Talk:Aromanian language

message: : Same language, different name: Aromanian (Armâneashti) is the name used by the speakers in their own language; Macedoromanian is the name used by some linguists. Bogdan | Talk 11:05, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the difference between this and [[Macedoromanian language]]? [[User:KIZU|KIZU]] 09:08, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

message: : The recent genetic study prooved that the Aromanians and Romanians are not the same people, and that therefore the Aromanian language CANNOT be a Romanian dialect.
Genetics and linguistics don't mix too well. There is a deal of genetic difference in Romania between the Wallachians and Transylvanians and by your reasoning, there should be two different languages. At the same time the Serbs are close genetically to the Transylvanian Romanians (and distant from the  Slavs), so by the same reasoning, Serbs and Romanians should speak the same language.
Anyway, it would be nice to say about what genetic study are you talking.  Bogdan | Talk 16:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: and a very small part can be found in Romania, but there are actually an insignificant group.
There are over 50,000 Aromanians in Romania. That cannot be described as "insignifiant". Bogdan | Talk 16:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: With the arival of Christianity in the Balkans, the language received some Greek religion related words
The Aromanians were already Christians when they formed as a people, proven by the words inherited from Latin, such as Lat. basilica -> Arom. bisearica. Bogdan | Talk 18:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: the word 'basilica' is pre-Christian, referring to a hall where government business was done - basically a 'kingdom hall'.99.224.220.52 (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous additions 

message: (re-added by me)
:Macedo-romanian
This term is still in use.
:(links to Romanian language)
In linguistics, there's no dispute that the Romanian and Aromanian languages are closely related.
:words of substrate origin
No reason given for deletion.
Bogdan | Talk 18:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous deletions

message: The claim that the Aromanian language developed from Romanized ancient Greek just doesn't add up. There's no chauvinism involved here. It is simply extremely unlikely. And more than that, it is not supported by scholars outside of Greece. Alexander 007 10:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, homeboy Theathenae was very irritating. This wasn't the first I had an edit dispute with him. Didn't like him much at that time, he improved later. 69.109.61.47 07:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If as a romanian you will read a romanian text from 300-400 years ago it is much possible you will better understand aromanian than old romanian. All the languages are changing. As for ancestry, we all want a good Pedigree as we are dogs or something. Some words are supposed (not known) to be thracian, dacian, bla bla bla :))). Nobody knows enough about Dacia and the so called daco-romans. Beside thracians, in Dacia they lived ilyrians, greeks, phrygians, avars, scythians, celts and many other tribes, the historians from those days didn't visit the land. Of course, there was an unity between them, but that land was like America, a world open for all other nations present and future. It does not matter your ancestry, truth or lie, but the feeling you get! I  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnadi (talk • contribs) 00:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. So many factual mistakes by Johnadi. When Trajan incorporated Dacia into the Roman Empire, all sorts of historians and geographers thoroughly explored and mapped the area. "Nobody knows" is just a silly, nonsensical statement entirely - scholars have a pretty good grasp on a good deal of knowledge on Dacians.50.111.44.54 (talk) 06:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  That Claim that keeps being added to the article 

message: I am Aromanian. And I am not Rumanian. Deal with it. User:Theathenae
:Aromanian language is similar with Romanian language. Aromanians are romanians. End of the story. You are greek, not (aro)romanian. Stop fake propaganda. Here it is Wikipedia, not a forum.--Honor et Patria (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am Aromanian, not Rumanian 

message: How can user Decius prove that Aromanians were not Latinised Greeks?By saying that according to Kekaumenos,Aromanians in the medieval times ,were all hostile to Greeks?This is definitely not an argument.There is,indeed,historical evidence of rebellions against the local Byzantine authorities,led by Vlach-speaking Byzantines but this does not mean anything.These rebellions were done against the Emperor and the authorities due to heavy taxation and not against Greek-speaking Byzantines in general,as 'Decius' suggests. Even Greek-speaking Byzantines led rebellions for various reasons.Mostly,due to heavy taxation.There is historical evidence in which Vlach-speaking subjects show a pro-Emperor stance.The Vlach-speaking Byzantine  Pudillus in the Alexiad warns the Emperor of  the coming of the fierce Pechenegs.Later,we find the Vlach Byzantines allies of the Kingdom(Despotato) of Epirus.Even the Greeks of the Empire of Nicaea fought against the Greeks of Epirus?What can we understand from that?That the Greek- and Vlach-speaking Byzantines of Epirus were not in fact Byzantines?That they were a different nation?I don't think so.If one wants to support the thesis that Aromanians are not descendants of Epirot Greeks,one must find better arguments and not Kekaumenos.
Kekaumenos was in fact Greek-speaking Byzantine of Georgian origin.His grandfather was a rebel in Georgia.How can we expect kekaumenos to be able to tell the difference between Daco-Romanians and Aromanians,since his family lived at the other end of the empire?So why should we trust his historical knowledge?What he says about that Thracian tribe,Vessi,applies to the Daco-Romanians who at the time of Kekaumenos lived also at the region of modern northern Bulgaria,south  of the Danube,part of ancient Thracia.User:Pelasgos80
:Pelasgos80, a thing I'm trying to make people realize in Wikipedia is that Daco-Romanian and Aromanian did not develop separately from each other, but rather it was originally a common form of speech (a specific form of Balkan Romance, usually called Proto-Romanian) that only later separated, after the language had already formed its major features. If you say that Aromanians are Romanized Greeks, then you are saying that Daco-Romanians are Romanized Greeks---understand the argument? It's not an argument I invented, this is how the vast majority of scholars approach the situation. So, now the burden is on you to demonstrate that all the Vlach languages, including Daco-Romanian, developed from Romanized Greeks, because one can't seriously propose that Aromanian developed from Romanized Greeks, while Daco-Romanian developed separately from Romanized Daco-Thracians. I also trust what Kekaumenos wrote, though I can't prove that he was correct. Alexander 007 10:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the definition of the Aromanians' origins essentially hinges on interpretation. You reject the "Latinised Greeks" theory because to you it necessarily means that erstwhile Greek-speakers suddenly started speaking Latin. And as this is unlikely, the Aromanians must necessarily descend from Rumanians. A rather simplistic interpretation, if there ever was one. The truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle. The Aromanian and Rumanian languages indeed proceed from the same eastern variant of Vulgar Latin, but no one knows exactly where this language was first spoken. I would venture a guess that it was probably in the lands of the former Yugoslavia, not in modern Rumania. Rather, the proto-speakers went their separate ways; others settled in what is now Rumania and Latinised the local population, others went south to Greece and still others, the now extinct Morlachs, stayed in the lands of the former Yugoslavia. "Latinised Greeks" to me describes the product of the inevitable intermarriage between these Latin-speaking settlers and the local Greek population. Unless of course we believe in "pure" and totally discrete ethnic groups.--Theathenae 10:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, and Aromanian and Rumanian did develop separately from each other from a certain point on, despite their common origins. Their linguistic evolution did not stop in the 9th century.--Theathenae 11:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: correction! the last known few speakers of Etruscan lived in the emperor Claudius' time, he himself being as close to an 'expert' on Etruscan as they had in those days; Roman soldiers would be speaking Latin, not Etruscan ... -HFF
You might be right on some points, however you are wrong on others. The Vlach dialects do share much of the same non-Latin vocabulary. Do you really believe that Aromanian developed from Vulgar Latin separately of Daco-Romanian? I maintain that that is impossible. Alexander 007 13:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't mind Rumanians stressing the common origins of Aromanian and Rumanian. Greek and Latin also have (more distant but still) common origins, after all. What I do have a problem with is their use of terms such as "Macedo-Romanian" to imply that Aromanian is merely the "Macedonian" dialect of the Rumanian language or their attempt to project a Rumanian identity on the Aromanians.--Theathenae 13:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kekaumenos

message: From the language descriptions and from the texts I read I could notice just that in Aromanian the future structure that is common in Aromanian is a largely archaic form in today's Romanian.
For example:
 'he will do'
 Aromanian: "va s-facâ" ("va" + subj.)
 Romanian: archaic: "va să facă" ("va" + subj.)
           modern:  "va face" (vb "a voi" + inf.)
Are any other differences are between the grammars of the two languages ? bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 22:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar: Aromanian vs. Romanian 

message: Just curious: what is the extent of mutually intelligibility between Romanian and Aromanian? Thanks --Dpr 06:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mutually intelligibility with Romanian

message: The idea that it is a dialect is notable enough to be mentioned. Britannica agrees with it:
:The name Romanian is usually identified with Daco-Romanian, one of the four major dialects of Balkan Romance. Other dialects are Aromanian (Macedo-Romanian), spoken in scattered communities in Greece, Macedonia, Albania, and Bulgaria; the nearly extinct Megleno-Romanian, spoken in northern Greece; and Istro-Romanian, spoken on Croatia's Istrian Peninsula.
bogdan | Talk 14:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dialect

message: For NPOV reasons, the comparison section is between Aromanian and Daco-Romanian. And here's why this phrasing is better. For some linguists these two languages are just dialects of the Romanian language. In this sense saying Daco-Romanian is the only choice. For other linguists they are separate languages, in which case Romanian and Daco-Romanian are synonyms, so it doesn't matter which you choose. --AdiJapan 16:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I think the term "Daco-Romanian" is POV to those who think that Aromanian is a dialect of Romanian. Daco-Romanian is the term used by these linguists to refer to the dialect of Romanian spoken mainly in Romania. It is therefore not a real synonym to Romanian - it's the term preferred by linguists who see Aromanian as a Romanian dialect, and is hence POV. The article already presents both points of view, but the main view, reached by consensus, is that the two languages are separate, and are part of the Eastern Romance group, which some Romanian linguists see as "one language". In that group, Daco-Romanian does not exist - it is only used when referring to Romanian as a group of four dialects, which are "Istro-Romanian", "Daco-Romanian", "Megleno-Romanian" and "Macedo-Romanian" (often called Aromanian). But, simply adding "Daco-" suggests that there is another Romanian language, and is hence a POV statement. Ronline 05:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daco-Romanian or Romanian? 

message: Victor Friedman in the article:
:Friedman, Victor. (1986) Linguistics, Nationalism, and Literary Languages: A Balkan Perspective. The Real World Linguist: Linguistic Applications in the 1980's, ed. by Victor Raskin and Peter Bjarkman. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. pp. 287-305.
cited
:Close, Elizabeth. (1974) Development of Modern Rumanian, Oxford Press
about an early 19th century attempt to create a literary Romanian which combined Daco-Romanian and Aromanian, but eventually abandoned as "impractical". Does anyone knows more about this? bogdan 18:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combined Aromanian - Daco-Romanian language 

message: The article says that there are 5 conjugations in Aromanian. Yes, I wrote that, based on this Verbix page, but now, reading Th. Capidan's book on the Aromanian language, here, I find that he says there are only four conjugations. Does anyone have a better grasp of the Aromanian grammar to clarify this? The verbs in the other closely related languages have four conjugations. — AdiJapan ☎ 12:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aromanian verbs

message: Is there any proof that anyone (even in Greece) claims that what is written in the "Greek hypothesis" section is true?
:What was done there was just some editing in haste to remedy what User:Theathenae added or something. I expect that User:Theathenae did not invent it himself. I haven't even checked the article to see how the section reads now, but I expect that it's all been cleared up by now with sources. 69.109.61.47 04:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and it shouldn't have been titled Greek hypothesis. Maybe "a Greek hypothesis"? :) That was something done on the spot. No one bothered to take time and fix that section. User:Theathenae should have come with sources instead of just adding all kinds of material. No one had time to clean up after that virulent editor comprehensively. 69.109.61.47 04:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek hypothesis 

message: The Aromanian Wikipedia says there are 4.000.000 http://roa-rup.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limba_arm%C3%A3neasc%C3%A3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.231.76.98 (talk • contribs).
:There's a distinction between ethnic Aromanians and Aromanian speakers. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Only 300.000 speakers?

message: I would really like to see some of the more common Aromanian words which have come from Greek with their Greek counterparts. — Hippietrail 06:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek words 

message: What does "The sequence of tenses is absent" mean?
There are no tenses?
Some tenses are missing?
The tenses are different?
---Could mean that us Romanians (and probably the Aromanians) don't care about properly sequencing the tenses in a phrase. Or it may seem that way to us, since we hit a small hurdle when learning English or French where they care about it.
:English: I will do x when I have y. [future, but then present]
:Romanian: Voi face x când voi avea y. [future + future]
In Romanian, it matters when the logical action takes place (both are in the future in this case) not what the phrase look like.
There is an "anterior future" tense in Romanian (like "voi face x după ce voi fi terminat y" / "I'll do x after I have finished y"), as well as a "future in the past" periphrase (e.g. "nu știam ieri că aveam să scriu azi aici"/ "I didn't know yesterday that I would write here today."), but many people don't use them,
especially since the actual understanding of a phrase using the "anterior future" is actually a "past in the future".
In the example above, had I used "anterior future" tense "...cand voi fi avut y" it would translate like "when I have had y" which is logically incorrect (still need y to do x and will not lose it in the process).
Same for quoting past phrases. We (Romanians) would think it's very odd for English speakers to say "He said that 2 and 2 was 4", when it still is. (We would use past tense for the second verb if the second part is not true anymore, though. Logics again.)24.203.68.10 (talk) 07:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tense talk 

message: I believe there are about 1000 it Aromanians in Helsingborg Sweden, but I've not found the source. I don't think it is important enough to be mentioned in itself, but a section on the number of speakers in diaspora would be interesting. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: One diaspora

message: If someone else knows greek, can helps us? Where is the term "Aromanian"? I see only ROMAN, MACEDONIAN and VLACH. (Makedonovlah (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not in that cover; the words used are ΡΩΜΑΝΙΚΗ and ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΟΒΛΑΚΙΚΗ ("Romanic" and "Macedonovlachic" in a literal translation). Aromanian (armãneshce etc) is an endonym, used when speaking Aromanian itself, and would not be used when writing Greek (or German, the language in the Fraktur typeface). --Wtrmute (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman or Macedono-Vlach Grammar Book 1813

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Aromanian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070301093652/http://assembly.coe.int:80/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc97/edoc7728.htm to http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc97/edoc7728.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Aromanian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204041012/http://www.vlachophiles.net/index_on_censorship.htm to http://www.vlachophiles.net/index_on_censorship.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150220165008/http://www.vlach.gr/ to http://www.vlach.gr/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Aromanian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204041012/http://www.vlachophiles.net/index_on_censorship.htm to http://www.vlachophiles.net/index_on_censorship.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060324090700/http://www.farsarotul.org/The%20Vlah%20Minority%20in%20Macedonia.pdf to http://www.farsarotul.org/The%20Vlah%20Minority%20in%20Macedonia.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808220034/http://www.farsarotul.org/nl27_1.htm to http://www.farsarotul.org/nl27_1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: : I am sorry, but the your latest edits to the second paragraph of the "Geographic distribution" section does not make sense grammatically nor logically. Please try to follow the Manual of style punctuation rules as laid out in MOS:PUNCT (which are based on standard punctuation rules for the English language).
Since it turns out to be possible to misunderstand the original sentence, I will rephrase it. My use of semicolons were an attempt to clarify the structure, but they were again misunderstood, so I will try it out with bullet points instead.
It turns out that I misunderstood "in Europe" as being connected to the Turkey/Ottoman Empire part. If "in Europe" is supposed to belong to the list of "other" places, together with US, Australia..., it is redundant. You cannot say that there are Aromanians in Romania and in Europe. Then it has to be qualified to "rest of Europe", "western Europe" or similar.
In any case, the addition of the list of places is unsourced, so I will add a citation needed template. I will also reinstate the template that earlier has been removed from the Ottoman Empire part. This article is now so much in need of citations that it may become necessary to scrap large parts of it. I suggest you read WP:V about verifiability and WP:RS about reliable sources. Before you add more unsourced content to the article, you should attempt to find sources for the content that already is there. --T*U (talk) 08:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographic distribution 

message: The /k/, /g/, /n/ shift to /p/, /b/, /m/ seems worth remarking upon in particular, and it really stands out in comparative word lists.  It's the same sort of difference between Latin and Greek, and between the Q and P Celtic languages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most obvious Greek-influenced difference 

message: To all users of the current page!
Since there have been and still there are disputes about important content/terminology used in the respective page, I have to make clear my viewpoint on the following issue.
The use of terms like: ‘’Romanian’’, ‘’Proto Romanian’’, ‘’Common-Romanian’’, and other Romanian-related, with the purpose of: implying, suggesting, claiming,  etc, that the Aromanian language is a dialect or descendant of the Romanian language both modern and/or ancient, must not be tolerated.
The respective terms are irrelevant to the identity of Aromanians and the Aromanian language. The Aromanian language = language, not a dialect of any ‘’mother’’ Romanian. Its status has been established officially by, both, international institutions (ex: European Council) and the legislation of native countries of Aromanians (ex; the Republics of North Macedonia, and Albania). 
Using the respective terms and/or theories for the above purposes constitutes abuse, therefore, any intervention done to recycle those terms for the above purpose must result in penalisation.
Editors who would like to mention outdated terminology, theories, etc. can do that in the history section, by specifying their obsolete nature.
Legione-Romana (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , you will eventually end up reported for POV-pushing and removal of sourced content just because you don't agree with it. It is clear that Aromanian descends from the language that Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian did, and the name linguists gave it happens to be Common Romanian (and not Balkan Romance). You can disagree with this as much as you'd like but you cannot do anything against author consensus. Super Ψ Dro 13:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Super Dromaeosaurus:: Stop your disruptive editing! You have reverted multiple times to the native countries section by disregarding the sources and adding Romania in a biased manner!Legione-Romana (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , stop removing sourced content. Super Ψ Dro 20:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Super Dromaeosaurus:: Stop your disruptive editing. You continue to alter the native countries section by adding irrelevant sources and disregarding the main one. Romania is not a native country to Aromanians!Period!Legione-Romana (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Romania is the biggest place with self-declared Aromanians in the world. That they migrated does not matter, those Aromanians are now natives of the region and speak their language in Romania. I will repeat you again to respect sourced content. You were already blocked for this. And calling those sourced irrelevant because you don't agree with them won't make them actually irrelevant. It really isn't the end of the world if we say Aromanian is natively spoken in Romania. Super Ψ Dro 21:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

text: , you will be reported next time you vandalize Wikipedia. I gave you your last warning. Consider reverting your own edit. This is your last chance. I don't understand what makes you oppose so badly the fact that Aromanian is spoken in Romania. Super Ψ Dro 21:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet dreams!Legione-Romana (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: DISPUTED CONTENT/TERMINOLOGY

message: Standardized Aromanian language is not quite poor quality enough for me to want to nominate it for outright deletion when there's a very similar article it can be merged into...but it would, nonetheless, benefit from being merged. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 17:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I added more info to the page. As for the merging, I'm not informed enough to know whats better  (G)jabz (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Standardized Aromanian language]] into [[Aromanian language]] 

message: unless this is a technical term, probably "state" would be better. --142.163.195.124 (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Super Ψ Dro 07:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "statal" recognition? 

message: When are you going to stop parroting American Phoneticians? Ă is not ə, but unrounded o, â is not Polish y, but unrounded u. Athanasius V (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ă and â 

message: A discussion related to the contents of this article is taking place here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is this source reliable? (Aromanian language). Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related discussion