Talk:Aromanian language

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is the difference between this and Macedoromanian language? KIZU 09:08, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[edit]

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)[reply]

Anonymous additions[edit]

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)

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)

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)

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)[reply]

Anonymous deletions[edit]

(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)

Removed text[edit]

It is strongly supported by many linguists today that the Aromanian language spoken today in the geographical region of Pindus originates from the Vulgar Latin spoken by romanized Greek-speaking population after the Roman conquest of the Macedonian Kingdom(167BC) and later of the southern Greek city states(146BC).The area of Pindus and generally of Epirus and Macedonia was of strategic importance to the Romans in order to maintain communication with the provinces of Asia.For this reason romanisation was encouraged at the areas around Via Egnatia(the road connecting the Greek colony of Epidamnos to Byzantium),by establishing veteran colonies or colonies in existing Macedonian Greek cities such as Veroia.The local Greek population was recruited in Roman auxiliary units.It is supported by linguistic evidence that there is an ancient-Greek substratum in Aromanian.The Aromanians were always billinguals.

I would like references. I don't believe this is the variant strongly supported by many linguists today. Maybe just a handful of Greek nationalists who are disregarded by the scientific community. Bogdan | Talk 15:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


This reference is provided in response to the comment above and the spectacularly uninformed discussion below:

"I shall here subjoin, as containing a compendious view of Macedonian geography, the edict for the division of Macedonia into four regions, issued by the authority of the Roman Senate B.C. 167, the year after the conquest (Liv.l.45, c29). It was read at Amphipolis to the assembled Macedonians by L. Aemilius Paullus, and then explained to them in Greek by Cn. Octavious the praetor: -. Unam fore...etc". W.M Leake, Travels in Northern Greece. VIII. ChXXXI, p.480. Elibron Classics Replica Edition (unabridged), 2005

So please go read some original sources and enlighten yourself about the language the Romans found when they conquered Macedonia and the rest of Greece before you contribute any more pseudo-scientific theories to historical articles and dismiss everyone as ignorant nationalists.--Grammos (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silly non-scholarly argument from SPA.

That Claim that keeps being added to the article[edit]

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)

I don't think anyone's claiming that Aromanian is a Greek language or that it developed from ancient Greek. It is clearly a Romance language that developed in a Greek-speaking environment. The theory rather is that the Aromanians are descended from native Greeks who became Latin-speaking after the Romans arrived, rather than immigrants from the Danube. It's not such an implausible idea, unless of course all speakers of Romance languages necessarily have some connection to modern Rumania. User:Theathenae

The major problem with that theory is: Romanian and Aromanian did not develop from Latin independently of each other. They are a continuum. Aromanian and Romanian developed from a continuous community of people who spoke popular Latin.

Problem two: the substratum is not ancient Greek. Of course, as of the year 2005 AD, the Aromanians are extremely mixed with Greeks genetically, culturally, and so on.

Other problems for the theory: Kekaumenos the Byzantine writer wrote that the Vlachs of Thessaly and other parts of Greece came from the north, from the Danubian area, and are descended from Thracians and Dacians; history records that the Vlachs were extremely hostile to Greeks in the old days, and plundered Greek cities (I'm not making this up, I can get the quote for you). They were not Latinized Greeks.

But of course, even after pointing all these things out, many people will still suspect that I have anti-Greek sentiments behind all this. I can assure you that's not the case. This is about history and science anyway: specifically, linguistics. Alexander 007 00:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only problem I have with your theory is the implication that the Aromanians are in fact Rumanians, or that Aromanian is merely a dialect of Rumanian. Yes, Aromanian and Rumanian form part of a linguistic continuum, but then so do all other Romance languages. By the same token, Portuguese would be a dialect of Spanish, or Catalan of Occitan. Some would argue that to be the case, but most linguists would agree that all these are separate languages. Ultimately, it is a matter of self-determination. The overwhelming majority of Aromanians do not identify as Rumanians, so calling their language Macedo-Romanian or overemphasising the Rumanian connection does not serve the best interests either of the community or their language. User:Theathenae

All Romance languages are not part of the same continuum. There was hardly any communication between Romanian, Aromanian on the one hand, and French, Portuguse, Spanish, on the other. Even the extinct Dalmatian language (another Romance language) was not in the same continuum as Romanian, Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian. Those other Romance languages developed separately from popular Latin (Vulgar Latin) spoken in other parts of Europe. If you do not realize this, you need to study more.


Control yourself. The proposition made that Greeks from Thessaly and the North are decended from Thracian and Dacian stock is a completely loaded statement. This is not concrete evidence; it's just about as plausible as the theory of a Latinised Greek culture. An entire Vlach clan from Epirus can verify that. And indeed, study more.

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I am Aromanian, not Rumanian[edit]

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)[reply]

I'm not saying that Aromanians are Romanians exactly as you think I am saying. The Aromanian language and the Romanian language developed from the same Proto-Romanian language. You cannot separate them. How you identify is not even the issue, assuming you are even telling the truth. So deal with that. Alexander 007 07:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The correct term should be proto-Balkan Latin or proto-East Romance. Calling it "proto-Romanian" is like saying Catalan and Portuguese descend from "proto-Spanish". Rumanian is not the mother language, as you would have us believe. Aromanian and Meglenitic are not dialects of Rumanian; rather, they all developed from the same eastern variant of Vulgar Latin. The relatively late advent of Rumanian nationalism in the 19th century does not change that fact. User:Theathenae

Now you are getting down to terminology. Okay. But the terms you suggest would be applicable to the Dalmatian language also, which would be wrong. For you, this seems to be an issue of a separate identity: I don't have a problem with a separate Aromanian identity. I do have a problem with the false claim (if any make that claim) that Romanian and Aromanian developed completely separate from each other from local variants of popular Latin. I also have a problem with the claim that Aromanian developed from ancient Greeks who were Romanized. I don't even claim that Aromanian is simply a dialect of Romanian: that is disputed. But show me a linguist outside of Greece who claims that Aromanian and Romanian do not descend from the same proto-language, however you want to call it. Alexander 007 08:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And Romanian nationalism dates back long before "the 19th century". Wallachia would never have existed if there was no "Rumanian nationalism", as you say. It is national pride that holds together any state. Or are you indocrinated by Greek propaganda? Alexander 007 08:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"It is national pride that holds together any state", but God forbid that Aromanians dare to challenge official Rumanian national(ist) mythology. They must be "indocrinated by Greek propaganda". It is precisely this patronising attitude that makes Aromanians not want to have anything to do with you. User:Theathenae

You have the misconception that Romanians are trying to diminish Aromanian identity by claiming that Aromanian is simply a dialect of Romanian. I don't have that intention, and I don't see any indication that most Romanians have that intention. What "mythology" are you referring to? Please detail. And I'm not 'patronizing' you, but you are simply saying a bunch of inaccurate things.

The mythology that I see here is the myth that Romanian and Aromanian do not descend from a common proto-language. Another myth is the myth that Aromanian developed from Romanized Greeks. Those are the claims against which I am motivated, not whether Aromanian is a dialect or language, or whether they should be called Romanians. The edit history proves my motivation. Also, calling a language Megleno-Romanian does not imply that it is a dialect: the term is from what I can tell the more common term, and it emphasizes its common origin with Romanian, not whether it is a dialect or language. Alexander 007 09:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kekaumenos[edit]

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)
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)

I can agree with what you say in the above paragraph (in other words, I agree the language may have initally developed in former Yugoslavian lands such as Serbia; though it may also have developed in Dacia or the now Bulgarian part of Moesia), but that's not what Pelasgos was saying as far as I can tell. Alexander 007 10:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

I agree with that also, but I was addressing the idea that Pelasgos is supporting: he apparently believes that they developed separately from Vulgar Latin itself. Forget about spin-doctors and term-twisters, that idea is a fringe idea and it is not likely. People should be basically satisfied with the way that idea is treated in the article. Alexander 007 11:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree with this 'all-Thracian' theory that is supported by Decius.How can we say about a Thracian or Dacian substratum of the Balkan Romance languages,since it is known so little about the ancient Thracian language?Maybe there is a substratum that we do not know.Perhaps the populations from the Italian peninsula that colonised the Balkan provinces brought their own strange dialects.Or maybe there is a Greek-Illyrian substratum or Greek-pelasgian substratum.We know from Strabo that at the region west of ancient Macedonia,there were Greek Epirot tribes who spoke along with Greek another language possibly Illyrian.However,this language may have been Pelasgian.A Greek tribe called Haones,living in Epirus was of Pelasgian origin.We do not know if the Pelasgian language had survived at the time of the Roman Empire.We do not know also whether the Etruscan language,which was relative to the Pelasgian,was still in use by Roman soldiers or colonists from the Italian peninsula. Perhaps the strange grammatical features of the Aromanian language(such as the definite article at the end of the words) may have been of pelasgian influence. In my opinion,the common features between Aromanian and Romanian are those which have to do with Latin.The two languages have different non-Latin vocabulary. Also,I think that the list with the words of Dacian origin common in Romanian,Aromanian and Albanian is false.The majority of these words is not used in Aromanian.And those words which are used,are certainly not of Dacian origin.For example the word mare=great is 100% Latin.I know that it is even used in dialects in south Italy.It can't be a Dacian word. Also the word murgu<μοργός(Ησύχιος)or αμολγός(Ευριπίδης) meaning dark is 100% of Greek origin.

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)

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)

Grammar: Aromanian vs. Romanian[edit]

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)[reply]

Well, first off, "va să facă" and "va s-facâ" is pretty different due to how you pronunce it. I believe they should show the modern version va face and maybe some more, like I will talk, "Eu voi vorbi". Or I will walk, " Eu voi merge" Along with the Aromanian versions.

Mutually intelligibility with Romanian[edit]

Just curious: what is the extent of mutually intelligibility between Romanian and Aromanian? Thanks --Dpr 06:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From my side (I'm Romanian) not much. Even though 75% of the words are close, Aromanian speak (or sing or perform) too fast. Written Aromanian is easier to grasp, though.

The other way round I cannot tell. All Aromanians that I met, I met in Romania where everyone speaks Romanian too (that includes most first-generation immigrants from other nations also, as well as ALL 2nd or later generations).

There is also the fact that southern (as to the Danube river) Romanian-like speeches are considered (in Romania at least) as dialects of Romanian, which is an incentive for Aromanians to learn Romanian but not the other way around. 24.203.68.10 (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dialect[edit]

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)[reply]

Mutual intelligibility with Romanian[edit]

To answer a question asked earlier, I will share my own experience. I'm a native Romanian speaker and I have never studied Aromanian. Although I do speak other languages, the one that gets closest to Aromanian (except for my mother tongue) is French, so that does not help much. In these conditions I just took the first text I found in Aromanian -- which happened to be an explanation of the writing system used in this language -- and I found, much to my surprise, that I have almost no problem reading it; it's definitely easier than when trying to read Italian. When I say "almost" I mean that sometimes I would stumble on words that I didn't understand (something like one word in ten), words that sounded Greek to me (and in a couple of cases I could confirm their Greek origin with a dictionary). Other than such lexical differences, most of the words are either spelled identically with their Romanian counterparts, or follow some rather systematic sound changes. Gramatically I could not find any significant differences. The verb tenses seemed okay, unlike what I read here, I could recognize as much as five tenses of the indicative mood. Adjectives do not seem to agree in case with the nouns they modify, while Romanian ones do. All in all, I had the impression that I was reading a somewhat archaic Romanian text, just here and there sprinkled with Greek borrowings. I have no idea about the political issues behind this dialect/language controversy, and I don't want to know. But I cannot bring any argument against the linguists that maintain that Aromanian and Romanian are only dialects of the same language. --AdiJapan 17:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual intelligibility is determined by linguists (in Reliable Sources), not our personal experiences.

NOT TRUE!!![edit]

I am also Romanian born but an armãn descendent from Bulgarian & Macedonian families. What you are saying totally untrue! The Armãneashti language spoken in Romania is a bad mixture of the real Armãneashti and the Romanian (french based) words.

This is happening due to the forced assimilation that the Romanian government and the Romanian academy is trying to accomplish. The same issue is struggling in Greece, where they say that Armãneashti language is a Latin based Greek language.

If you will meet a proper Armãneashti speaker, you would not understand at all.

Please set your facts straight and stop imposing bad arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.170.161.80 (talk) 06:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fake greek propaganda. I'm romanian, and I understand the aromanian language in proportion by 80%! The "aromanian language", same as megloromanian and instroromanian, is a dialect of romanian language, not a separately language.--Honor et Patria (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Linguistically, it IS a separate language. Look up the scientific definition of what a dialect is.
I am not aware of any forced assimilation in Romania. I never heard any Romanian citizen express a desire to assimilate minority groups. You could try to raise awareness of this problem, and you could write articles and/or books in Aromanian or at least some more Wikipedia articles in Aromanian. I am sorry to say it, but the number of articles in Aromanian is pathetic. 67.87.145.157 (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Slavic influence in Aromanian[edit]

In place of Daco-Romanian vorbă, a vorbi, vorbeşte, etc., (not agreed to be from Slavic, see DEX etc.), Aromanian has zborla, zburascu, zbureşte or something similar, which are from Slavic (<early pan-Slavic s(o)boru, "gathering"). This is a basic part of vocabulary (these words signify "word" and "speech" itself), and we should mention this lexical feature to draw more attention to the Slavic influences in Aromanian.

Aromanian Example: Vocala easti un son dit zburǎrea-a omlui...
Romanian Example: Vocala este un sunet din vorbirea omului...
English: The vowel is a sound in human speech ...

-I'm wondering whether or not Romanian cuvânt (<Latin conventus), meaning "word", has its complement in Aromanian; possibly it did not develop or was lost and/or replaced by the Slavic loan, I don't know. -Alexander 007 07:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right about the etymology of Aromanian zbor (word) although I wouldn't be surprised if someone proved a Latin origin for it, like the Romanian zbura (to fly) from Latin *exvolare. But pointing out the existance of Slavic borrowings should only come after doing the same, in order, for (Proto-)Romanian, Greek, and Albanian ones. From my Aromanian reading I would say that more than 70% of the Aromanian vocabulary is akin to the Romanian one, and even more than that if you only consider the very basic words.
Your idea of a parallel between Aromanian zbor and Romanian cuvânt is quite interesting. If you have references we could include this in the article. --AdiJapan 11:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this etymology of Aromanian zbor sometime about August or September of 2004, on this site: [1] which is maintained by a linguist and Thracologist. The etymology that Olteanu mentions (I do not think he is the originator of this Slavic etymology, which appears to be the standard etymology) is the most probable. -Alexander 007 11:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Capidan's dictionary says that Megleno-Romanian/Aromanian "zbor" is indeed from Bulgarian (actually it's Macedonian) "Збор". Anyway, the change of meaning in Romanian was rather late, as Albanian "kuvend" still has the original meaning of convention. bogdan | Talk 11:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Vorba, vorbi is from slavic, from old slavic 'dvoriba'".---User:172.193.178.244

Probably. But last time I checked in DEX and another source or two the Slavonic origin was disputed, so I indicated that. I went back and chose a better word. They have reasons. Not that it concerns me. It's a nice cluster of words, wherever they come from. 69.109.61.47 04:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any possibility of the word zboru being a Gothic loanword because of the contacts between latin speakers of the Balkans and the Goths? When I saw this word,what came to my mind was the word sprechen in Deutch.Maybe the origin of this word is Gothic and i think this theory is not irrational since in many regions of the Balkans vlachs and Goths had lived together for some period of time. What do u believe?

No. The Germanic words don't work as the source. I don't think you'll find any reference in support of them being Germanic loans. 69.109.61.47 04:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daco-Romanian or Romanian?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Combined Aromanian - Daco-Romanian language[edit]

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)[reply]

Number of Aromanians[edit]

If there are only 350.000 Aromanians, how can Aromanian be spoken by 800.000 people? I think this number is a little exagerated. Constantzeanu 06:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I have any special interest in the number of speakers for any given language, but in particular for Aromanians it seems that they are hard to count. There are no reliable official numbers, because most of the time Aromanians refuse to declare themselves as ethnically different from the base population of the country they live in. [It's not that they refuse willingly. Most countries in the Balkans are national states. They don't look at foreigners as nicely as, say, Canada.]
Ethnologue [2] gives widely different counts. For example the Greek authorities evaluate them at 200,000, while for the same country the Association of French Aromanians estimates 700,000. A similar situation occurs in Albania. In total they could be even more than 1 million. We'll have to deal with the lack of data and shouldn't push any set of figures too much. — AdiJapan ☎ 12:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aromanian verbs[edit]

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)[reply]

Greek hypothesis[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Only 300.000 speakers?[edit]

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) 20:17, 23 December 2006.

There's a distinction between ethnic Aromanians and Aromanian speakers. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greek words[edit]

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)[reply]

Lets discuss the "major edits" in this article[edit]

On the order by AdiJapan, who knows our "Anti-Romanian" position from the original Aromanian language Wikipedia, lets discuss the major edits made here. Ala, cãndu noi vrem s-discutãm, va u-fãtsem ashi cum lipseashce, icã, va sã-zburãm ti limba ashi cum sã-zburashce ti alantile limbe - pi limba orighinalã. Limba armãneascã nu easte unã limbã cu cai va s-putets sã-giucats. Nãsã le-durusi tutile atacuri piste nãsã di parte-a Rumãnjlor, Gretslor, Arbishelor shi Vurgarlor ashi cã tora nãsã cu pirifãnilje poate s-hibã dzãsã ca UNÃ LIMBÃ AHORYIA di alantile limbe tu cadurlu-a familiiljei romanicã (deadun cu limba frantsuzescã, italichiascã, portogallã shi ispanjolã). Cum u-amintãm polimlu? Cu tradutsire-a mãrlor lucre di literaturã: Biblia, Odiseia, Iliada, Shah-Namelu, Divina Comedia, sh.a. cu tsi adusim provã ca limba armãneascã poate s-le are piste caplu sh-atseale dureari. Ashi vã-vidzum "domnji"! Cum va sã-spune Sevold Braga tu vivlia-a lui "Die Rechtslage der aromunischen Minderheit in Griechenland" (Situatsia di-ndreptu a minoritatiljei armãnescã tu Gãrtsia) "Romãnia u-alãsã populu armãnescu cu tsi u-spuse fatsa-a ljei". Aidi s-discutãm, voi hits atselji tsi fudzits. Noi him aoatse.Eeamoscopolecrushuva 08:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not an "order". Consider it an invitation to follow the NPOV policy. In fact, your revised version (I mean this one) was more neutral than your first version, and I think we can work from there. I disagree with the total revert made by 128.214.184.63.
However, as much as you would like to prove that Aromanian and Romanian did not emerge from the same language, most linguists (not just from Romania as you seem to think) agree that the two languages have too much in common to have emerged independently.
Finally, for everyone to understand you, please write in English. — AdiJapan ☎ 13:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eeamoscopolecrushuva, I reverted the article back to your last version, but made a few changes: I removed the part which said that Aromanian and Romanian have different ancient substratum. If the source you provided for that paragraph also makes such claims I apologize, but all the sources I know claim that the two languages split around 1000 AD (give or take a couple of centuries), so it is not understandable how they could have different substrata.
Also, I removed a large piece of text that was mistakenly inserted twice. — AdiJapan ☎ 14:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing. In the section about the gerund, it would be nice to have the gerund forms together with the indicative forms, not just the indicative. Also, as far as I know, Aromanian dictionaries give verb entries in their 1st person form, not in the 3rd person. If this is true, could you please correct the section? Thanks. — AdiJapan ☎ 14:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I stated the source obviously I am quoting it right. And if the languages are so similar why can't you understand me? Eeamoscopolecrushuva 17:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eeamoscopolecrushuva, whether AdiJapan understands you or not, please write your comments in English so that all editors can follow this discussion. --Macrakis 17:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eea, I understand pretty much of what you wrote, the only problem I have is with some words coming from Greek. I have actually read a whole book in Aromanian, but because it was written in a more scientific style (it was about the language itself) I had much fewer problems reading it. And to show just how much the two languages are similar, here is a sentence taken from your message and translated into Romanian:
  • Limba armãneascã nu easte unã limbã cu cai va s-putets sã-giucats.
  • Limba aromânească nu este o limbă cu care puteţi să vă jucaţi.
  • (Aromanian is not a language you can toy with.)
This shows about how far-fetched is the different-origin theory.
Now back to the subject, the problem with the paragraph you reinserted is that it doesn't fit into the article in this form. On the one hand the article says that the two languages split from the same trunk, and on the other it says that they have different substrata. These two theories are obviously incompatible and should be written as such, in the same place. Hopefully they will also be supported with arguments. — AdiJapan ☎ 18:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


this is a false protest by greek mafia governmental gangs, who pretend to be aromanians by speaking in their name. as you can see from it stupid name "the Greek Federation of cultural associacions....etc Please, keep this page civil. The stricken phrase above (which wikipedians have my blessing to remove entirely if they so wish) doesn't help anyone except for those who "like to fish in troubled waters", as we say. 24.203.68.10 (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tense talk[edit]

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)[reply]

One diaspora[edit]

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)[reply]

Roman or Macedono-Vlach Grammar Book 1813[edit]

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))[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromanian_language#mediaviewer/File:MakedonArman_Grammar.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makedonovlah (talk • contribs) 12:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aromanian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions to the lede[edit]

Verginia's star has lately made some useful additions to the article. The latest and rather comprehensive additions to the lede are, however, problematic, for several reasons:

  • According to the guideline WP:LEAD, the lead shall "stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic". It is therefore not the place for a lengthy discussion of diverse origin theories, especially not presenting a new theory that is not even mentioned in the main article. This is clearly giving WP:UNDUE weight to the new (and so far unsourced) theory.
  • According to the same guideline, the lede should "contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs". The current lead after the additions contains some ten paragraphs.
  • The additions are completely unsourced and gives an impression of being original research.
  • The additions do not follow the Wikipedia Manual of style. The text is written as an essay, with formulations like "we should take into consideration", "That being said, ...", "However, ..."

The most obvious solution is to remove the whole origin discussion for lack of sources. However, if the so-called "new theory" really is a serious rivalling theory to the mainstream one, it could and should be covered in the article. In the hope of someone finding sources discussing the theories, I will instead move the whole discussion to a new section named "Origin theories" and template it for sources and OR. If sources are found and introduced within reasonable time, the origin question may then be given one sentence in the lede. Regards! --T*U (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the work with the lede, I note that MOS:FIRST requires to keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence, focussing on the subject of the article only. This means that the first sentence should not mention the other languages in the group, but they can be specified in the next paragraph of the lede.
The last paragraph seems to indicate that the use of the Latin script is somehow inevitable since the language is a Romance one. That is, of course, not the case. Aromanian has also been written with the Greek alphabet. --T*U (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic distribution[edit]

Verginia's star: 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)[reply]

Most obvious Greek-influenced difference[edit]

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)[reply]

DISPUTED CONTENT/TERMINOLOGY[edit]

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)Regards[reply]

Legione-Romana, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Legione-Romana, stop removing sourced content. Super Ψ Dro 20:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Conduct-related discussion unrelated to the article content ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Super Dromaeosaurus:: I am not interested in your stories! Stop your disruptive editing!Legione-Romana (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legione-Romana, 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)[reply]
Sweet dreams!Legione-Romana (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Standardized Aromanian language into Aromanian language[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • Support we rarely have articles for the standardization process of languages. They are usually articles about the standardized forms themselves (e.g. Standard Arabic). No Standard Aromanian exists as it hasn't been universally accepted (it's still easy to see differences among Aromanian texts) and it does not have an institution regulating the language. The closest thing to this article we have is Romani language standardization. Romani is spoken by way more people (close to times more people than Aromanian) and there have been more attempts worth talking about that could make the page about the language too crowded. Not the case here, Aromanian has only had a few standardization attempts. And by the way, many sources in the article are not valid, such as just citing the main website of some Aromanian organizations. Super Ψ Dro 14:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got the sources from the Romanian wiki article. Who ever approved them there should be at fault, as I thought they where up to Wikipedia's standards — Preceding unsigned comment added by (G)jabz (talk • contribs) 15:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @(G)jabz Every Wikipedia that exists is going to have different standards as to what's acceptable. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 00:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I merged the article. Super Ψ Dro 10:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"statal" recognition?[edit]

unless this is a technical term, probably "state" would be better. --142.163.195.124 (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Super Ψ Dro 07:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ă and â[edit]

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)[reply]

Related discussion[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aromanian_language&oldid=1195470283"