Talk:Common Romanian

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

message: 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.
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)
thread_title:  Citation tags added over two years ago -  

message: Okay, this is just ridiculously inconsistent: in the first sentence─ which, by the way has no sources─ it says "[...] (inaccurately) as Proto-Romanian," but then that is the designation it goes on to use throughout the rest of the article! Someone should fix this, one way or the other, to make the terminology consistent throughout the article; I don't really care whether "Common Romanian" or "Proto-Romanian" is settled on, whichever seems to make most sense to more experienced readers than I, but in the case of the latter, the Article probably should also be renamed and/or moved. Also, if the name "Proto-Romanian" is indeed "inaccurate", then why? How is it misleading or confusing? That part needs further elaboration, explanation, or clarification, not to mention sourcing/verifiability/references citations, and if neither can be found, such a claim should be removed from the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c44:237f:accb:47e:9066:6b64:6a2e (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Even the renaming of the article was questionable, and we should not exile any of the terminologies.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology of "Proto-Romanian" etc. 

message: The title of the page is wrong. The term common is used in an abusive way namely, it is used to designate the whole region of the Balkans, meaning that all Latin speaking people from the peninsula were ancestors of nowadays Romanians, which is false. Romanians are descendants of the Dacian and Getae people and can not revendicate the whole peninsula. The correct term that should be used is that of Proto Romanian in order to delimitate the Romanian people and their language from the rest of the Latin speaking people of the Balkans.Legione-Romana (talk) 08:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, most modern scholars agree that the venue of the development of modern Romanian is uncertain (See for instance,  The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages (2013 ) and The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages (2016 ). That the four variants of Balkan Romance (including Aromanian) developed from the same ancient language Common/Proto-Romanian is a common place in linguistic literature (for references read the Background section of the History of Romanian). Please always refer to scholarly works when editing to avoid original research and mispresentation. Borsoka (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the page is problematic, but no editor can edit it based on their own interpretation of facts, factoids or ancient sources. The History of Romanian is likely not written by Romanian scholars, but it is well sourced, with references to works of leading scholars of Romance linguistic. Proto-/Common Romanian can be subject to scholarly research, similarly to Proto-Indoeuropean. For scholars mention Common/Proto-Romanian, it can be subject to a WP article. Borsoka (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

text: If we agree that no editor can edit the article based on their own interpretation of facts, factoids or ancient sources, we are on the same side. Borsoka (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Common-Romanian", Terminology