Talk:Istro-Romanians/Archives 1

Sources?

What's that revert war over sources here? There are in fact quite a few references given inline in the text, why would this be tagged as {unreferenced}? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

For the most part, this article is without sources. I see Halle, but who else? Khoikhoi 00:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, isn't "some linguists believe" a violate of WP:AWW? Khoikhoi 00:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Khoi has an obsession with tagging articles. I find it aesthetically unpleasing and should generally be avoided unless there is a good reason for a tag to be there (such as a content dispute). In this case, there isn't and there is disagreement within the wiki-community over where that particular tag (the {{unreferenced}} tag) should be placed (at the head of the article, in a "references" section or at the talkpage).--Euthymios 00:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I find it annoying that you need to troll. Khoikhoi 00:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I see Popovici, Densuşianu, and Ivic (though the latter without an exact source), together they seem to cover most of the content. - BTW, "Halle" is the place of publication, not the author. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Their books should probably be cited in the proper format, then. Khoikhoi 00:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Khoi, can you please drop it? No source is cited in "proper format" for the fact that the capital of Egypt is Cairo.--Euthymios 00:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

WTF do Istro-Romanian language theories have anything to do with Cairo? Khoikhoi 00:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This was rather abstract discussion on Istro-Romanian, almost ignoring a more abundant subsequent literature appearing on this topic. The mentioned authors now are deficient and century-old(from early 20th century); but in meantime appeared more than 110 newer articles and books on this topic including a recent exhaustive monograph in 378 pages (its glossary + grammar + texts) by A. Kovačec in 1998 - some main ones I added at end. Except northern Istra, it was spoken to mid 19th century also in 2 western villages of the nearest island Krk, northern Adriatic. I am not its native speaker, but understanding them from vicinity. Wikislav, 2 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.78.239 (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Spilt from...

This edit with no summary or citation doesn't seem right to me. It changed a late split from Daco-Romanian to a late split from Proto-Romanian. This is a drastic change of meaning. Obviously, all Eastern Romanca languages go back to Proto-Romanian. But the previous assertion was that Istro-Romanian had a longer history in common with Daco-Romanian, what is now typically called just Romanian. Presumably, by the time they split, there was no Proto-Romanian to split from. At the very least, this is an uncited, significant change in what the article says. - Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur. I have reverted the anon's edit, as well as on other Vlach-related articles. Khoikhoi 06:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Proto-Romanian was a language considered to have been spoken by the ancestors of today's Eastern Romance Speakers also known as the Balkan Latin peoples (Vlachs), between the 7th and the 9th century. It was broken into the following modern languages and their dialects:Romanian,Moldovan,Aromanian (also known as Macedo-Romanian, Arumanian or Vlach,Megleno-Romanian (known as Vlăheşte by speakers and Moglenitic or Meglenitic and Istro-Romanian. These are Vlach languages, also called the Eastern Romance languages,that developed in Southeastern Europe from the local eastern variant of Vulgar Latin and have a common origin from the Proto-Romanian language. From Vulgar Latin, several hundreds of years afterward, a language called Proto-Romanian was developed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.184.2.48 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 31 December 2006.

Translation

I added a little translation from the French, but it was reverted as unconstructive. Anyway, while many academic papers I read have untranslated sections of French or German, this seems utterly inconsistent with a general purpose encyclopedia entry. Foreign languages should be translated, and unless relevant in the original, probably be relegated to a footnote. I guess my sin was being too lazy to relegate it to a footnote.

(Histoire de la langue roumaine, I, p. 337): "Un premier fait que nous devons mettre en evidence, c'est que l'istro-roumain n'a pu se développer à l'origine là où nous le trouvons aujourd'hui". [The first thing that we have to put into evidence is that Istro-Romanian didn't originally develop where we find it today] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.89.55 (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)