Talk:Proto-Romanian language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Dacia (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dacia, a WikiProject aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to ancient Dacia and primarily to the history of Dacians, Getae and Moesi. If you would like to participate, please improve this article and/or join the project and help with our open tasks. If you have questions regarding the goals of the project, as well as the time span, space, people and culture in the project scope, please review them here. Your input is welcomed!
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Stock post message.svg
To-do list for Proto-Romanian language:
No to-do list assigned.

Greek language loans in that period were probably via Vulgar Latin, since Latin had long been absorbing Greek words. I'm going to mention this, otherwise some may think that the Greek loans means there was close proximity or extended contact between Proto-Romanians and Greeks, which is not necessarily so.

An example: Romanian urmǎ ('trace") (also in Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian) and Italian orma ("trace") are both from Greek ormos, but both via Vulgar Latin. Alexander 007 05:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I am a bit puzzled by what the article states about the rise of Protoromanian. It looks there is a theory of the rise of this distinct language but the existing evidence seems to be almost completely lacking.

The sentence 'torna fratre', whatever its meaning, is simply Latin, or Vulgar Latin.Aldrasto (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In Chakavian Croatian many Dalmatian language words are saved. And in Chakavian subdialect in Istria (a few small old Romanian groups moved there) tornati is verb "to get back", "to return". Torna fratre means "come back brother". Both Dalmatian and proto-Romanian developed from the Vulgar Latin, as well as older Italic speeches, or finally any Romance language. Zenanarh (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The expression in question is not distinctive of Proto-Romanian as it could belong to any early neolatin languages. To establish a new language, here P.R., we must find its distictive features from common vulgar Latin. Here the misunderstanding happened because the expression was in itself ambiguous: tornare in cl. Lt. means move in a round, circular fashion; thence came as second meaning to turn round on one's heels; and lastly move bacwards. Here it was the confusion between the second and third meaning that caused the incident.Aldrasto (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

In the Stratēgikon, it appears that the command tornā -- at least in the single (cavalry) context where it appears -- means neither "turn on one's heels" nor "move backwards", but rather "go about" -- i.e., change the direction of the entire cavalry unit, while in motion, so that they end up facing in the direction of their original rear. But in the common usage of 6th-century Late Latin, it seems likely that tornāre had already acquired most of the meanings now included in the English verb "turn". RandomCritic (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What is this article about?[edit]

In the first half we learn about a hypothetical language from 7th century onwards. In the second, longer half, we read the interpretation of a language sample from the 6th century.

In the first half we encounter various names for this language. In the second half we find out it's just Romanian. Daizus (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Read the final paragraph of the first half. It says that Romanian as a definable entity (i. e., a specific Romance dialect with distinct characteristics) existed before the 7th century, possibly as early as the 2nd century. In the strict sense, Proto-Romanian is the parent language – the immediate ancestor – of all modern Romanian languages. If we reconstruct the common basis out of which all the modern Romanian languages developped and descended in a direct, linear fashion, we get a language that was spoken approximately in the period between the 7th and 9th centuries, when it began to split up (just as Latin, i. e. Proto-Romance, had started to split up around the start of the Common Era; Old and Archaic Latin some time before the start of the Common Era could be called "Pre-Proto-Romance" – "grandparent language" stages, so to say.) What came immediately before that period was already Romanian linguistically, but could be called "Pre-Proto-Romanian". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
The lead goes like that "Proto-Romanian [...] is a hypothetical language considered to have been spoken by the ancestors of today's Romanians and related Balkan Latin peoples (Vlachs), between the 7th and the 9th centuries."
Now either the second half of the article is not on topic (as it is about a sample of the language in the 6th century), or it is about the topic (and must stay here), but then flatly contradicts the lead. This is not an article about Romanian, but about Proto-Romanian, that hypothetical language spoken from ca 600 to 900 AD (or so the lead says). Daizus (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
You're being deliberately obtuse now. First, presumably, Proto-Romanian cannot be dated so precisely (certainly not to the year or even decade). Second, if it started in 600 AD, then 587 AD is close enough. It still provides us with information about the language, even if a stage perhaps a decade or so earlier (if that even makes a difference). Evidence from the 6th century (in the form of names quoted by medieval Greek authors) is routinely adduced in discussions about Proto-Slavic, even though it is usually dated to ca. 600 or a bit later.
Are you really making such a fuss about 13 years in the prehistorical period? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I think you're the one being deliberately obtuse. First you removed the tag without understanding why it is placed. Now you try to minimize the problem: "merely 13 years". It's not merely 13 years, it's a different century, and moreover, is this language either hypothetical or an actual language (for we have a sample of it)? Perhaps the second section does not belong here, I am not really sure, but sort it out, don't sweep it under the carpet and get mad at those pointing the problem. Daizus (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
1998 is a different century, too – hell, even a different millennium! –, that doesn't mean people in 1998 spoke a different language or form/historical stage of English than we do now. You're being pedantic, and you seem to suggest arbitrary century boundaries somehow mattered to the evolution of languages.
As I've emphasised, changes in language proceed slowly, and take generations, not years or decades. Also, dating proto-languages is mostly a guesstimate thing (unless you have loanwords you can correlate with historical events, for example), you can't usually nail it down to the century, much less even more precisely. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Look, in the current article there are some obvious contradictions: attested vs hypothetical (in vain you state obvious things about language change when you apparently support the ludicrous claim that a hypothetical proto-language is attested!), before 7th century or starting in the 7th century. None of what you said deals with these issues, but instead you choose to direct an ad hominem at me (you called me "obtuse", "pedantic"), thus a null argument. I have not suggested "arbitrary century boundaries", I have not written this article, I have not referenced it.
And FYI, since we (according to some views) have the language attested in a 6th century written source, this is not a "prehistorical period". And moreover, according to many enough scholars (J. N. Adams A. Du Nay et al), the Balkan Romance languages spoken until ca 600 are called Latin or Balkan Latin. But these digressions are not helpful, nor is the extra tagging (e.g. neutrality), since the first issue to be solved is the topic of this article. Daizus (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I removed the "arbitrary century boundaries" and also changed this language from "hypothetical" to Romance. I marked the part about loanwords as dubious, because most Slavic loanwords in Romanian date after 8-9th century AD (Slavic liquid metathesis). Daizus (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation tags added over two years ago -[edit]

In the 9th century Proto-Romanian already had a structure very distinct from the other Romance languages, with major differences in grammar, morphology and phonology and already was a member of the Balkan language area.[citation needed]

The first language that broke the unity was Aromanian, in the 9th century, followed shortly after by Megleno-Romanian. Istro-Romanian was the last to break the link with Daco-Romanian in the 11th century.[citation needed]

I'm not sure what factual basis there is for either of these statements (as opposed to some theory) - anyway, add references of they will be deleted.HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)