and even Romanian, phonetic values are not always the same in Russian and Moldovan cyrillics); the 4.5 million figure seems like an exageration; it doesn't mention the important community in Russia, but it does mention the one in Romania, even if the latter's documentary mention in modern times (as in official census results) is inexistent; 20% percent Slavic it's only in the literary Romanian, Slavic lexical influence is much more important in spoken Moldovan and written Moldovan, even the one after the Romanianization in the 70s and 80s (as was in literary Romanian before the 19th century Gallicization)Xasha (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I do not pretend the version itself is perfect, far from that. What is perfect - is the structure of the intrduction and history sections (as well as others to be revamped later) - this version is perfectly in line with the standard used by Wikipedia articles on languages. Here is another version, taking in consideration your proposals of improvement.--Moldopodotalk 23:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Moldovan also Moldavian (limba moldovenească, Moldavian pronunciation: [the proper phonetics rendering], also graiul moldovenesc) is a Romance language spoken today around the world by [proper number] to [proper number] million people as a native language, and by about [proper number] to [proper number] million people as a first and/or second language, with significant speakers in Ukraine, Romania and Russia. Most native speakers of the language live in Moldavia, where the language originated. The rest live in western and southern Ukraine, eastern Romania, Russia, Italy, Spain, Canada and Australia. Moldovan written in Latin alphabet is the official language of the Republic of Moldova.[1][7][8] Written in the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet, Moldavian (лимба молдовеняскэ) is also one of the three official languages of the breakaway territory of Transnistria.[9]

Moldavian is a descendant of the Latin language of the Roman Empire, as are languages such as Portuguese, Spanish, Italian and Catalan. Its development, contrary to most other Romance languages was not influenced by the Celtic languages of Roman Gaul and by the Germanic language of the post-Roman Frankish invaders. However, 20% of the litrary form of the language was influenced by the Slavic languages. Moldavian language shares with the Romanian the literary form.[5] Contrary to the majority of Romance languages, Moldavian had its first alhabet - the Old Cyrillic alphabet. Between 1940-1989, the Cyrillic alphabet had been used. --Moldopodotalk 23:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b (Moldovan)Article 13, line 1 - of Constitution of Republic of Moldova
  2. ^ Kogan Page 2004, p 242
  3. ^ A Field Guide to the Main Languages of Europe - Spot that language and how to tell them apart], on the website of the European Commission
  4. ^ Article 12 of the Constitution of Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublika
  5. ^ a b (Moldovan) "Concepţia politicii naţionale a Republicii Moldova" Moldovan Parliament
  6. ^ SIL International: ISO 639 code sets: Documentation for ISO 639 identifier: mol
  7. ^ Kogan Page 2004, p 242
  8. ^ A Field Guide to the Main Languages of Europe - Spot that language and how to tell them apart], on the website of the European Commission
  9. ^ Article 12 of the Constitution of Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublika


"Moldavian" is a term that has been continuously used for deisgnation of the language in English since its appearance. The term "Moldovan" exists since 1991 and designates the same language. The references to Moldavian language appear as early as 14th century in works of Dmitrie Cantemir. First written documents were attested in the 16th century in the Cyrillic alphabet, as the Old Slavonic, used by the clergy at the time, influenced the choice of alphabet. History of the Moldavian language in Moldova is closely tied to the region's political status, with long periods of rule by Ottoman Empire, Russian Empire, short rule by Romania influencing the language's name and orthography. Today, the Constitution of Moldova (Title I, Article 13) states that the Moldovan language is the official language of the country. In Moldova's Declaration of Independence the state language was called Romanian.[1] Major recent developments include the passing to a Latin script from Cyrillic in 1989 and several changes in the statutory name of the language used in Moldova, commonly referred to as limba de stat - "The State Language".

--Moldopodotalk 20:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

A rather obvious piece of original research; scholars are agreed that the "Moldavian" of Cantemir is Romanian, while the "Moldovan" of Stalin has entirely different origins. I advise against trying to conflate the two. Biruitorul Talk 04:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean? The attempt to create the language from eastern dialects had failed, its proponents were repressed and, by the late 30s, the language was stabilized (more or less) same as it was before, plus the Cyrillic script. (Linky). --Illythr (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Biruitorul, please stop lying. Cantemir has nothing to do with Romania. He is more than widely acknowledged, one of the most prominent Moldavain scholars. He described scientifically Moldavian language well before this was made for Romanian language, well before Stalin was born. Biruitorul, please stop polluting.--Moldopodotalk 23:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I mean that the language Cantemir spoke of is early modern Romanian, and should be discussed in a history of the Romanian language; while what was official in the MASSR/MSSR is Romanian written in Cyrillic, and has no history distinct from Romanian prior to 1924 or so. In other words, today's "Moldovan language" was split off from Romanian in the 1920s, and has had a recorded history since then, but prior to that time, its history is essentially indistinguishable from that of Romanian as a whole. (Of course, there may be slight variations, but that should be noted here, not here. Biruitorul Talk 00:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and coherency

I can easily predict I will (again) be catalogued as oscillating, insecure, immature, illiterate and what have you, but I really need to make this point. I have fought a litany of pro-Moldovan contributors over this article several times over the years. Now things seem to have settled -- but the article ended up being too anti-Moldovan (language, not ethnicity) to claim objectiveness. In the current version the article is a continuum of denial, from top to bottom. That can't be right for a presumably balanced article. Just to ensure I explain my position properly from the beginning: yes, of course Moldovan is not a real language in any scientific way or form; yes, it has certainly been forcefully pushed into existence; yes, lacking even the superfluous distinction of Cyrillic writing or at least distinct spelling rules it is currently indistinguishable from Romanian. I agree 100% with all of that, no reservations. But the current version of the article doesn't explain why the Moldovan "language" ever came into existence, why some people welcomed it, why some people are still clinging on to its presumed distinctiveness, it doesn't properly exorcise Cantemir's and other chroniclers' references to "limba moldovenească" -- the current version just says "no" on all levels without any prior explanations. That can't be right, we must abide by NPOV (and common sense) and provide a reasonable overview for the casual reader -- I don't believe the current version does that. At the very least we should include the rationale of immigrants from within the USSR (Ukrainians, Russians and so on) who must have welcomed the creation of a language distinct from Romanian during the Communist era, that would at least explain the social aspect of the deal. What say you? --Gutza T T+ 00:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't understand what exactly it is you want to see changed. If you believe that the historical context of the article is too limited, I agree with that. It appears that the history section was truncated as a result of the numerous debates we've had here to the point that it's now no more than a stump. In that case, that section could be expanded, so that it would constitute a more representative summary of history of the Moldovan language. I'm not really sure what you are referring to when you talk about immigrants who would have supported the development of the concept of the Moldovan language. Few non-Romanian speakers (barring specific groups active in the political/linguistic field) even were familiar with this issue, so I don't understand why they would have welcomed the creation of the language. Could you please elaborate on that. TSO1D (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Come on, think about it. You're a relatively poor but literate Russian/Ukrainian citizen and you get an offer to move into some remote region of the Union where you'd get better pay -- wouldn't you support a sense of self-determination and unique identity for that region as opposed to acknowledging you're moving in what amounts to an imperialistic expansion territory? Even if you choose to doubt my anthropological extrapolation, you need to acknowledge that even today the proponents of a distinct Moldovan language are mostly Slavic by ethnicity, so it's reasonable to trace that choice back to the beginning of this whole nonsense. --Gutza T T+ 02:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Well I agree that the idea of a Moldovan language has always had a dominant political aspect. In that light I agree that during the break-up of the USSR a large part of the non-Romanian speaking part of Moldova's population opposed the idea of Moldo-Romanian linguistic unity since they perceived it as nationalistic and irredentist. As for what the views of immigrants to the republic were on the language issue, I simply have no idea. However personally, I doubt more than a few people even considered the issue, particularly when even locals did not really debate this problem(government censure was of couse a large factor here, but there was also much apathy, particularly in the countryside). And as for the idea that most proponents of a distinct Moldovan language are Slavic, I am very skeptical about that. If you're talking at an official level, then there only remain a very tiny number of individuals of any ethnicity who still endorse this idea. As for public opinion, I would wager that most vocal proponents of the Moldovan language would be lower class self-described Moldovans, since this issue affects them more directly (and if you go by sheer numbers considering that most Romanian speakers called their language Moldovan in the census, it's hard to imagine another group surpassing them). As for the opinions of Slavs on the issue, again I have no idea about the statistics, though at least speaking from personal experience, I have hardly met anyone who has argued this point. In any case, this is more or less my personal speculation. If you can find a source that discusses any aspect of this issue, we can of course include that, but don't know where you could find such information. TSO1D (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
As a Moldovan, I must say I find Gutza's argument offensive.Xasha (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Crucial question

By reading both article Moldovan language and History of Moldovan language I noticed that neither of them anwsers crucial question about topic; What were the differences between standard language used in Romania and standard language used in Soviet Moldavia (except that it used different script)? Also what were the differences between standard language used in MASSR and MSSR? The anwsers I couldnt even articles in romanian and russian language. Couldnt anyone write about this? Luka Jačov (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You can think of the common literary from of Romanian and modern Moldovan as the "Serbo-Croatian" unified language in former Yugoslavia. Just that Moldovans didn't feel the need to reinforce the characteristics of the their vernacular over literary language, like Croatian did in the 90s.Xasha (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The literary form is based both in Romania and Moldova on the Wallachian vernacular (roughly Bucharest-Prahova area). The differences between Wallachian and Moldavian vernaculars are probably smaller than between American and British English. (mostly some words and a few small accent/phonology differences, I'm not aware of any notable differences in grammar) bogdan (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it seams to me noone understood completly my question. Saša I know today Republic of Moldova and Romania use same standard language. But in Soviet times when offical policy that those two languages were similar but seperate it must have been based on different standard. And Bogdan you didnt understood that I am not speaking about verniculars as its normal that every language has its local variations. What I meant the standard forms used in Romania and Soviet Union what were the differences except the script that was used? Was Soviet standard also based also on Bucharest-Prahova area? Or based on first Transnistrian and later Bessarbian vernaculars? Luka Jačov (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Except script, there were only some lexical differences (most of the neologism) in the standard literary language of the 80s. The Transnistrian and Bessarabian standards were dropped on Stalin's orders for some imaginated faults.Xasha (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
There were some attempts in the 1920s/1930s to make in Transnistria a "Moldovan language" that is different from Romanian, but Stalin shot all the linguists involved during the Great Purge. (I doubt there were many other massacres of linguists in the history of the world)
After that, they used the Romanian standard language. I read somewhere that the standard grammar description was entirely plagiarized from some grammar published in Bucharest. (which isn't surprising, considering there were no good linguists left) bogdan (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So Soviets in their attempt to differate Romanian and Moldovan didnt even bother to make an effort to really make it different? Btw I noticed that romanian article mentions those slight differences between those two standard languages during Communist era. Could things missing in English article be translated from Romanian one? Could somethin be written about linguistic properties of previous moldovan standards? Luka Jačov (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Concerning your first question, my guess is that it was not worth the trouble. With efficient propaganda and a closed society you can make people believe that the languages are and have always been different. Why bother built up a whole, new, elaborate standard? Plinul cel tanar (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
There was no attempt to make them different after WW2, just that the Soviets and most Moldovans chose to name the literary language by the centuries old name of the vernacular.Xasha (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, Edward Vajda, an American linguist specialized in dialectology, thinks differently: "When the USSR took over the eastern province of Romania in 1945 at the close of WW2, they declared that the local Moldavian dialect was a separate language. Although Moldavian and other regional dialects of Romanian actually differ very little, the Soviets forced the Moldavians to adopt the Cyrillic alphabet and add many Russian words to the vocabulary." — AdiJapan 17:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Considering the assertions he mades, I won't trust him too much.Xasha (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
That's not how Wikipedia works. Sources are right until proven wrong by other sources. Users' opinions never matter, even if they strongly believe it's the truth. Verifiability counts. — AdiJapan 01:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
As for the centuries old name(s) for the vernacular, both Moldavian and Romanian are atested. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am answering here the first post of this section. I think there is no source comparing the standard language of Romania and the standard language of the Moldovan SSR. This seems normal to me, because there was no other difference than the script. A Romanian in Romania, I have read one history book from the Moldovan SSR, and I had no difficulties in reading it (it was just after I learned the Cyrillic script). Dpotop (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, what sources say is that: (1) Linguists point to the identity between current standard Moldovan and standard Romanian and (2) Standard Moldovan = (by definition) Moldovan SSR Moldovan + pre-1991 Romanian ortograph. Maybe drawing conclusions from this is WP:OR, but still... Dpotop (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I wrote in the article that Romanian and Moldovan have "full mutual intelligibility", something that Xasha excised as being "BS". (Apparently these two can make do without an interpreter - or will Xasha claim that Chirtoacă is part of the "Romanian minority in Moldova"? - something I believe not even the Soviets claimed existed.) Well, I think it's important for the reader to know this. It would be great to find a citation, too, but meanwhile, if someone from the US or the UK who has no idea about the situation is reading this article, shouldn't we make it clear that the "languages" share a spoken as well as a written form? Biruitorul Talk 18:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't "share the literary standard" stronger than "full mutual intelligibility", and states what you say? --Illythr (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
It depends on what you're trying to prove. If I understood Xasha correctly, he was trying to make a point that the vernacular used in RM on a daily basis (e.g. among friends) might not be fully understood by, say, the average person in Bucharest. True as that may be, one can find similar communication problems between generations (I can easily imagine an elderly lady finding it impossible to follow a conversation between two teenagers who live in the same city as she does). The same goes for different vernaculars within Romania proper -- e.g. an ethnic Romanian in Transylvania might not be able to follow a conversation between two friends in Oltenia. Of course, that happens everywhere in the world -- and obviously the question to ask is not whether you're able to follow a conversation you overhear between two total strangers, but rather whether you can communicate with said strangers upon approaching them without any effort or special knowledge; and the answer to the latter is a resounding yes. --Gutza T T+ 21:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Illythr, the existence of a literary standard and the mutual intelligibility are different things. A good example is that Italians have a single literary standard, which they all study in schools and can use if they need, but at home they speak local dialects. These are not necessarily mutually intelligible, especially if they are geographically distant. In the case of "Moldovan", there is no such problem. — AdiJapan 02:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Two points Illythr. First: most varieties of the Chinese language are mutually unintelligible, even though they share a written standard. Second: as Gutza pointed out, there are varieties of the Romanian language, in Romania itself, intelligible to a large degree only locally. Example: the poem here. That doesn't mean every variety is a separate language; everyone knows the standard language and someone from Botoşani or, I daresay, Tiraspol, can make himself perfectly understood to someone from Arad.
So I repeat my contention that we should, in some form, preferably with sources, indicate to the reader that spoken as well as written Romanian and "Moldovan" are fully mutually intelligible. That, varieties and politics aside, a single language is spoken from the, if you will, Nistru to the Tisa. Biruitorul Talk 05:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I for one camp on one of my earlier positions: we should follow the Valencian model and define Moldovan as an alternate (and otherwise official and legitimate) name of the Romance language known as Romanian. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 07:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Plinul, that's what Moldovan language used to read a few years back ("Moldovan is the name of the Romanian language in Moldova", or something to that effect). That generated a lot of controversy from select Moldovan nationals and their friends (Romanian arrogance, Moldovans are denied the right to their own language, that sort of thing). Of course, it just so happens that... well, it's true, Moldovan is indeed the name of the Romanian language used left of Pruth. But since one needs to reach some form of consensus irrespective of truth proper, we ended up with what we have now (with a copy of the Moldovan Constitution at hand, a person does have serious sources to make any claim as to the "political independence" of the language, and trying to argue otherwise does make you look like an irredentist/expansionist madman to the average American used to read news about the Middle East). Don't get me wrong, I understand perfectly what you're trying to say (I've read the part with "official and legitimate"), but some Moldovans don't want the article to make that assertion, and, given the topic's relative (nay, absolute) obscurity on and the amount of reading required to get up to speed with all aspects of the issue, most third opinions will look at the matter from the point of view of someone trying to resolve a dispute, not from an educated historical point of view. That's why we need to build consensus tightly around rock-solid sources, as opposed to writing summaries that can't be proven point by point. --Gutza T T+ 09:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Biru: I find the probability that the language is and was completely uniform everywhere, especially given this map and the fact that when those Soviet linguists attempted to create a separate Moldovan standard, they didn't make it up out of thin air, but had based their standard on some eastern (Transnistrian) dialects, which were found to be unintelligible by the population of central Bessarabia, rather low. The idea, as I understand it, is to say that the standard language is not just mutually intelligible, but pretty much the same everywhere (this seems to be the part everyone agrees on). Whereas the, uhm, vernacular - not so sure.
Plinul: Well, I tried that. Didn't quite work out, as you can see. --Illythr (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
We may discuss the actual phrase, but certainly not the meaning. Consensus should not be reached by compromising between scientific views and fringe theories. Introducing any weasel words that contradict the fact that Romanian is just another name for Moldovan (is this more acceptable?) goes against the goal of the project. I am not defending Romanian irredentist views and should I ever be consulted (as in a referendum) about a potential union of Romania and Moldova I would vote against it. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Illythr, I was reading the other day a very interesting and only loosly related article on Romanian phonolgy. Here it is, I hope you can read French: [2]. Note that the author is doing everything possible to keep out of politics, (she even uses "romanian/moldovan" once) but she does speak of "Romanian in Moldova (but which keeps its official Modavian name)". She also explicitly writes about the Moldavian dialect of Romanian. There isn't the slightest scientific opposition to language identity among linguists. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Disputed language infobox

Perhaps a "disputed language infobox" should be created and used on pages such as this one or Valencian... Plinul cel tanar (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

But Moldovan is not a disputed language. There is a clear consensus among specialists about its identity with Romanian. Let's not be hyper-neutral. — AdiJapan 13:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I see your point... there is a debate but it's political not linguistical... then the infobox should be dropped altogether. Unless we have a reputable source on Romance languages listing Moldovan alongside Italian, French, Romanian etc there is no point in having an infobox. The same should be done for Valencian. The infobox as it is now is missleading and giving undue weight to a fringe theory. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Huh, was that a Jedi mind trick, Adi? O_o --Illythr (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, sometimes my suggestions are good, sometimes they aren't... the "disputed language infobox" seemd like a good one at first but Adi is right about one thing: it moves a political debate into linguistics and that is unencyclopedic. And there is no reason to be hyperneutral about this. Moldovans have the right to there own, distinct identity, they have the right to call there language whatever they want, however the is no point in inducing doubt about the actual identity with Romanian. And the infobox on Romanian is already available. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
You mean something like Alexandru Graur's Studii de lingvistica generala, Bucuresti, Editura Academiei RPR, 1961?Xasha (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect to the late philologist, any scholarship of a remotely political nature produced under conditions of Stalinism (or other forms of totalitarianism) - particularly when such scholarship can and has been freely undertaken in the last 20 years- is highly suspect. Biruitorul Talk 05:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
So you say one of the few Romanian noted linguist, whose field of research is exactly Romance languages, was politically motivated? And you also say we should delete all Romanian sources published between 1938 and 1990, cause they were written under totalitarian regimes.Xasha (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Xasha, you won't find anything published in Romania between 1949 and 1965 that contradicts or criticise the official Soviet stance or Soviet science. For most of those years, there were Soviet troops in Romania, too. I'm sure I wouldn't use any Romanian source between these years as a reliable reference for anything related to the Soviet Union.
After 1965, a little liberalisation occured, being acceptable to criticise Soviet science, although usually not Soviet politics directly. As such, the issue of the Moldovan language has been discussed by linguists from a critical perspective between 1965-1989, although we were still in the "Soviet Block". bogdan (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Soviet left Romania in 1958, and by 1960 Romania was clearly heading away from the Soviet line (it's just chance that the Chinese chose Bucharest in 1960 to start openly criticizing Soviets?). Also this WP article claims late 50s and early 60s Romania as quite independent from Soviet influences. So 1961 doesn't seem like part of the Stalinist period.Xasha (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct, we were a democracy, there was no censorship whatsoever, we were free to criticise the USSR and so on -- that explains the American immigrants looking for a free country. Come on. --Gutza T T+ 11:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid we are talking here about two or more different things. If you read the article, you would notice that it is not about the language. It says nothing about the letters, the words, the grammar, the literature, the earliest writtings, the 1001 other things you find in a normal article about the language. This article is about the theory that Moldovan and Romanian are different. It shows who brought in that theory, what is the reaction of linguists to it, etc. The article "moral" if you want is that it is not a linguistic, but a political question. From my point of view one can call the language Daco-Bessarabian, as long as we do not invent on WP that the language exists as a separate language.

A thing that somehow I see missing in the article is the mention of the fact that the schools in Moldova teach Romanian language, not Moldovan language, their exams, in their diplomas it is written "Romanian".

It is Moldovan in the sense that it is the language of Moldovans, but not in the sense that it is different from Romanian. And I see no implications here about politics of the country. Do Austrians call their languages Austrian? Dc76\talk 04:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually 3 Romanian admins forced the exclusion of "the letters, the words, the grammar, the literature, the earliest writtings" without a serious motivation.Xasha (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, good, neutral introduction to the issue (p.68ff.), although a little out of date near the end. Biruitorul Talk 04:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, but i will need time to read it through.Dc76\talk 07:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Very interesting. The intro will have to be re-written sooner or later, and now we have some reliable info on the vernacular. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
No, Illythr, I don't have that much power, although I could use some Jedi stuff... The thing is that I know what Plinul was trying to do: balance the article in a way that would make it acceptable to all editors working on it (including Xasha, that is). But this is the wrong definition of NPOV. The balance has to be established among published sources, not among ourselves. And I don't need to repeat what the sources say about the so-called Moldovan language. In fact, Dc76 explained very well what subject this article has. — AdiJapan 10:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be named Moldovan Romanian instead of Moldovan ?

Shouldn't this article be named Moldovan Romanian instead of Moldovan ? Similarly,the article about German spoken in Austria is named Austrian German ( ) , the article about English spoken in the US is named American English ( ) ,the article about English spoken in New Zealand is named New Zealand English ( ) and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No, because the article is not about a language variety. It's about a political controversy. We don't have any article about the Moldavian variety of Romanian yet. — AdiJapan 15:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

ISO 639 decision

See -- Hello World! 16:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The cat's already out of the box, so I might as well brag about it: I was the one to contact SIL and the LoC regarding this matter, and I only did it because I was nauseated by all the Wikipedian Moldovenists poking me in the eye with that ISO code. Well, now it's gone, good riddance! --Gutza T T+ 22:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow! I am speechless. Bravo! :) Dc76\talk 22:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hurray! Hopefully we can now get the (Moldovan) template deleted too. Biruitorul Talk 23:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Only “mo” is deprecated, not the word “Moldovan”. A language can have several names, for example Spanish is also called Castilian, Catalan is also called Valencian or Balear, depend on which region people come from. The ISO 639 standard(s) will add Moldovan (may also add Moldovian, to be confirmed) under the name Romanian, as other names/aliases of the same language.-- Hello World! 18:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please fix recent inaccurate edits by SPA account

Single purpose account User:ITSENJOYABLE (talk · contribs) made some erroneous edits in his edits of November 8:

  1. he changed the perfectly OK wording saying the "mo" and "mol" code in ISO 693/2 was deprecated to the completely inaccurate "revoked" diff (note the decision explicitely says the codes are not invalid [3]). Moreover, he applies the decision to ISO 693/3, which is not the case as of 15:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. falsely claims that the Moldovan Constituion was changed in 1995 to change the language from Romanian to Moldovan. The innacuracy of this claim can be verified in numerous sources. There was a movement to change the language from Moldovan to Romanian (the other way around) in 1995, but the proposal was not approved by the MD Parliament.
  3. he removed the "globalize" template, even if he has done nothing to fix to problem (i.e. no further info was provided about Moldovan speakers all over the former Soviet Union, recorded as such in the censa of both CIS and EU countries)

Xasha (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Undid 1 and 2, indeed, he's been playing with the sources. 3 - I'm not sure, moldovan usage outside of Moldova seems to be pretty insignificant... And the EU records seem to be referring to the nationality anyway. --Illythr (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)