Talk:List of Romanian words of possible pre-Roman origin

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

---

---

List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin → List of Romanian words of possible substratum origin – The present title of the article is not neeutral, because it suggests that even the "possible Dacian origin" has been proven by scholars. However, it is impossible taking into account, that none of the substratum words of the Romanian language were attested in Antiquity. Moreover, none of the Dacian words attested in Antiquity are present in the Romanian language. For more details, I refer to Graham Mallinson: Rumanian (in: Harris, Martin & Vincent, Nigel (editors): The Romance Languages, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-520829-3). Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 07:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Borsoka (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Possible Dacian origin" doesn't imply anything has been proven to me. You seem to be commenting as though the title were List of Romanian words of Dacian origin. Also, I'm afraid your proposed title is ambiguous; surely the Eastern Romance substratum isn't the only linguistic substratum. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your remarks. Maybe I was not clear enough when proposing the new title. My concern is that modern linguistic works prefer to suggest that the words in question derrived from an unspecified substratum language. Could we use the titles "List of Romanian words of possible Bastarnian origin", "List of Romanian words of possible Sarmatian origin", or "List of Romanian words of possible Illyrian origin"? No, it is clear that none of these titles can be used, because none of them is substantiated by modern reliable sources. Therefore, the present name of the article should be changed. Borsoka (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Substratum" is pretty unhelpful to readers. I would be open to a more specific, more descriptive alternative. bobrayner (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. What about List of Romanian words of uncertain origin? Actually, this is the fact: those words are listed under the present title whose origin is unknwon or debated. For instance, the online Dicționar explicativ al limbii române refers to this uncertainty [1], [2], [3]. Borsoka (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

    "uncertain origin" is misleading. Not all words of uncertain origin are assumed to be of Dacian/substratum origin. There are words which, for phonological reasons, must have been entered Romanian after the Slavic contact.

    Also, almost all linguists accept this "Dacian" name even if there's little evidence connecting it to the ancient language. We know, to a certain degree of confidence that the substratum can't be other languages such as Illyrian. bogdan (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

  I might add that I've seen that there have been proposals that there is a pre-Indo-European "Balkan substratum" found across the area, including in Romanian. I'm not sure how valid are that proposals, but the "Dacian" is not the only proposed substratum in Romanian. bogdan (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Interestingly, I have experienced that there is practically no modern linguist who state that those words are of Dacian origin (I already referred to some sources in my previous remarks above, but I could also cite Vladimir Orel's work on Albanian etimology). Similarly, there is no evidence that these words cannot be of Illyrian origin (because Illyrian is also little attested). Yes I know, that two Romance languages could not develop based on the same substratum language, but "we" also "know to a certain degree of confidence" that there were at least two languages spoken in Dalmatia province - see, for example Radoslav Katičić's work on the subject. Actually, the article now lists those Romanian words whose origin is uncertain (therefore, there was at least one linguist who proposed a substratum/Dacian/Geto-Dacian/Thraco-Dacian-Illyrian/Paleo-Balkanic, etc origin), therefore the above mentioned title (List of Romanian words of uncertain origin) would not be misleading. All the same, I could accept, for instance, the title List of Romanian words of Eastern Romance substratum origin, but in this case the list should be shortened. Borsoka (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. If the article's current opening "This is a list of Romanian words believed by some scholars to be of Dacian origin..." is a reasonable description, then I'd say keep the present title. "List of Romanian words of possible substratum origin" strikes me as overly technical. 213.246.91.158 (talk) 06:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hasdeu

Are we sure that a late 19th-century linguist views are still valid? Borsoka (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hasdeu was considered a crackpot even in his time; even though he got some things right, most of his research was wishful thinking. bogdan (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Muntenian/Transylvanian undrea; from Andrea, Undrea "Christmas", from Greek Andréas ‘St. Andrew’s Day’ (Nov. 30th); from the tradition of knitting socks on St. Andrew’s Day‘St.

How can it be Dacian, when it is Greek? St. Andrew’s Day is a christian saint.

Christianity spread initially from Jerusalem throughout the Near East, into places such as Syria, Assyria, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Asia Minor, Jordan and Egypt. In the 4th century it was successively adopted as the state religion by Armenia in 301, Georgia in 319, the Aksumite Empire in 325, and the Roman Empire in 380. It became common to all of Europe in the Middle Ages and expanded throughout the world during Europe's Age of Exploration from the Renaissance onwards to become the world's largest religion.

The dacians would be gone by than... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hafspajen (talk • contribs) 16:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

References

Deletion

The name of the article is "List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin". However if you read the first sentence you will see that none of them are Dacian on the list. "Below is a list of Romanian words believed by early scholars to be of Dacian origin, but which have since been attributed to other origins (Latin, Albanian, Slavic, Greek) in most cases." Therefore this list does not make any sense. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The list name says it all "List of Romanian words of 'possible' Dacian origin". I agree it needs more work, such as newer sources and cleanup, but your attitude and sarcastic comments don't help in any way in that direction. If you want to help, do it with an open mind. Otherwise, take your political agenda elsewhere. This is not the right place. Thanks.--Codrin.B (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It does not change the fact that the whole list is just a mess. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I fully disagree it is a mess. It is just in a draft state that needs expansion. Like any Wiki article which grows through efforts. You always have tho options: help improve or complain and make a bigger mess. It is easier always to complain and make a bigger mess. I believe in positive attitudes. --Codrin.B (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I would love to see a proper list about Dacian words (with proper citations), but this list is just highly misleading and biased. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

If the list is as you say, it should be compiled and improved, not removed. It is a fact that there are some specialists that state that there are Romanian words of possible Dacian origin. 86.127.21.225 (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want proper citations and REALLY want to see a proper list, then follow the sources already mentioned for EACH word in the Sources column and Sources section, and add inline citations. Why did you request the deletion of the article?! It is the wrong approach to a solution. --Codrin.B (talk) 09:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Nicolae Stoicescu

Where are those Dacian words? I do not see any Dacian word on the list from Stoicescu . Anyway, he is a linguist? According to the Romanian Wikipedia he is not even a linguist. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

From another source: "Linguistic studies made by specialists have led to the identification in the Romanian language of 170 words of Dacian origin in different fields."[4] 82.79.213.87 (talk) 11:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

What are those words? This article is still highly misleading even if there are some Dacian words (I doubt it--IMO). Fakirbakir (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Albanian words

Many of the these words have cognates in Albanian. The linguist Vladimir I. Georgiev regards the Albanian language as semi-Romanized Dacian-Moesian. So these similar words have both the same origin, and not the Romanian ones come from the Albanian words. [5] 86.127.28.30 (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is such a theory. However, that is only a POV. For instance, the linguists Gottfried Schramm and Vladimir Orel say that those words were borrowed from the Albanian language. (Orel, Vladimir: Albanian Etymological Dictionary, BRILL, 1998, ISBN 90-04-11024-0; Schramm, Gottfried: Ein Damm bricht. Die römische Donaugrenze und die Invasionen des 5-7. Jahrhunderts in Lichte der Namen und Wörter, R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1997, ISBN 3-486-56262-2). Likewise, Kim Schulte lists these words among the Romanian loanwords borrowed from Albanian (Schulte, Kim: "Loanwords in Romanian" In Haspelmath, Martin & Tadmor, Uri: Loanwords in the World's Languages: A Comparative Handbook, De Gruyter Mouton, 2009, pp. 230–259, ISBN 978-3-11-021843-5). Borsoka (talk) 04:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a fringe theory. What made those guys assert that the words come from Albanian, who first appeared in the historical record in Byzantine sources of the late 11th century, and not from Paleo-Balkan languages? 86.126.34.91 (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read those books before qualifying them. You may have not have a chance to realize that toponyms of Romanian and of Albanian origin in the Balkans are concentrated in a territory close to each other, suggesting that the ancestors of the Romanians and Albanians lived side by side. There are many parallels in the inherited Latin vocabulary in the two languages. (I refer to Schramm's work cited above, but further scholarly works could also be cited.) By the way, why do you think that the theory of originating those words of the Dacian language without any documentary evidence is more scientific: the main reason that they are attributed to the Dacians is that they have cognates in the Albanian language. Borsoka (talk) 08:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Russu

Andre Du Nay's opinion about Russu's work:

The result of this broad approach to the problem of the substratum of Rumanian is far from convincing. The origin from the substratum of the geographical names cannot be accepted (cf. below, pp. 245B246). But also group 1 of words, with a proposed etymology from DacoBMoesian or other ancient Balkan languages, and group 3, with proposed Indo-European connections, contain very many dubious and even certainly false etymologies (cf. Russu, Etnogeneza, pp. 59B66). Also in the list of Russu, in which about 180 Rumanian words are given as probably deriving from the substratum, the etymologies are not more reliable. Illyés analysed this word stock from the semantic viewpoint. He found that those Rumanian words which have an Albanian counterpart belong mainly to specific semantic categories: parts of the human body, shepherd terms and names of animals and plants encountered by a shepherd population in a mountainous region.On the other hand, words not found in Albanian are predominantly verbs and substantives of more general semantic content. This circumstance is, besides the uncertainty of etymologies, another reason for scepticism regarding the substratum origin of words not found in Albanian. One difficulty is to decide whether a given Rumanian word may be a loan from Albanian or vice versa (cf., however, below, pp. 71B72). There are no unequivocal criteria; it is not entirely clear how to interpret the sound pattern of these words......It is today generally accepted that most of the lexical elements existing in both Rumanian and Albanian are not loans but derive from a common language.

For all elements of language (phonetics, morphology, and vocabulary) which probably originate from the substratum of Rumanian, it is true that a large number of them also exist in Albanian....

Thus, the method of broadening the field of investigation and taking a large number of (extinct and living) languages into consideration, gives many more or less possible etymologies. They are, however, very uncertain and are distributed over many different languages. On the other hand, there is one single language in which a large part of the elements considered to originate from the substratum of Rumanian are found B and that is modern Albanian.

THE ORIGINS OF THE RUMANIANS, The Early History of the Rumanian Language, [6]

"Andre Du Nay", the famous coward who is afraid to reveal his real identity and uses a pseudonym instead 86.126.34.91 (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Andre Du Nay is a controversial, politically motivate individual without known identity or credentials. His opinions in zero and should not be cited on Wikipedia by a serious editor. --Codrin.B (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Russu's work is a typical product of the biased communist Romanian historiography. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

This is only your own opinion 86.127.18.186 (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Calling Russu a product of the communist Romanian historiography is a big lie, something we got accustomed for from Fakirbakir. He graduated in Cluj in 1932 and started to publish in 1933, way before the communist era. He has no less than 158 publications on very relevant linguistics and history topics!!. His work is not only relevant and reliable, but one of the best on the field of the Thraco-Dacian languages to date. Trying to discredit him, only discredits the editors who use such strategies.--Codrin.B (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

What do you think why Andre Du nay used pseudonym? He was a Romanian scholar but he was scared to use his own name (in the seventies). Have you got any idea why? Russu's studies in the sixties and seventies were adequate to support nationalist myths....Fakirbakir (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Who is this Andre Du Nay? Is it yourself?! ;-) And what are his credentials? Anyways, the discussion is about Russu and you picked the wrong guy to discredit him with and the wrong methods. Russu has a huge amount of work done before the communists installed themselves. He simply continued his research as a specialist. If others, i.e. some less educated individuals, found support in his books for protochronistic propaganda, it is their interpretation and actions, not Russu's. --Codrin.B (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Dou you deny that Romanian historiography was controlled by the Communist authorities? Fakirbakir (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

We are talking about lingustics not historiography. And what are you here? A judge at the communism's trial? Do you think that between 1948-1989, the linguists and archaeologists who did research way before communism got installed, such as Russu, became some sort of retards who produced nothing but crap hence forth?! In books from that era, you have to filter the propaganda, but they contain a lot of valid science as well.--Codrin.B (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Codrinb, as reading about your conversations - not just this section - you're not just a bit harsh, but almost it seems a personal attack against Fakirbakir - ("big lie - something we got accustomed for from Fakirbakir"). I have to tell you that of course Russu's work just cannot be judged like so, but unfortunately the communism had a great effect on many-many Romanian author's work and direction that from not just the Romanian historiography, but also the lingustic suffers. The root of this is the unproved and the most uncertain Daco-Roman theory, that is pushed in all way, as some Romanians this way feel/believe themselves the only way justified being primary in Transylvania, as well to get rid of any other historical debate by that. It became a kind of religious myth enstrongened after the fall of communism, when the propaganda had been arisen with the motto "we are not Romans but Dacians", although a nations origin is much more complex than judge it by taste or wish. Most of the Romanian scientists, etc. put a top primary political agenda to find any support, and pushing datas, sources, everything to try to create something, but without any decisive success or fundamental breaktrough, anyway the whole subject became hyperdocumented, with almost 'unlimited' reference. The forever problem is the are almost only assumptions without facts, and not even yet any Dacian word have been found that would resemble to any Romanian word. Of course I know you can easily say it is my personal opinion, or tell me the rules of the reliable source or adding a reference on Wikipedia, etc., but please, so long in your personal page you advertise you're a person with an acedemic degree, but at the same time you openly state you believe "that Decebalus was the greatest king that Romania ever had", although it is a fact that Decebalus was never the king of Romania, and so long you state "Dacians and Romans, the founding nations of Romania" although there is no certain proof for that, please don't accuse other's about supporting political agenda, lies or being fringe. Anyway, not the name of the author is important - there are many ancient source as well with unknown author - but if the work is valuable, i.e. it contains an evidence, proof or attestation/assertion that appears to be valid by our best recent knowledge, and/or proving the opposite is impossible. Please don't see in my response anything negative, but this way you'll better understand why other's are debating on the subject, and not because they are Hungarians and have any disruptive aims regarding Romanian history. All of us are interested in the truth, and I support Adrian's proposal to the "Chilean (RO) - Scottish (HUN)" approach, and try to be as neutral as possible. Regards (KIENGIR (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC))

Sorin Olteanu

Sorin Olteanu is a top modern linguist and researcher at the very prestigious Vasile Pârvan Institute of Archaeology.[7], [8], [9]. His Sorin Olteanu's Thraco-Daco-Moesian Languages Project contains his modern research on the Thracian, Dacian and Moesian language, parts of his PhD thesis and work done for the institute. It is irrelevant that it is a web site versus a book. It is perfectly normal to cite a web page. Furthermore, he is known to be well outspoken against pseudoscience,Dacomania, extreme nationalism and Protochronism.[10], [11]. He is even quoted in the Protochronism#Dacian script article for that matter. WP:SELFPUBLISH doesn't apply here, since it only makes sense for autobiographies and authors without credentials. Hence his work is very relevant for the Dacian language articles and is without any doubt a reliable source. --Codrin.B (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Did he also write books of the breeding of elephants or of Cuban dances? I would enjoy them, because I love reading books written by archaeologists of grammar, biology or soap opers. Which academic institution or university published his works of the Dacian language and which are those works? Borsoka (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

His e-mail is on his site. Why don't you write him a retarded and offensive message like this? I am sure he will clarify it for you.--Codrin.B (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

So, if my understanding is correct his works of the Dacian language have not been published by any academic institutions or universities. Sorry, but I must have missed something. Why do you think that his works qualify as reliable sources for WP purposes? Borsoka (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Your understanding is not correct. Here are some examples: Sorin Olteanu, Toponime procopiene, SCIVA 58, 2007, 1-2, p. 67-116, Sorin Olteanu, Insemnari epigrafice, SCIVA 58, 2007, 1-2, p. 177-181[12], [13], (published in STUDII ŞI CERCETĂRI DE ISTORIE VECHE ŞI ARHEOLOGIE (SCIVA)), Les relations ethno-linguistiques en Thrace el en Mésie pendant l'époque romaine, Presses Universitaires "St. Kliment Ohridski", Sofia, 2000 (Sorin Olteanu)[14], Olteanu, Sorin (1989). "Kaga şi Kōgaionon. Datele problemei.". Thraco-Dacica X: 215–217.--Codrin.B (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. So if my understanding is correct, he wrote of the Dacian language in connection with epigraphy, Procopius of Caesarea's toponyms and in his study of certain aspects of Roman age Bulgaria and Serbia. Please do not refrain from citing those works. Especially, the connection between Procopius of Caesarea and the Dacian language must be fascinating. However, Sorin Olteanu's website is not a reliable source. Therefore any reference to it should be deleted from the article. Borsoka (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

These are just ironical statements and arrogance. A source is not reliable or unreliable because Borsoka wishes that. Who do you think you are?--Codrin.B (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:reliable source. Why do you think that any of us is entitled to override it? Or does your above remark mean that he has not published his views of the Dacian language in reliable sources? Borsoka (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind pointer. I have read WP:RS hundreds of times and very accustomed with it. Olteanu, as a scholar and expert, passes all the requirements and guidelines described there with flying colors. I suggest you move on to other tactics and strategies. --Codrin.B (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read them again: "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." The fact that his works of epigraphy or of the history of Bulgaria in Late Antiquity has been published in third-party publications does not mean that his publications of the Dacian language or of breweries in Scotland can also be cited. He has not published his views of the Dacian language in peer-reviewed sources. Therefore any reference to his own webpage should be deleted from the article. Borsoka (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Copy-paste from above: Les relations ethno-linguistiques en Thrace el en Mésie pendant l'époque romaine, Presses Universitaires "St. Kliment Ohridski", Sofia, 2000 (Sorin Olteanu) 86.127.20.124 (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

What does this article write of the Dacian language? Would you cite it. Its title does not refer to this language or to Dacia. Borsoka (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

another opinion

"It is important to note that the classification of the words listed below as being of Dacian origin is speculative, as, with the exception of a few plant-names, almost no Dacian words are documented in surviving ancient sources. Very few of the words can be linked with confidence even with Dacian words which have been reconstructed from place names by scholars using the techniques of comparative linguistics. Scholars have proposed multiple alternative linguistic origins for almost all the words. This can be seen in the Dicţionar Explicativ al Limbii Române (DEX): 1.Latin etymologies have been proposed for many of the words. These are inherently more likely than a Dacian origin, as the Romanian language is descended from the Latin language, not from Dacian e.g. melc (“snail”) may derive from Latin limax/proto-Romance *limace (cf. It. lumaca), by metastasis of “m” with “l”.[1] 2.Some may derive from other little-known ancient languages at some time spoken in Dacia or Moesia: for example, the Iranic Sarmatian, or the Turkic Avar, Bulgar or Cuman languages, or, conceivably, some unknown pre-Indo-European language(s) of the Carpathians or Balkans. An illustration of the latter possibility are pre-Indo-European substratum (i.e. Iberian/Basque) in Spanish e.g. “fox” = zorro, from Basque azeri, instead of proto-Romance *vulpe. A pre-Indo-European origin has been proposed for several Romanian substratum words e.g. balaur [2], brad (“fir-tree”).[3] 3.About 160 of the Romanian substratum words have cognates in Albanian and therefore may be of Illyrian origin rather than Dacian, as many contemporary scholars consider Albanian to be a modern descendant of the ancient Illyrian language .[4] A possible example is Romanian brad (“fir-tree”), Alb. cognate bradh (same meaning).[5] Duridanov has reconstructed *skuia as a Dacian word for fir-tree,[6] strengthening the possibility that brad may be an Illyrian word for this tree. 4.The numerous Romanian substratum words which have cognates in Bulgarian may derive from Thracian, which may have been a different language from Dacian" Fakirbakir (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

All interesting ideas, some valid. A counter argument for some of these theories that try to minimize the Daco-Thracian substratum in Romanian, please check "'Sorin Paliga - Etymological Lexicon of the Indigenous (Thracian) Elements in Romanian'". He addresses a lot of words from the Dicţionar Explicativ al Limbii Române (DEX) which have been ridiculously marked for ages by the editors as unknown etymology. DEX needs serious refreshing and linguistics work. As per all these opinions, feel free to work on a separate linguistics theories article or expand Balkan sprachbund article. This article is a list and has a different purpose, not to deal with theories. See my statement on the move request.--Codrin.B (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Codrinb, as far as I know Sorin Paliga's work was not published by an academic institution. This is not a surprise for me: he may be an excellent professor of Slavic languages, but he does not speak Hungarian. Therefore, he tends to identify lots of place names of Hungarian origin in Romania (Medias, Agries, Apata, etc) as Thracian or pre-Indoeuropean and he has developed his theories based on these identifications. Of course, it is not impossible that the Carpathian Basin has for thousands of years been inhabited by Hungarians, as it is claimed by extremist Hungarian nationalists, but this is not a theory which is published in reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin → Dacian substrate theory – I suggest to move this article to "Dacian substrate theory" in accordance with the conclusion of the debate at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Romanian_words_of_possible_Dacian_origin --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Fakirbakir (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I consider that the word Romanian should be kept in the title. Also, I think that Substratum is more commonly used than Substrate. I was not able to find any source using the phrase "Dacian substrate theory". 86.127.12.208 (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The name is already appropriate, since this is a List, it covers the Romanian words and the fact that they are of possible Dacian origin. The name fits well with the other hundred or so similar articles under Category:Lists of English words, particularly List of English words from indigenous languages of the Americas and Category:Lists of English words of Celtic origin. The concept of "Dacian substrate theory" brings zero Google Books hits and zero Google hits outside WP and WP clones. So it doesn't exist and is not notable. In the worse case, feel free to create a separate theory article but make sure the name/concept you pick it is not WP:OR and it is notable.--Codrin.B (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Considering the fact that a wiktionary article is connected with this matter [15], "Romanian substratum words" would be a better title for this article. Fakirbakir (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent edits by Torvalu4

Dicționarul explicativ al limbii române, Academia Română, Institutul de Lingvistică "Iorgu Iordan", Editura Univers Enciclopedic, 1998 is a reliable source and it should not be removed from the article.

I'm sorry, but it is not a reliable source when it comes to Albanian. For instance, it mis-cites bunk as "chestnut oak", but the word is bung - like I said, you can confirm this in any Albanian dictionary. It also cites Albanian in the form "cf. Alb. x", which is a convenient way of remaining vague on exactly how the words are related. There's nothing reliable about that. You overstate what the Dex is saying by writing cognate, etc., but that word isn't in the source. Loanwords cannot be, by definition, cognate.

Also. Please note this: [16] 79.117.160.52 (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk about selective highlighting. In the following sentence the author goes on to state that the correspondences are more likely due to linguistic contact, i.e., borrowing.

Also read Origin_of_the_Albanians#Thracian_or_Dacian_origin and [17] and [18] and [19] 82.79.215.247 (talk) 10:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. Link 2 seems to support the idea the languages were in contact (i.e., borrowing occurred), yet your edits - or rather your reversal of mine - imply you think they're genetically related. Which brings us to link 4, which refers to material written in 1987 about Romanian grammar, and the author proves he doesn't know anything about Albanian: notice his misquotes the Alb. equivalent of brad as bredhi, but it's bredh, and gives the equivalent of mal as mat (except that it's actually mal). The 3rd isn't open to view on GoogBks. As for the Wiki article, the section you link to is based on outdated material, in particular Georgiev whose remarks make no sense in light of what's currently known about Albanian. For more up-to-date info. on the nature of the Latin borrowed into Albanian, consult Guillaume Bonnet, Les mots latins de l'albanais (1999) or Vladimir Orel, A Concise Historical Grammar of the Albanian Language (2000).

Overall, you haven't actually justified unilaterally reversing my edits. Instead, you seem to be trying to make a case that Albanian is from Daco-Thracian, and that Romanian's substrate is Dacian, and therefore these words are cognates. However, you're missing the point that even if that were so, that doesn't somehow exclude the possibility that Romanian could and did borrow from Albanian. Related languages borrow from each other all the time. And then there's the fact that quite a few words have transparent internal Albanian etymologies or are nearly identical to the Romanian word, which preclude cognation or early borrowing. And so on. Plus there were other edits totally unrelated to Albanian. Finally, please log in, because otherwise you just look like a vandalizer. Torvalu4 (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to be able to have this discussion with you, cause you seem quite familiar with this subject. The fact is that we have a set of words that are similar in Romanian and Albanian. What's the motivation for saying that the variant 1 is correct here?

(1) they were borrowed by Romanian from Albanian

(2) they were borrowed by Albanian from Romanian

(3) They were inherited from predecessor (Paleo-Balkan languages) languages

Neither of us think it's 1; option 3 doesn't make sense on the Albanian side, and arguably in many cases on the Romanian side (given for instance the words are sometimes identical, which is impossible unless they were borrowed) - also the word "inherited" can't apply to Romanian, since a Romance lang. can't "inherit" words from something that isn't Latin; that leaves 2.

Also, please explain this: Rom. is Romance lang. while Alb. isn't, thus cannot have "cognates", I did not understand your assertion 79.117.163.139 (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It's very simple. Romanian belongs to the Romance languages; its ancestor was Latin. Albanian is not a Romance language; it's an Indo-European language but not one that's closely related to Latin. Therefore, none of the words in one language can be cognate with the other, except distantly. For instance, certain Latin words are inherited in Romanian, but they are all borrowed in Albanian, so those are not cognates. Both languages have borrowed heavily from Slavic, but those are loans, so they would not be cognates (but the original source words in the Slavic langs. would be cognate with eachother). In the case of the words in this article, in all 3 of your scenarios, someone is borrowing from someone else, so there are no cognates involved. Cognate does not mean "related"; it means "genetically related" and refers to words that are inherited, not borrowed. Torvalu4 (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

A common approach is that the Romanian language has a (Thraco-)Dacian substratum - see for instance this: [20] (the author is The Romanian linguist Gabriela Panã Dindelegan). Here are some sources that clearly refer to cognates: [21] [22] 86.127.4.162 (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Link 6 can't be viewed; you've already cited link 7 above and I explained how the author doesn't know what he/she is talking about. Link 5 isn't specific, i.e., it doesn't talk about any words in particular. Once again, you're trying to prove that Romanian has a substrate, which is a completely separate issue that is not relevant to my edits and your reversal. Unfortunately, your reply doesn't respond to the substance of my last reply, that is, that the words can't be cognates, no matter what scenario is chosen. Also, the Dex does not specify cognate, yet you cite the Dex in your edits to justify this wording. Torvalu4 (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

the author doesn't know what he/she is talking about - I guess link 7 is this one. So professor Bernard Comrie is an ignorant, you are the real expert in linguistics here, true? 79.117.175.184 (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Bernard Comrie is the editor, not the author (Graham Mallinson)... and what you linked to was a grammatical sketch of Romanian, which, frankly, is off-topic. Still, nothing to say about any of the issues I've brought up? I think it's safe to say your edits amount to vandalism. You still haven't even logged in. Torvalu4 (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone involvement into expanding this article and the collegial debate. I don't want to get into the linguistics as I don't feel qualified, however as a long time contributor to Wikipedia and to WP:DACIA, I want to bring out a few points:

• Content should not be removed without an attempt to consensus: see WP:REMOVAL, WP:CONSENSUS
• No one should push a POV: WP:NPOV

With that said, I don't see justified the replacement of one theory with another. Rather, I would present both theories/possibilities with proper sources, in a balanced fashion, per WP:BALANCE, WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:SUBSTANTIATE. To be more specific, if one theory or source or author considers a certain word as a "cognate" and another thinks is a "loan word", then BOTH theories and sources should be included and let the reader be informed and decide for himself or herself. In other words, adding more information and theories to the article is welcomed and needed, removal of existing sources or theories is counter productive and not in line with Wikipedia's goals for neutrality.--Codrin.B (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem with your proposal here is that the definition of cognate isn't really open to debate, and no matter where I, you, or anyone else thinks some of these words came from, the consensus is they didn't come from Latin, which ipso facto makes them loans. Another problem is that a source which doesn't even call the Alb equivalents "cognates" is nevertheless cited to justify calling them that. So, these are issues separate from the words' ultimate origins. Also, I don't know how you can avoid the linguistics when the article and the topic of this thread are purely linguistic. Calling for blind neutrality may be a good way to avoid disputes, but you're basically leaving it to the reader to decide, even though the reader isn't an informed expert and is most likely looking for reliable information, not a jumble of contradictions to untangle. Torvalu4 (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure if it's correct to call them loanwords. This theory says that these elements (the substratum proper) were preserved from the language of the Romanized Dacian population when the Dacians were Romanized. Technically, by this scenario, the Latin elements were loaned in the language of the Dacians, not vice versa.

Yet another link that doesn't open. You should re-read what you wrote, say it out loud, and see if it makes any sense. The Dacians shifted their language; that is, Dacian was abandoned and died, and Latin was adopted in its place. Romanian is a Romance language: by definition, as a Romance language, Romanian is a descendant of Latin - not Dacian -, and thus anything that is not Latin (i.e., substrates, superstrates, adstrates, etc.) is loaned into the language, that is, it was not inherited. This is a really basic concept. The Dacian words were "preserved" only in the sense that they were borrowed, because Dacian words are by definition foreign to Latin. Don't confuse the ancestors of the Romanians with the ancestor of Romanian. Torvalu4 (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Which are the arguments that prove a loan from Albanian? How do we know that these words did not come from the predecessor of Albanian (that is Illyrian/Thracian)? 79.117.173.251 (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You'll have to pick a word or words for me to get specific. I've already given some reasons above. To repeat, some words are clearly derivatives in Albanian, e.g., vjedhull < vjedh; modhull < modhë; kulpër, kurpër < kulp, kurp; in other cases the words are identical (which is impossible if the Rom./Alb. words developed separately), or the Romanian word doesn't show the sound changes that it should if it had been in the language for 1500 yrs., etc. Torvalu4 (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's talk about the actual changes performed by you: you changed the sourced description of bunget from a sourced text (cf. Albanian bunk) to an unsourced text (from Albanian bung). Professor Nistor Bardu, clearly states that the word 'bunget' "is not a loan from Albanian, but a word inherited from a mutual lexical fund (from the ancestors of the Albanians and Romanians)" [23]. 79.117.188.134 (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I propose removing any "from" word from the "Notes, Albanian cognates or alternative etymologies" column. As for example "from Bulgarian gorun"; who knows for sure if Romanian borrowed the word from Bulgarian or it may be the other way around. Using "Bulgarian gorun" instead, without "from", would sound neutral and therefore correct in the context... unless of course, a credible source can be cited...

Sorin Paliga

The article has been recently expanded by etymologies proposed by Sorin Paliga. Do these etymologies represent a significant scholarly view or they should rather be regarded as a marginal view? When mentioning how protochronism contaminated the "professional standards of research" in Romania in the 1970s and 1980s, Tchavdar Marinov refers to Sorin Paliga as one of the scholars who accepted the authenticity of the Sinaia lead plates, adding that Paliga went so far as to claim that the Summerian script originated from the territory of modern Romania (Marinov, Tchavdar (2015). "Ancient Thrace in Modern Imagination: Ideological Aspects of the Construction of Thracian Studies in Southeast Europe (Romania, Greece, Bulgaria)". In Daskalov, Roumen; Vezenkov, Alexander (eds.). Entangled Histories of the Balkans. Volume Three: Shared Pasts, Disputed Legacies. Routledge. pp. 10–117 (note 122 on page 46). ISBN 9789004290365.). As per WP:DUE, Paliga's etymologies could hardly be listed in a WP article. Borsoka (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. As well in the current edits, the same source remained at adomány but way of origin was completely turned...as well I am fascinated how Ágas would be extinxt and considered at the last place possibly related. By Agaua he relates the possibly etymology to three Hungarian named villages without referring to this fact (Ágas, Egres/Egri), so in fact Hungarian is possibly Dacian...as very possibly he was the one who concluded Sumerian etymologies all over Transylvania, but when it turned out all of them was in fact Hungarian etymology, he immediately withdraw his study (e.g. SAR-MA-SAG = Sarmaság).(KIENGIR (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC))

I read both the relevant passage in the book you mentioned and Paliga's study cited there. Neither did T. Marinov claim that Paliga accepted the authenticity of the Sinaia lead plates, nor can such an opinion be found in Paliga's study: "The Tablets of Tǎrtǎria—an Enigma? A Reconsideration and Further Perspectives". Actually, Paliga's paper does not discuss the Sinaia lead plates at all. Your claim is a curious misunderstanding of what Marinov wrote: "Yet some scholars accepted their authenticity, and others even claimed that the Sumerian alphabet originated from the territory of modern Romania.". 01:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC))

Read again Marinov's book, specifically the footnote mentioned above. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, the book does NOT claim that Paliga accepted the authenticity of the Sinaia lead plates: "Yet some scholars accepted their authenticity, and others" - the footnote which mentions Paliga came at the end of the sentence introduced by "and others". So this claim of yours is a misinformation which you need to correct. 17:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.90 (talk)

Thank you. Indeed. Paliga only claims that the Sumerian alphabet originated from the territory of modern Romania. All the same Paliga is the only scholar named by Marinov as a representative of an obviously fringe theory, thus Paliga should not be cited in WP. Borsoka (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for making the correction. Why would Paliga's views on the Tărtăria tablets disqualify him from being citable on Romanian etymology? The two are unrelated matters - surely he did not claim that the tablets contained either Romanian or Dacian. 12:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.90 (talk)

He is the representative of a nationalistic fringe theory. He is a main representative of scholars who contaminated the "professional standards of research" in Romania. Borsoka (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I would class it as a minority view rather than as a "nationalistic fringe theory" - but at any rate, why can't supporters of a nationalistic fringe theory be cited on matters unrelated to that fringe theory? T. Marinov is not a linguist, so his views on the linguistic activity of S. Paliga (if any, nowhere in the book mentioned above does he discuss Paliga's work on linguistics) cannot be considered authoritative. 21:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.90 (talk)

Paliga is main representative of scholars who contaminated the "professional standards of research" in Romania. Sorry, I stop discussing this issue. Borsoka (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I already explained that T. Marinov is not an authority on the Tărtăria tablets or on Romanian etymology. Therefore, neither his opinion on Paliga's work on the former nor what you believe/hope to be his opinion on Paliga's work on the latter is a serious argument against Paliga's credibility. Anyway, we agree to disagree. 19:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Romanian language

Trec la încă un argument. Dacă ar fi să ne luăm după ureche, ca respectabilii noștri lingviști, conform metodei lor auditive, metodă neacceptată de lingviștii serioși, s-ar părea că și cele patru toponime identice: oronimul Caraiman în Carpați și trei sate cu același nume, Caraiman (sat în comuna Mihălășeni, jud. Botoșani), Caraiman (fosta denumire a satului Crîngu, com. Ion Corvin, jud. Constanța) și Caraiman, sat în comuna Brabova, jud. Dolj) ar fi tot de origine turco-cumană. Dar atunci, tot cumanii și turcii au dat numele localităților Caraman și Caramany din Pirineii francezi? Lingviștii francezi afirmă că aceste denumiri vin de la pre-indoeuropeanul kara, ce însemna piatră. Avem multe localități în România ce încep cu Car- sau Cara-, iar în Franța sînt și mai multe. Și prin Spania sînt destule, ca de exemplu localitatea Caracuel, ai cărei localnici sînt numiți Caracoleños. Lingvistul român Sorin Paliga (în lucrarea „Proto-Indoeuropean, Pre-Indoeuropean, Old European: Archeological Evidence and Linguistic Investigation“, publicată în Journal Of Indo-European Studies, 17, 3-4, pp. 309-334, Washington, 1989) susține, la fel ca și lingviștii francezi, că particula Car- sau Cara- (cum ar fi în munții Carpați, insula grecească Carpathos sau Carrara din Italia) provine din limba pre-indoeuropeană, unde însemna „piatră“. Magysze (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Words of Slavic or Turkish origin

Some of them are listed in the article as words of possible Dacian origin. Dacian was not a Slavic or Turkic language, hence those words need to be removed. The article in its entirety needs to be reworked. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Many others are medieval Albanian or Greek words. If you don't want to get into the tedious grunt work of removing most entries of the article, you can move it to a new title: List of Romanian word of non-Latin origin. It's an accurate description for all entries.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I think this article could further be specified into List of Romanian words of Paleo-Balkan origin, as that would be more in line with what the original attempted to do.Alltan (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Alltan: I'm not sure that an article about a List of Romanian words of Paleo-Balkan origin is a correct title. This part of Romanian vocabulary entered Romanian or Proto-Romanian from the 4th century AD to the late medieval era. The Albanian and Greek words may belong to languages which descend from Paleo-Balkan ones, but Romanian didn't get these words from a Paleo-Balkan source. It's the equivalent of saying that Balkan languages have words of Proto-Semitic origin because in the Ottoman era, they learned the word "kebab" from Turkish which got it from Arabic.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 14 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is consensus to remove "Dacian" from the article title due to its undue weight favouring a specific controversial POV. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

---

List of Romanian words with possible Dacian origin → List of Romanian words of possible pre-Roman origin – The present article title is not neutral and it is not based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. Specialized literature describes the language from which the words listed in the article possibly derrive variously. Variants include: Dacian-Thracian-Illyrian, Daco-Thracian, Thraco-Dacian, pre-Latin, pre-Roman, Thracian, or Albanian. The pre-Roman languages of the region where Romanian developed are almost undocumented, so none of the words listed in the article can be connected to any documented word from a pre-Roman/Paleo-Balkan language. What specialized literature emphasize is that those words are assumed to be of substrate origin in Romanian that have cognates in Albanian. Borsoka (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC) Here are some examples how specialized literature refers to the origin of the words listed in this article:

• „Dacian-Thracian-Illyrian” or „pre-Latin”: Augerot, J (2009). "Romanian". Concise Encylopedia of Languages of the World. Elsevier. pp. 900–904. ISBN 978-0-08-087774-7.
• „Daco-Thracian”: Sala, Marius (2013). "Contact and borrowing". The Cambridge History of the Romance Lanaguages, Volume II: Contexts. Cambridge University Press. pp. 187–236. ISBN 978-0-521-80073-0.
• "Thracian", "Dacian" or "Normally it is assumed that where Albanian and Rumanian share common vocabulary of unknown origin, it must have survived from the pre-Roman era." Posner, Rebecca (1996). The Romance Languages. Cambridge University Press. p. 245. ISBN 978-0-52-128139-3.
• "Thracian": Hall, Robert A. (1974). External History of the Romance Languages. Elsevier. p. 53. ISBN 0-444-00136-0.
• "Thraco-Dacian" or "Albanian": Schulte, Kim (2009). "Loanwords in Romanian". Loanwords in the World's Languages: A Comparative Handbook. De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 230–259. ISBN 978-3-11-021843-5.
• "Albanian": Orel, Vladimir (1998). Albanian Etymological Dictionary. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-11024-3. Borsoka (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment The current name is crappy. It is not neutral and is misleading. Many words that are widely seen as of Greek or Albanian origin in mainstream scholarship are listed as of "possible Dacian origin" based on claims by outdated authors. Ktrimi991 (talk) 06:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• Agree. The article presents words of clearly Greek, Slavic or Hungarian origin as representatives of the "autochthonous" vocabulary. However, there are a number of Romanian words that are presented in mainstream literature as representatives of the substrate language of Romanian, that is they are possibly of pre-Roman origin. The coverage of this subject in scholarly works is significant, so we should not delete this article, only edit it in accordance with reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: i agree that some words in this list are clearly of not Dacian origin but the sake of the article, when it was created, was to present a list of possible Dacian words that are still alive in modern day Romanian, i'm not a linguist so i won't debate about the ethimologies but some words can also have cognates between other indo-european languages. Vladdy Daddy Silly (talk) 06:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• The problem is that when the article's title contradicts WP:NPOV/WP:NAME when referring to Dacian because there are additional (perhaps more probable) candidate languages as the source of the 70-80 possible pre-Roman words in Romanian. Borsoka (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• Çomment there are no Romanian words of Dacian origin. All the words in this list are either Albanian or Greek or even Turkish and most of them were borrowed in the Middle Ages into Romanian. The list should be moved to WP:AFD and get deleted.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh there probably are at least a few, but since our knowledge of Dacian is so inadequate, we may never know, and in any case this page is non-neutral in attributing much of this list to Dacian in wikivoice. (PS I'll note we might have to add Gothic to the list of sources labeled Dacian here because that is one major view of the origin of gard)--Calthinus (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unilateral actions

@Aristeus01: please do not make unilateral mergers and do not move an article whose title is consensual. Borsoka (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the unilateral. The current categorization (on Wikipedia) for Romanian language substrate topics is confusing and articles seem to be titled from specific terms used by different authors in their own works. Granted, an unanimous consensus doesn't exist. I will direct my editing efforts to the articles that match the sources I have access to and perhaps we can agree on a better categorization in the talk pages. Aristeus01 (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Poorly sourced, pseudo-scientific article

Many, in fact most, of the entries are not sourced to any references, other than a supposed author whose reliability cannot be judged from the article (or any Wikipedia article). Some of the claims are dubious, such as the assumption that DEX of the Romanian academy is wrong on etymologies, but this is provided without any reference to an authoritative source. Some words are claimed to be from Lithuanian (e.g. doina) which in itself is bizarre as no explanation of the historical context of Lithuanian-Romanian interactions are given (or known, for that matter). Reading through some of the comments on this Talk page, it seems that the "authors" of this article are more interested in upholding the façade of a political agenda, rather than summarizing legitimate linguistic scholarship. 2001:4C4E:24A1:FE00:8FC7:A0F2:D3FC:640A (talk) 10:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)