Talk:Origin of the Romanians/Archive 2

message: *There are no traces of Teutonic influence in Romanian and we know that in the 5th and 6th century Dacia was inhabited by Teutonic tribes
what teutonic tribes inhabited Dacia in 5th and 6th centuries ?
: Goths and Gepids. Boraczek 08:58, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teutonic tribes 

message: "There are no traces of Teutonic influence in Romanian"--this statement needs to be scrutinized. Are there no Old Germanic words in Romanian? Alexander 007
: Actually there a few words that entered some time in the language (probably 4-5th century) and have Slavic cognates -- AFAIK, they're still considered an enigma. It would be interesting to see whether there are any Gothic cognate. I should mention "stăpân" (master), "jupân" (sir), "vorbă" (talk). Bogdan | Talk 09:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Being close is not a proof in linguistics, it also has to match phonetically the sound changes. Since all these were indo-european languages, they're supposed to have cognates. For example, this word can also be found in Slavic: "dvorĭba". Was it from Latin or Slavic ? Bogdan | Talk 10:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Teutonic language influence

message: The absence or scarcity of Teutonic words in modern Romanian proves nothing really.It is doubly intriguing that 'there are no Teutonic words' in Romanian seeing as how the Visigoths settled in the Vlach-populated provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire south of the Danube for a time. Yet, are there no Teutonic words? Alexander 007
: Many linguists searched for them, but as far as I know, there did not find any.
It may be the case that despite their belligerence, the Goths were not a strong influence linguistically upon early Romanians, whom they may well have encountered in Dacia & who they definitely encountered south of the Danube. Alexander 007
: Of course. Just as we don't have any Cuman, Avar or Pecheneg words, although they ruled lands inhabited by Romanians. Bogdan | Talk 09:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Teutonic languages again

message: : I replaced "opponents" with "some opponents". Is it all right now? Boraczek 12:44, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Opponents 

message: I've seen some people try to prove the origin of various Balkan ethnic groups (many of which are defined by language) via genetic methods. Decius 04:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Linguistics has little to do with genetics: one can learn a language and pass it to his children regardless of the ethnic/racial/genetic background: Romanians (mostly from Transylvania), Serbians and Albanian are genetically close, but you can't tell from this where the Romanians and Albanians originated. Bogdan | Talk 18:31, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Language & genetics

message: If you're interested in the Dacian component of Romanian and connections with Albanian, you may want to read the archive at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/balkanika/ Bogdan | Talk 18:31, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: One explanation would be the "Romanianization" (instead of Romanization) of Dacians. The Vlach Latins expanded their teritory to include the former Dacian lands, this happening in the Dark Ages. So, the famous foundings of Wallachia and Moldova ('descălecare') are not just legends. Bogdan | Talk 10:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dacian & Albanian

message: From what I remember, there aren't that many examples that show that Dacian was a satem language, unless I've missed those examples. Maybe Dacian was neither Satem or Centum in the classical sense. Some languages such as Hittite are neither Centum or Satem. Decius
: Exactly. It's because:
:# a centum language may have satem influence and a satem language may have centum influence;
:# some languages split before or after the sound changes from centum to satem.
: BTW, Romanian "suta" is believed to be derived from an ancient Satem language (most likely Dacian), not from Latin (if it were Latin, it would look like this: "cint"). (and it's very unlikely to be from Slavic). Bogdan | Talk 09:08, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dacian Satem?

message: * It would be interesting to know what they teach children in Hungary about this. Is the migration theory the only thing they learn?
* I don't think the etymological arguments can lead anywhere. You can prove anything with that kind of stuff. Even DNA wouldn't prove much.
: DNA says that most people living in Europe have their genes older than the Indo-European migration. Bogdan | Talk 21:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such things as 'primitive' and 'advanced'. Some tribes in Africa might have some languages that are much more complex than English in some aspects. Bogdan | Talk 21:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: AFAIK, the Slavic people were not superior technologically when they reached the Balkans, but they were in a rather large number, since the Balkans were pretty sparsely populated at the time. In fact, that was one of the reasons of lack of feudal states. Bogdan | Talk 21:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Which Hungarian theory ? That the Romanians are from south of Danube ? Bogdan | Talk 14:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: In Hungarian schools, both versions are being taught, although the bottom line is that Daco-Roman continuity is probably incorrect, and the south-of-the Danube theory is probably true. But the whole thing is no big deal for most Hungarians, I guess it is more important for Romanians as it pertains to the origins of their nation. And I also believe Hungarians scholars (I don't speak about amateur enthousiasts on the internet, who are not a reliable source on theory) don't want to claim any right to Transylvania, they are just interested in historical truth. And let us remember that the theory of Daco-Roman continuity as a tool for territorial claims was first used by Romanian nationalists wanting to unite Transylvania with the Old Kingdom, that's how the whole issue got politicised in the first place.--Tamas 15:39, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Strategicon

message: Toponyms and personal names seem to suggest that Dacian belonged to another branch of the Indo-European language tree (satem, while Latin was centum). Yet in recent years linguists have begun to question the supposed satem nature of Dacian and Thracian, and some linguists and thracologists consider Dacian and Thracian to have been in fact Centum languages with some satem features.
I'm sorry, but I think a report on the discussion about the satem or centum character of the Dacian language does not belong in this article and in the section dedicated to arguments against the Latin-relative theory. I think we should present the arguments as briefly and clearly as possible. And I think the first sentence and the fact that we mention the Latin-relative theory makes it clear enough that there is no consensus about the satem character of the Dacian language. Hence I'm moving the higlighted part to the article about the Dacian language. Boraczek 17:02, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent addition by Decius 

message: Many names of places and rivers in Transylvania, if not the most, can be traced back to Slavic origins. The most obvious examples is offered by the names of some major rivers, such as Bistrita, Târnava, Cerna and some minor ones like Bistra. Now, it is very interesting the fact that in the case of Târnava, the Hungarian correspondent is Kukulo, which is in fact the translation of the slavic name (meaning the whirling river i think). The Germans (or Saxons) who were settled in the aria of this river in the 12th century, name it Kokel, which is clearly borrowed from Hungarian. In fact the dialect spoken by the Saxon settlers, unlike the Hungarian language, has no direct Slavic borrowings and no slav settlements are mentioned in any documents concerning Transylvania from 11th century onwards, which strongly suggests that the Slavs had already been assimilated/dissapered when the Germans arrived. How is then possible that the Romanians, who is alleged to have arrived only from the 13th century onwards, have preserved the Slavic name?
Furthermore, the Romanian pronounciation of Târnava is exactly the same as the Slovakian Trnava (city in Slovakia). The same is true for Bistrita (pronounced exactly the same as Bystrika, from Banska Bystrika - region in Slovakia). The Hungarian and Germans correspondent are Beszterce and Bistritz, respectively. Even more interesting is the fact that on the superior valley of river Bistrita, the local Romanians still call the river with the Repedea (from the common noun of Latin origin "repede", which means the same as Bistrita in Slavic, i.e. Rapid, Fast).
:there is this romanian word 'bistrit' with unknown origin; and there are these two ancient Dacian toponyms Tsierna/Dierna (river Cerna), and 'Birzava' (the famous 'inde Berzobim, de inde Aizi processimus' quote of Trajan). note that in Bulgarian language 'birzo' means "quick, fast" and in Russian language 'biistra' means "quick,fast".
:the capital of the empire of the Asen brothers in 1185 had its capital at Turnovo in what is today Bulgaria. interestingly the romanian word 'turn' comes from german 'tura' -- Criztu 07:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavic hydronyms in Transylvania 

message: Recent anonymous addition:
: (It should be noted, however, that the emperors often kept titles of lands conquered by predecessors but no longer actually held, a habit continued by kings until modern ages.)
This is not the case here. It is a well-established fact that the Romans fought countless battles against the Dacians (who were allied with Goths) after the Aurelian retreat.
::Maybe we should include this piece of information in the original article. It makes the whole issue of the title Maximus Dacicus irrelevant: if we know about Romans fighting Dacians after the retreat, that's a solid piece of information and we do not need to make conjectures based on imperial titles.--Tamas 20:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  keeping titles of lands conquered 

message: "According to Roman sources the population of Dacia was evacuated south of the Danube." I suggest that everyone interested in the debate tracks down each and every Roman source and each and every Roman sentence, cite them in the reference section of the article, and provide a link to the quote in Latin, if possible. According to Eutropius, the Romans (not "all Romans", and not "the Dacians" and not the "Romanized Dacians", who though linguistically Romanized may not have cared to declare Roman citizenship) in the cities (=urbibus) and lands (or 'cultivated lands'; the Latin word used is agris) of Dacia were resettled in Moesia, south of the Danube. There is no mention that the entire population of Dacia was evacuated, Roman or not. Alexander 007 08:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eutropius 

message: The Romanians (sometimes referred to as Vlachs in historical contexts)
Actually, even nowadays, the Daco-Romanian speakers of Eastern Serbia are commonly referred by Serbs as "Vlachs", so it's not just in historical contexts. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 21:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good Lord, the fact that you ended your diatribe by proclaiming "We are Greece's Jews" proves my point. Decius 03:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romanians / Vlachs 

message: I do not see any assimilation here in Greece going on.The Aromanians are the same as the other Greeks genetically.
: Not "the same". Genetically related yes, but cannot be "the same".
: Actually, genetically, there are several groups in the Balkans:
: 1. Inland Greeks, Vlachs, Bulgarians and Wallachians
: 2. Transylvanians, Serbians/Croatians, Albanians
: 3. Mediteraneans -- on the coast and islands (Greeks, Italians, even some Turks)
: As you see, they match more geographical regions than ethnic borders.
: Why is this? Because Europeans lived in Europe before the arrival of Indo-Europeans and their languages! There was a study that showed that more than 80% of the genes of the Europeans are of pre-Indo-European origin. The genetical differences match the pre-Indo-Europeans' ethnic borders and not today's ethnic borders. 
: So that's why using genetics in Balkan ethnology is wrong.bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 17:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply because any isolated population will grow its own distinctive genetical features. All the genetical differences you see today in the human species (or even the differentiation between any kind of species, animals or plants) are due to the isolation of groups. So, even if by reductio ad absurdum they were originally a Romanized Greek group, in the time since they started using Latin, they had to develop those features. And from what I know about Vlachs, until recently, they were isolated from the Greeks: they have few, if any ancient Greek words; their traditions encourages marriage within the same ethnicity; in the 12th century, Benjamin of Tudela said that they even killed the Greeks which entered their lands. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 19:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, it's true, but it has nothing to do with what we're talking here. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 19:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetics

message: Both are correct to an extent, but I have the impression that the Serbs and Hungarians only use the term in an old-fashioned folkish sense, much like the Turks use the term Rumlar or even gavurlar ('infidels') for the Greeks. "Vlach" is not an official language of Vojvodina; Rumanian is.
: The same thing was in Romanian, where Turks were named "păgâni" (pagans), but this hasn't been commonly used for a couple of centuries. Unlike that, in official Serbian statistics, the Romanians living in Timok valley are still called "Vlachs" (Власи/Vlasi). Actually, the Romanians living in Vojvodina (speaking the Bănăţeană variant of standard Romanian) are officially "Romanians", while the Romanians living in Serbia proper (speaking the Oltenească variant of standard Romanian) are called Vlachs. If you don't believe that, see the official statistics at the Serbian government site:  Власи/Vlasi (0,53%), Румуни/Rumuni (0,46%) bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 10:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i go for "historicaly" meaning "in the past", cuz today romanians are "contemporarily" refered to officialy as romanians in neighbouring countries. at least the hungarians and bulgarians refer to romanians as 'romanok' and 'rumuntzi' respectively. romanians don't call the polaks as "leshi" anymore, but "polonezi"-- Criztu
I guess the Serbian Власи/Vlasi are a special case, as they do in fact live south of the Danube. But they live in regions contiguous to Rumania and are clearly ethnically Rumanian, not Vlach in the Aromanian or Meglenitic sense. The Slavic "buffer zone" between the Rumanians and Aromanians is discussed at Origin of Romanians#Migration from South. The Serbian Власи/Vlasi clearly fall on the Rumanian side of the divide.--Theathenae 12:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historically or sometimes referred to as Vlachs? 

message: I personally would prefer which maintains that. And it's quite irrelevant here whether I am Hungarian or not. Frankly, it's quite annoying that some Wikipedians continue to see this whole problem in terms of a nationalistic debate between "Hungarians" and "Romanians". Come on, we are supposed to be the smart guys who have already moved on and left the old-style nationalistic quarreling behind us. :) --Tamas 22:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ''which maintains that'' vs ''thus'' in 2nd § 2nd sent

message: Neagu Djuvara has an interesting argument that the place of origin of the Romanians is in Transylvania, based on the fact that Romanian language has an unusual amount of juridic words borrowed from Hungarian, including:
* a făgădui (to promise)
* a tăgădui (to deny)
* a se răfui (to settle a deal)
* a bănui (to presume)
* a îngădui (to allow)
* a chibzui (to judge a situation, to reflect)
* a mântui (to redeem; to save)
These words can be found in all subdialects of Romanian. Supposing the Hungarians' claim that the Romanians came to Transylvania only in the 12th/13th century, it means that the Transylvanian Romanians had very little time to assimilate the words, then spread them on all their territories. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 17:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hungarian juridic words 

message: (in Romanian)
:Marele nostru arheolog Vasile Pârvan a descoperit două documente din veacul al IV-lea, în care un „rege" al goţilor de prin părţile noastre, la nord de Dunăre, îşi zice „Jude" — or, acesta nu era un titlu onorific pe care să i-l fi putut conferi împăratul de la Constantinopol (cum ar fi patriciu, despot sau cezar), era doar numele pe care localnicii daco-romani îl dădeau căpeteniilor lor administrative peste o grupare de sate sau peste o vale, judecători şi administratori (termen ce se va păstra până târziu, cum vom vedea), înseamnă că acest rege barbar domnea la nord de Dunăre peste populaţii de limbă latină şi a vrut să-şi zică cum numeau supuşii lui localnici pe şefii lor.
----
I removed the last argument against migration as it is not relevant. No-one claims that there were no Dacians after evacuation in 271. Yeti 22:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that was added by User:Criztu some months ago and it was allowed to slide by. Removal of that one was better. ---Masterful Killer 22:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another interesting argument from Djuvara 

message: I`ve read all the arguments around here, i propose to all members interested in romanian history to join this discussion.Firstly, Occam`s Razor says that the most simple explanation tends to be the correct one, in this case the most simple one that dacians indeed spoke a language similar to latin.Why i am saying this ?Just think at medieval romanian.Lets suppose whe have no doccuments written in medieval romanian (like whe have almost no one in dacian), only a couple of names.Seeing names such as Vladislav, Vlaicu, Vladimir, or anything like that, anybody could simply suppose that medieval romanian was a satem slavic language (oh, and i forgot the word "suta" ), which we know it is not the case (fortunately, whe have plenty of documents in medieval romanian, so there is no place for such abberations).So, lets came back to dacian.What if whith the dacian was a similar situation, a centum language, which because of its geographicall placement, got many satem charactheristics ?Whe now that Scythians and later Sarmatians exercited an important influence over Dacia.There are already lingvists claiming that the Dacian language was in original a Centum language which later developed Satem charachters.
It is higly unlikely that any roman colonist whith any logical thinking, would have remained in Dacia after 271.That merchants and missionaryes from the Roman Empire came, that is a different story.The only people having an interest to remain, where the local dacians.
The Thracians where not "romanised".A part of them, living in the south, where at some time asimilated by greeks, but most of them remained as a people.They where still a living populatian during the time of Justinian,in the VI century, and remained until the slavic invasion dominant in what is modern Bulgaria.Then, they retreated into the mountains and later emerged as the Vlachs.If the thracians where not romanised and the result of them where the Vlachs/southern romanians, thus no romanisation for the dacians was necesary in order to form the romanian people.QUAD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM.
:It is an attractive scenario, and I will not be silly and say that it is "impossible". I used to investigate a version of the theory (that Daco-Thracian was very similar to the Italic languages and that not much, but some, Romanization took place), but I abandoned this because of 1) lack of evidence; 2) what evidence there is suggests something else. However, the case is not closed. ---Decius 14:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a debateable subject. The Vlach communities in Poland probably emigrated there in later times. ---Decius 20:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

text: So called 'Great Migrations of Vlachs' along Carpatian Mauntains to Ukraine, Slovakia and Poland are very, very well documented. They had place between 14th and 16th centuries. Settlement of Vlachs in uninhabited mountains was promoted by local landowners and was regulated by so called Valachian Law (Prawo Wołoskie in Polish). In fact there were joined migrations of Vlachs and Slavic tribes and the Vlachs has been slavized during migrations.Yeti 00:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments for no romanisation process 

message: There where mountainous regions in Romania which even up to the XIX century where very hardly accesible.These regions contain today populations which are either by traditions, by some small language difference or by looks, different from the romanians living in nearby.On of these regions is the one in Poiana Ruscai mountains, named "Tinutul Padurenilor".Etnographs today consider the "padureni" as coming directly from the dacians.They use agriculture in terrases, they have plenty of decorative elements in theyr pottery and dressing common (if not identicall) whith those the dacians used.Not to mention the fact, that they have in vocabulary the word "a vulnera" for "a lovi" ,one of the many latin "arhaisms" in romanian language,which is a more than clear evidence for theyr continuous presence overhere.Another of this isolated place, is in the mountainous areas of the Buzau country, more exclusively in the Ivanetu mountains.There is an entire ancient monastic complex built in small caves, named "Agathon", which dates back probably as farr beyond as III - IV century AD, whith evidence of continous settlement until the XVIII century.
----
I would like to propose to remove the first argument against migration theory. In fact it is not argument against. At the time of proposed migration the territoty of present day Romania have been populated mainly by Slavonic people speaking language akin to Old Bulgarian/Macedonian/Old Church Slavonic. According to Migration Theory the migrating Vlachs could peacefully settle amongst the Slavs and recognize the authoriy of local Slavonic rulers and then assimilate the local slavonic population. It perfectly explains influence of South Slavinic on Romanian. This is also supported by the fact that the first known rulers of Vallachia have obviously Slavonic names.Yeti 01:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, but a counter-argument will be placed after it. Decius 01:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Places of refuge for Daco-Romanians in the Dark Ages, during the migrations 

message: A let myself to remove this fragment:
During the campaigns of Justinian against the Avars, one of the local guides presumably said in the local language "torna, torna fratre", which are considered a clear evidence of the presence of Romanic people north of Danube.Howewer, there is still debate upon this.
It seems not to be correct. This guy seems to be a muleteer from south. If you do not agree, a proof, please.Yeti 10:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In 579 there was a campaign in present day Serbia, South of Danube. The Bizantians moved their campaigns into Awar territory after 589 AD. Yeti 16:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Torna, torna fratre

message: Ladies and Gentleman, I for one would not give a flying fuck whether the Romanization occured in Moesia (Dacia Nova) or Dacia. In either case, Hungary has no territorial rights. However, until new evidence is found, there is nothing conclusive about the Moesian scenario. ---Lord Marshal 14:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as Hungarian claims are concerned you are absolutelly right. Unfortunatelly the Moesian scenario is far more probable than Dacian.Yeti 17:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It's hard to say which, but I think it is clear that they lived somewhere relatively near to the Danube and the Timiş River. The names of these two rivers are the only that fit perfectly with the Romanian phonetic evolution. bogdan | Talk 18:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Your opinion is one thing, making statements of supposed fact that are erroneous is another thing (e.g., "there are no more than 12 words of Dacian origin in the Romanian language"). There is no linguist out there who can say whether the Romanian language has 6 Dacian words, 12 Dacian words, or 200 Dacian words---the Dacian language is barely attested aside from some plant names, and a number of anthroponyms, hydronyms, toponyms, et cetera. And as for fantasizing about the number of Dacians words in Romanian... I would find nothing wrong with an Illyrian or Thracian substratum, rather than a Dacian. In any case, a Romance language with a Paleo-Balkan substrate (and a nice touch of Slavic too) is much more pleasing than that non-Indo-European,  Finno-Ugric thing from the Asian steppes that you call Hungarian (or Magyar, whatever). -Alexander 007 11:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, taking shots at each others' languages on internet talk pages won't get us anywhere, and it is quite possible that I just said that to get under someone's skin, though it's also possible that I am evil. However, I don't want people to think that Romanians promote this Daco-Romanian continuity for propaganda purposes in order to claim "historical rights", as Nescio commented above. No. Many Romanians believe it is true; they feel the connection to ancient Dacia and the Dacians, whatever the historical reality may be; and as yet we don't know the historical reality, nor do scholars agree that the migration from the south theory is "the most likely". As for chauvinism and injustices against ethnic minorities, Hungarians are just as guilty, with or without Dacian claims on their part. In evaluating my actual feelings, I do not find myself to be a chauvinist or an anti-Hungarian, but if someone doesn't want to recieve chauvinism in return, don't give chauvinism out to others. Regardless of what Nescio thinks about the Romanian language, I will go on record and say that I think Hungarian is just fine, and the fact that it is a non-Indo-European language can make it a delight to look through a Hungarian dictionary for "strange" new words. Regards, Alexander 007 09:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ladies & Gentlemen

message: Sure, Romanian bisericǎ is from Greek basilike, but there is nothing that suggests that this word did not enter Proto-Romanian from Vulgar Latin, as spoken in the Balkans. Western Romance languages use terms derived from Greek ekklesia, again by way of Vulgar Latin ecclesia. Another case is Romanian înger, from Latin angelus, in turn from Greek angellos. Since the New Testament was written in Greek, you can expect all Romance languages to have some religious terms derived from Greek. This does not necessarily suggest proximity or extended contact. In fact, the form of the Romanian word bisericǎ seems to demand a Latin intermediary: *basilica. See DEX Online. Alexander 007 00:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious terms

message: I have removed all material relating to this theory because it does not have any authoritative linguists or historians who support it at present. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. Before people get mad at me, consider this: the idea is improbable and is considered pseudo-scientific, and leaving it in the article makes the Romanian camp look less academic, even though no current, bonafide Romanian linguists or historians support the Dacian-close-to-Latin idea. In my opinion after dealing with this issue for awhile, Dacian could not have been much closer to Latin than Gaulish was to Latin. But I think the degree of closeness between Dacian and Latin is still a very serious thing to look into; and the closer it was, presumably, the easier would Romanization have been. Alexander 007 09:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I splited the article about roman and dacic continuation because it was not clear. I think we should consider both dacian influences and roman influences. This is not a new theory, it has more than a few centuries. It was very popular before communist period amond intelectuals. The theory has erupted after the comunist period outside Romania mostly (USA). In Romania, there is still a strong pro-roman position from many historians, excepting they do not speak about romanisation any more, but they use daco-romanian continuity to speak about the same thing, witch is total romanisation. I think we should not use this term, as it is ment to induce confusion, and it is the last thing we want on wikipedia. Moa3333 20:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: On the contrary, according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight, i would give much less importance to the migration théory, witch is an outdated theory of the last century, and does not desirve as much space as other theories. Moa3333 20:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dacian being close to Latin

message: Well that is the issue at stake when you have controversy over history. Powerfull write history. Winners write it,losers have no say in it. It has always been like that. Well not anymore. Or not for long. It is obvious that the networked people of the world with huge and unprecedented access to information will no longer settle with anything less than the truth.But not your truth,not my truth,not Enciclopedia Britannica's Truth. No,you start with the very beginning of hummanity and go all the way up to today, and make no mistake in the process! Already this trend is HUGE on Wikipedia. More history has been rewritten in 6yrs of Wiki than anytime in history. So my guess is that a lot of surprises will follow and a lot of myths on which history is based on, will fall. Myself, having read some pretty fascinating works like Jared Diamond's "Guns,Germs and Steel" and with some guidance for a valid framework of analyse like Chomsky's,I will hardly take anything historic that doesn't start with the very beginning!:)) So,if in this conquerers vs.conquered historic framework, the Roman Empire and the following powers, wrote history for themselves and for those who they conquered or opressed that won't stop me to ask a simple question that go beyond 2000years of highly biased history writting: who says Latin is what it is and why? and what if Latin is no more than a version of Dacian language? Peace:) --Radufan 00:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no, Latin is almost certainly not a version of Dacian. We know as many as a hundred Dacian toponyms and they do not look at all like Latin. It was a completely different language, on another Indo-European branch. bogdan 00:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably are aware of the material and the theories existing on websites like dacia.org. That is highly controversial and it has to be because it goes against mainstream. But what puzzles me is that they manage to answer a simple question which nobody before managed to convincingly answer to and that was a sort of "taboo" to even ask! So if Dacians and Romans were our ancestors,what happened to the Dacian language? How can such an anomaly happen that in less than a millenia time a partly-colonised people,with a rich history and culture, forget their own langauage!? Well until someone else has another better answer and a theory to prove otherwise...a "Dacian as origin of Latin theory "could easily fit into an "other theories" section(it does have plenty of material available to support it).Just like in a "conspiracy theories" section to be found on many pages,if you like:)--Radufan 00:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All kinds of theories can easily fit in any article, since Wikipedia is not paper; the problem is, no actual linguists support the idea that Dacian=a Latin variant. The idea should go in a separate article; compare Pre-Indo-European origin of Albanians; perhaps it should be discussed in Protochronism. Alexander 007 00:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe even an article about Napoleon Săvescu. He is the one pushing this theory, afterall.bogdan 00:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Dacian possibly went extinct in Romania, the Dacians being assimilated by Slavs and/or Romanians. It's not like this is unseen before. See this image of the territories of the Celts 2500 years ago. Nowadays there's no surviving Continental Celtic language. bogdan 00:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: As opposed to "All kinds of theories" this controversial theoriy does have some real support. In fact much of the data used to support it is conventional enough; adding to that a critique to conventional theories and their unanswered questions, the theory basically makes a different interpretation on a different framework of thought. And logic. That seems to me credible and scientific enough. As to what their findings are and the controversy coming out of it, that's a different story. Nonetheless I believe it is by now third in a list of possible theories to Romanian Origins. There's a lot of followers, plenty of controversy and interest in the theory and plenty of available material for it;and the organisation behind(Dacia Revival International Society) cannot be of mad men. In fact try and read their status of association where they state to be a "Cultural Organisation" with "cultural scientific" activities. You can't just ignore that as being nonsense. Moreover,the main article states only 2,both controversial enough theories. Since both have lots of Pros and Cons, there is enough space for interpretation. But I also agree with Alexander007; maybe an article like Pre-Indo-European origin of Albanians should be written instead and then perhaps it will make it to the status of "Link" on the main page if it can't make it to "other theories status":) What I belive is that on a controversial issue people should be given the possibilty to listen to more opinions and voices and then ENQUIRE on their own rather than simply say "no actual linguists support the idea that Dacian=a Latin variant" or stronger "Actually, no, Latin is almost certainly not a version of Dacian."--Radufan 01:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They claim what they're doing is science, but it's not. I read their articles. They have absolutely no evidence, they make no predictions using the scientific method, just wild speculations. It's on the same level with Fortune telling and Intelligent design. To prove my point, I give you these links: :-) bogdan 12:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It is good for us to maintain a high level of standards in Wikipedia and cultivate the scientific method. Savescu is practically saying that the Thracian language was Romanian; I have encountered Bulgarians who say that the Thracian language was Bulgarian; I have encountered Greeks who say the Thracian language was Greek. What will help us get to the truth? The scientific method. The scientific method leads us to the conclusion that all those ethnocentric claims are wrong. Alexander 007 19:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: High level of standards?Then it means you have little understanding of what the scientific method in writing an encyclopedia should be. We're not setting the whether the theory is good or not,we're supposed to expose it as it as(stating of course it is highly controversial and related to other phenomena of nationalism,phrotocronism and whatever). On the same assumptions you wouldn't write an article on,say God. What scientific method do you have to explain it? You only state the assumption and the implication and sofort. The theory might in itself be mad if you like but having it in the encyclopedia will make people understand that some people do pose questions to history and anyone can, like them,do that. I'm only saying that it ought to be published and let people laugh at it if that's the case,but don't just decide that since it's too controversial and does not suit your level of tollerance to ideas against mainstream beliefs,it can't be even mentioned. You have no right in doing that kind of censorship.The article will be written.(with the proper mentions,of course)--Radufan 21:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you misunderstood. By high level of standards I mean that Wikipedia must strive to be at the Academic level in its articles (except where Academic-ness is not the right tone, as in Groo the Wanderer), such as this article. Yes or no? The answer is yes. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. I am not misunderstanding Wikipedia. Removing such ideas from main articles is the thing to do (for example, do I want the article Thrace to even mention the idea that the Thracians were Greeks? no. But I can link many websites that say "the Thracians were Greeks"). You seem to forget that discussing the idea in Wikipedia but it in a separate article was my idea... so yes, the article will be written...and if you write it remember that it was my idea :) Alexander 007 21:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: As a better example than Thrace, there is the Ancient Macedonian language. There are many, many websites that argue that the ancient Macedonians spoke a Slavic language; but this is dismissed by the academic community because it is contradicted by the evidence and it has no real evidence in support of it. So the idea is removed from Ancient Macedonian language unless someone finds a linguist or authoritative historian who supports it. Exact same case here. Such ideas are removed from main articles and relegated to spin-off articles, like Pre-Indo-European origin of Albanians. Allowing that kind of stuff in main articles will bring down the quality of Wikipedia and make more serious people not even want to touch Wikipedia. Alexander 007 21:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I started the debate because I saw no mention of the theory and thought it might be interesting. As to the form it should have I asked you guys because you know more than I do. But as to should be written or not, why not? In fact it is quite interesting to go through the Pseudoscience category. So like yourself I think the same should happen as in the artcile about Pre-Indo-European origin of Albanians- which by the way made it to the link status on the main page. Anyhow I think we missunderstood each other on the last point; I understood that there was no way the theory can make it on the main article. Oh,and if you want to write it,do so, it would take me a lot longer since I'm yet to discover proper writing on wikipedia:)--Radufan 21:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who writes history?

message: Reverted. It's not the bringing of Daco-Roman continuity clearly to the forefront that is the problem, rather the result reads as if it is pointing toward Savescu's "Dacian was a Latin language" type stuff, which is quite different from the concept of Daco-Roman continuity. Numerous major changes which need to be agreed upon on talk first. Alexander 007 05:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes