Talk:Voicu

The name Voicu in not of Hungarian origin

KIENGIR, the name of John Hunyadi's father appears as Voyk in Latin-language contemporary documents. Romanian historians consider that "Voyk" is related to "Voicu", a Romanian name of Slavic origin. In a similar way, Hungarian historians think that "Voyk" is related to "Vajk". But there is not relation between "Voicu" and "Vajk". 82.78.75.6 (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP,

it is just your assumption, but what we cannot ignore that both the Hungarian, Slavic and hence the Romanian version of the name has Turkish roots.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]

KIENGIR, I can't see where the name "Voicu" is mentioned in the source that you provided. 86.120.179.135 (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP, it is transliterated "oláhoknál dívatos Vojk*".(KIENGIR (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]

There is no "Voicu" in your quote. 86.120.179.135 (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand what means transliteration?(KIENGIR (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Please provide the English translation of the relevant Hungarian-language text. 86.120.179.135 (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As well the same is the case with the name Ders, which we corresponded with the Cuman tersz = irracundus, but the old-Slovenian: druzu (modern Slovenian: drz, Vlach: dërz, dîrz) = brave, which proved as well an explanation. Similarly the pagan name of St. Stephen is Vajk, which we may correspond with Vojk* that so popular among South Slavs and Vlachs (meaning warrior, soldier in the old-Slovenian: vo=exercitus, bellator root, commensurate Czech: voják, Luzicz: vojak), if the Turkish bajik = rich, powerful and lord word together with other Turkic origin names of the Árpád-genus would not show as well other directions to the comparison.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks a lot for your effort. But I don't understand from this text that Voicu is of Hungarian origin. The word "Hungarian" does not even appear here. 86.120.179.135 (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious from the context, but I will make some tweaks.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Are you serious? The "Hungarian mediation" is not in the text, but it is self-implied? 86.120.179.135 (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems sometimes you do not understand me correctly (or what close pharaphrasing is). Since we don't know exactly which and how it was mediated (as it is in the source, as you, hence I used or. However, tomorrow I'll rephrase it better just for you.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I hope you realize that the phrase "I'll rephrase it better just for you" is disrespectful. I know very well what transliteration and pharaphrasing is.

This what I understand:

Romanian Voicu comes from Slavic Vojko.
Slavic Vojko comes from voj (warrior in Slavic) + the suffix -ko.
The suffix -ko is widely used in Slavic (see Mirko, Boško, Branko, Miško, Stanko, Radenko)

I am going to post the original quote and ask on WP:RSNB if your interpretation about Hungarian mediation is right. Anway, the source seems quite old if it talks about Vlach instead of Romanians. The author is Nagy Géza (1855 - 1915) 86.120.179.60 (talk) 06:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disrespectful? No way, I may call your too sudden and early charges like that as you did with your mistake with the transliteration, etc., better take it as the opposite, a form of respect. Just because the term Vlach is used is not a problem, as many sources do regardless of age, as the timeline of the naming dates back to those times.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]

The current version is better and I can agree with it. 86.120.179.60 (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I was reluctant about your text, but I had accepted it as a compromise because your tone was not very friendly and I wanted to avoid an escalation of the dispute. I fully agree Borsoka about the original research and now I support his version. 86.120.179.164 (talk) 07:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see, however, it is not true my tone was not friendly (just explained above), stop these charges and better remember your sudden reverts instead of waiting until the end of the discussion.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC))[reply]