Jump to content

Talk:Aromanians: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Macedonian Colonization in Romania (1925).
Their
Line 123: Line 123:


* How you can say this my friend? How you can claim Elino-Valch (Macedonian) origin? In Romania emigrated about 5000 families as MACEDONIANS. "Machedon" exonym??? LOL! ([[User:Makedonovlah|Makedonovlah]] ([[User talk:Makedonovlah|talk]]) 12:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC))
* How you can say this my friend? How you can claim Elino-Valch (Macedonian) origin? In Romania emigrated about 5000 families as MACEDONIANS. "Machedon" exonym??? LOL! ([[User:Makedonovlah|Makedonovlah]] ([[User talk:Makedonovlah|talk]]) 12:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC))

==Their Flags==
Hello. I've just added a pic with their flags. The vast majority of scientists, Greece and Diaspora, consider them autochthonous in Northern Greece. ([[User:Makedonovlah|Makedonovlah]] ([[User talk:Makedonovlah|talk]]) 00:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC))

Revision as of 00:34, 22 June 2014

Template:Pbneutral

Origins issue

Sorry for the really long post. I'm certainly aware this is a disputed topic which can get pretty heated at times, but I have noticed some passages in the article which seem to offer uncited opinion more than facts backed up by legitimate sources. With all due respect to all the users, there does seem to be the occasional instance of nationalism seeping into some of the text, which should be as objective as possible, given that this is an encyclopedia and not a forum for each side to post their own version of what they want to believe. As someone of both Romanian and Aromanian (and Greek) descent, I don't want to take sides on anything, but want to the article to present a balanced and coherent, consistent overall display of what is known.

For example, this part seems less than objective:

"In reality, in none of the three theories regarding the origin of Aromanians, can the term "Proto Romanian" be taken to encompass either the Aromanian nor the Meglenian language, because this term only applies to the language spoken by the ancestors of the modern Romanians (Dacians and Gets). However even here, the term "Proto Romanian" would be misleading, because Dacians and Gets represented only a part of the Thracian people in the Balkans, (Aromanians and Meglens being descendants of Epirots and Macedonians). So, the correct term to include all Latin languages spoken in Balkans at that time is the term, Balkan Vulgar Latin or Eastern Romance Language . "

There seem to be many assumptions made here, with broad generalizations or oversimplifications like Dacians and "Gets" (Getes/Getae) being necessarily the main or only ancestors of modern Romanians, or stating that they were necessarily Thracian (and it's unclear what is meant regarding the Epirots and Macedonians, if they were supposed to be counted as part of a larger "Thracian" sphere). While this is the position of many historians within Romania, it's not 100% established as fact, though I know some people are going to get angry at me for saying this. The same goes for Aromanians being descendants of Epirotes and Macedonians, which isn't easily demonstratable either (nor is this what all of them believe themselves). Both sides have their own nationalism; I admit many Romanians either like to believe the Aromanians or their language came from them or their area or that they were simply another people who happened to speak a related language in the Balkans, but many won't even listen to theories suggesting that at least part of them [Romanians] (or their language) may have come from south of the Danube (something I used to be against myself, but am beginning to consider it in part), and, like many nations opt for a completely autochthonous origin on their land. On the other hand, I realize many Aromanians in Greece mostly see themselves as an integral part of the Greek nation and mostly not as minorities. This may be partly due to Greek policy on minorities historically, as well as integration practices over time; a similar or parallel development can be seen in some Arvanites, who don't with to be seen as minorities despite the language difference. But this is a sensitive and complex issue, I understand. So I can understand why Aromanian posters here may want to present themselves as having always been on the same land they were and as a continuation of (Latinized) Epritoes, Thessalians, Macedonians, etc. who to them were essentially like Greeks, but it's clear there are political considerations in this as well.

It's also important to remember that not all Aromanians are in Greece, and the ones outside of it tend to have different theories of their own origins, in many cases still as natives of the land they live on (in many cases Thracians are one people who are mentioned) or partly descended from Roman legionaries and colonists as well. Many in other countries, like Serbia or Macedonia, also are proud of being minorities. There is a tendency in many cases to take the most parsimonious route to a people's origins, thus making them simply the descendants of whoever lived on that land earlier before Latinization, so it's unfair to pigeonhole all the various scattered Aromanian and Meglenite communities as fitting under the ones in Greece's preferred ancestry. It's also important to keep in mind that language doesn't always equate with genetic origin perfectly. Dealing with the origin of a people in Wikipedia can be tricky because many equate language and nation/ethnicity, even though the real picture may be more complex than that, and people are generally a mix of many groups that have come together over time, realistically.

Also, I don't see how some people choose to believe that Aromanians and Romanians were the result of two completely different Latinization events at very different times in the Roman empire's history, and whose only connection is that they both happen to speak some derivative of Latin. This kind of thinking is rather simplistic and ignores a multitude of historical and most importantly, linguistic, factors that show this not to be true, and reeks of nationalism or ethnicism (on both sides, admittedly). I think most who argue for this must not have seen comparisons of the two languages, or feel uncomfortable having links to those outside their own lands. It's clear to any linguist that both languages emerged from a common tongue at some point- roughly 1000-1200 years ago according to many. When one compares the core vocabulary, hundreds of words are very similar or even essentially pronounced the same and mean the same thing. They even share unique semantic and phonetic evolutions not found in any other Romance languages (even Dalmatian), including for abstract terms, underwent many similar sound shifts, and generally preserved much of the same overlaping lexicon of Latin inherited terms, a set of around roughly two thousand. Additionally, and quite notably, even words of non-Latin origin, such as many early Slavic borrowings or certain Greek derived-terms, are still very close in form, meaning, conjugation, indicating that these were probably borrowed when the languages were still together or at least in close contact. The grammar also has a high degree of overlap, despite some notable differences that arose over the last millennium, and both use similar constructions not found elsewhere, such as the -ez/-edz infix for some first conjugation verbs and the -esc/-escu suffix for fourth conjugation verbs. Of course, the languages obviously went their separate ways and received their own influences, Aromanian more from Greek and some Albanian and Romanian more from Slavic, Hungarian, and others, and much of the difference exists in vocabulary of external origin that was borrowed/incorporated over time. I think it's interesting how they managed to still have as much overlap given the amount of time they've been split- English would be essentially unintelligible even less than 1000 years ago to modern speakers.

It seems improbable that Aromanians would simply be the result of Latinized local Greeks/Epirotes, etc. who were conquered in the 2nd century B.C. and remained under Roman rule for over six hundred years (longer under Byzantines), and happen to preserve mostly the same set of words that Romanians (according to this Dacians far to the north conquered A.D. 107, and split off from the Roman world 165 years later), did within proto-East Romance. One would think they would be more different and acquired different vocab terms over time, but with a few exceptions in some words that happened to be lost in either language over time, this isn't the case. They both are also part of the Balkan sprachbund and share close grammatical features in it, possibly indicating some substratum layer of native paleo-Balkan influence. Both Romanian and Aromanian share many of the same terms deemed either to be of "substratum" origin or early loans from proto-Albanian, like mânz, mazăre, mal, moș, abur, brad, etc., further deepening the link between the two languages. Additionally they both preserved many terms from the same domains, occupations or lifestyles, such as cattle breeding and shepherding, from Latin, and both lack terms dealing with city life (both Ro. 'cetate' and Ar. 'tsitati' mean fortress/citadel rather than their origin, civitatem, meaning city). Another strike against direct ethno-cultural continuity from local Latinized Greeks is that the Greek language continued to be popularly spoken south of the Jireček line, rather than Latin.

Personally, from the various opinions and books on the issue I've read- and I'm by no means saying this is necessarily right or true- I believe the proto-Romanian/east Romance people may have formed on both sides of the Danube, but especially focused in an intermediate region between where Romanians and Aromanians are today, around the area of what is now eastern Serbia, spilling over into western Bulgaria, southwestern Romania up to the mountains, and perhaps the northern Macedonia region, as part of a continuum of Latin speakers; they may have been either split apart by the Slavic and other invasions, or at some point later went in separate directions, Romanian-speakers going northward further into what was Dacia and the Aromanians further south into northern Greece, Albania, etc, and each group may have mixed more with the existing people there. This map comes closest to what I'm suggesting http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/5143/valaquesvlachs.jpg. Coupled with the many cognates both Romanian and Aromanian have with Albanian, as well as several terms derived from Medieval Latin and inherited Christian vocabulary, indicates Romanians were not isolated and cut off from the rest of the Latin world after the retreat of the legions in 275 but at least remained in contact with it for several more centuries. I'm also partly in favor of the "admigration" theory which attempts to compromise the two main opposing theories. It may well be that some of the Latin speakers living south of the Danube were those who once dwelled in Dacia to the north but were moved back over, only to have some of their descendants return. The case I'm trying to argue is mainly linguistic, and I'm fully aware actual genetic origin as well as folk culture, dress, etc., is going to be rather different, especially as both people probably absorbed others after they lost contact with each other, but that's not the main scope of this article I suppose. It reality it's highly likely that many modern Aromanians in do probably have some blood continued from Epirotes, Macedonians, etc., having lived in these areas over over a thousand years, and of course from Greeks in general, but that's different from a strict line of uninterrupted descent in the same lands from antiquity. In same vein, Vlachs may be the most important type in making up many modern Romanians, especially in the south, but they're not the only one, and of course probably include other peoples like Slavs, Germanic tribes, Celts, Scythians, Cumans, and various others who migrated and left some mark on the land they live on today.

Another issue with that passage is that Proto-Romanian is, for better or for worse, the name many linguists and etymologists give the hypothetical language (or stage of the language) that was spoken by these people in the past. I understand whoever wrote that naturally took issue with simply the word Romanian being used. It's simply a word choice used based on the native endonym for all four Vlach groups descended from "romanus"- "român", "armãn", etc., and while it might not be the best one, it's still a legimate word, I think (a similar situation may be seen in the use of "Germanic" for that entire language family") But there is also the mostly synonymous "Eastern Romance", or proto-Eastern Romance perhaps. I can also agree to using "Balkan Vulgar Latin" in some cases too. It's also clear that this "East Romance" category includes a distinct "proto-Romanian"--for lack of a better word--subgroup, as distinct from the other (now extinct) Romance language that we know of in the Balkans, Dalmatian. Dalmatian does not seem to have come out of a close common ancestor with the Vlach tongues, who are all obviously much closer to each other in every aspect than they are to it. It seems to have many more affinities with Italian and some western Romance; however it also retains a few interesting aspects more characteristic of Balkan Romance, though this may have been later influence added, or conversely it may have taken much influence from Venetian, which is known.

All in all, I understand that some users may feel irritated by the other side overstepping their bounds and trying to claim the origins of their own people. I admit the early Romanian approach toward Aromanians wasn't the best and was overly simplistic, focused on their own people too much, and this caused animosity among some Aromanians, especially those who had built a strong Greek identity, though there were many who drew more toward Romanians in their self-perception, and many who moved and relocated there. Also, I'm sure some Romanians are going to call me a "Hungarian conspirator" or something, but there are others who think what I do as well, and I have no particular political agenda.

I plan on finding some sources to take care of some of the slight non-NPOV aspects of the article at some point, but just wanted to mention some ideas and was interested if others agreed or had any thoughts on it before any changes were made. Maybe some could shed some more light on these issues. Word dewd544 (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this topic is getting less accurate by the day

1.Aromanians have never been called Macedo-Aromanians. The very easily traceable exonym Macedo-Roumains, Macedo-Romanians was the universal outsider term describing Aromanians in French or English - until the Iron Curtain effectivly cut the cultural link between Aromanians in Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia and Greece and scholars researching them in the Western world.

2.Aromanian is a functional language in Aromanian communities, so for them a language in its own right (See Aromanian scholar Matilda Caragiu Marioteanu dodecalog http://www.scribd.com/doc/39767355/Matilda-Caragiu-Mario%C5%A3eanu-Un-dodecalog-al-aromanilor). At the same time the science of linguistics dictates it's an indigenous/vernacular language very close to standard Daco-Romanian, closer to certain local rural idioms, with which it shares :

- the closest identity to vulgar Latin - a somewhat strange trait of Romanian

- almost all of the basic/day to day vocabulary, including non-Latin words;

- all of the terms describing life specific to the past rural existence like: words of environment (all mountaineous landforms) profession (sheep hearding, weaving, spinning, looming fabnrics, rural infrastructure construction etc);

- most of the leftover words prior to latinisation, also shared by Albanian -believed to be of Thracian/Ilyrian a.o. origin;

- the grammar has barely a few differences (mainly the more complex tense of past perfect) though other Vlach/Romanian regional idioms often keep kin older variants;

- there are even common sayings not to mention common curses; person names besides saint names, shortening the names pattern and nicknames

- recorded expression of spirituality like old ballad themes (Romanian Miorita).

Thus considering Aromanian a dialect of Romanian languages, parallel to Istro-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and (the most widespread of them all) Daco-Romanian is objective. And it was also universally accepted, is as such by the Academy of Romania, and putting aside a few past Greek Academy claims(Aromanian is an old dialect of Greek), things don't seem to have changed at the scholar level.

3. Aromanians have never called themselves "Makidonji" and as my forruner says there is actually little proof to a direct Macedonian origin. "Machedon" it is just an exonym used in Dobrudja- Romania pointing to the relative origin from where theese people were brought to collonise Southern Dobrudja (beeing broght as the constitution permitted as Romanian) to the Kingdom of Romania.

4. Beeing Vlach I should correct all of the Vlach terminology , correcting sounds and not using Serbian Latin alphabet (Armanji?!, Râmânji?! to Armâni, Rrămăni, Remeni, Rumăni, Români,Vlahi) but it is of little use since the Romanian language version of the page has seen such savage subjectivism from editors using wikipedia to forge linguistics for pollitical games. (One certain Romanian MP persuing to acquire minority funding) Vlach facts (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this topic is getting less accurate by the day

1.Aromanians have never been called Macedo-Aromanians. The very easily traceable exonym Macedo-Roumains, Macedo-Romanians was the universal outsider term describing Aromanians in French or English - until the Iron Curtain effectivly cut the cultural link between Aromanians in Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia and Greece and scholars researching them in the Western world.

2.Aromanian is a functional language in Aromanian communities, so for them a language in its own right (See Aromanian scholar Matilda Caragiu Marioteanu dodecalog http://www.scribd.com/doc/39767355/Matilda-Caragiu-Mario%C5%A3eanu-Un-dodecalog-al-aromanilor). At the same time the science of linguistics dictates it's an indigenous/vernacular language very close to standard Daco-Romanian, closer to certain local rural idioms, with which it shares :

- the closest identity to vulgar Latin - a somewhat strange trait of Romanian

- almost all of the basic/day to day vocabulary, including non-Latin words;

- all of the terms describing life specific to the past rural existence like: words of environment (all mountaineous landforms) profession (sheep hearding, weaving, spinning, looming fabnrics, rural infrastructure construction etc);

- most of the leftover words prior to latinisation, also shared by Albanian -believed to be of Thracian/Ilyrian a.o. origin;

- the grammar has barely a few differences (mainly the more complex tense of past perfect) though other Vlach/Romanian regional idioms often keep kin older variants;

- there are even common sayings not to mention common curses; person names besides saint names, shortening the names pattern and nicknames

- recorded expression of spirituality like old ballad themes (Romanian Miorita).

Thus considering Aromanian a dialect of Romanian languages, parallel to Istro-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and (the most widespread of them all) Daco-Romanian is objective. And it was also universally accepted, is as such by the Academy of Romania, and putting aside a few past Greek Academy claims(Aromanian is an old dialect of Greek), things don't seem to have changed at the scholar level.

3. Aromanians have never called themselves "Makidonji" and as my forruner says there is actually little proof to a direct Macedonian origin. "Machedon" it is just an exonym used in Dobrudja- Romania pointing to the relative origin from where theese people were brought to collonise Southern Dobrudja (beeing broght as the constitution permitted as Romanian) to the Kingdom of Romania.

4. Beeing Vlach I should correct all of the Vlach terminology , correcting sounds and not using Serbian Latin alphabet (Armanji?!, Râmânji?! to Armâni, Rrămăni, Remeni, Rumăni, Români,Vlahi) but it is of little use since the Romanian language version of the page has seen such savage subjectivism from editors using wikipedia to forge linguistics for pollitical games. (One certain Romanian MP persuing to acquire minority funding) Vlach facts (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tzintzars in literature?

Wondering about cultural legacy/presence. I remember in Dictionary of the Khazars, I think it's called by Milorad Pavić there's a character who's a Tzintzar merchant. I think it was the male edition I read (there's a "female" edition, not sure what the word is that distinguishes the two editions - ?? ). My Serbian friends in Canada was amazed I know about Milorad Pavić or about Tzintzars.Skookum1 (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Macedonians (Greeks Latins)

Hello. I tried to explain my changes but nobody read the explanations. We live in 2014 in a multi-cultural Europe. How is possible to accept in the english language the term "Aromanian"? Many scientists described this term as an EXONYM. More than this, is a miss-translate of the name of our first contemporary grammar book (Roman or Macedono-Vlah Grammar). In Greece, the Academy consider us Ancient Greeks latinised. In Greece!!! Hundreds of scientists. In these conditions what is the problem with the term Macedonians (Greeks Latins)? You asked us to talk before making changes. Let's talk. Is somebody ready to accept a dialogue? I apologise but if there are some macedo-bulgarians or romanians admins, they will never accept the truth. And how to accept it if their national history has a lot of mistakes? We have here a conflict between Greece (Macedonia), Romania and FYROM. But for us, the term Macedonians (Greeks Latins) has no historical errors. Please, those professionals who can explain this term is false, to come here and talk. (Makedonovlah (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Greece is one of the few countries that in this 2014 "multi-cultural Europe", doesn't have the concept of national minorities. That is outrageous, especially in the Balkans and this part of Europe where every single country has a multitude of cultures and ethnic identities. How is that possible and allowed by EU? So with attitude, is there any surprise that the "hundreds of Greek scientists" consider the Aromanians as Latinized "Ancient Greeks"? How can you have a dialogue, when the "discussion" starts from this stuck up nationalistic and brain-washing position? What kind of "science" can identify the percentages of Thracians, Illyrians, Paeonians, Ancient Macedonians, Epirotes, Ancient Greeks but also Roman colonists, Roman slaves from all provinces, Roman military from Palmyra and Germania (for example) that form the base for the Aromanian identity, as 100% "Latinized Ancient Greeks"? It is ridiculous in 2014 to think like that. As for the term itself, do a Google (even better Google Scholar) for "Macedonians (Greeks Latins)" vs "Aromanians", to see the coverage in the English-speaking academia . I don't think that negating and destroying other ethnic identities is the path to bring prosperity to present-day Greece. Actually is the opposite path. --Codrin.B (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What has to do the Romanian Ethnicity with the Aromanians / Macedonians (Greeks Latins)?

As i see you are romanian. Is true what you said about the greek attitude. But why don't you say something about the romanian attitude for the Aromanian Minority? How the romanian history can state we are the same people?? What has to do the romanian history with the Ancient Historical Macedonia (Epirus, Thessaly, Central Macedonia and Thrace)? What has to do the Romanian Ethnicity with the Ancient Greeks and Romans? Nobody says we aren't autochtonous in these lands since immemorial times. If you are romanian is correct to try to solve the Aromanian problem in Romania and then to accuse the Greek State for his abuses. You don't think so? (Makedonovlah (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

For user Vachfacts

,,3. Aromanians have never called themselves "Makidonji" and as my forruner says there is actually little proof to a direct Macedonian origin. "Machedon" it is just an exonym used in Dobrudja- Romania pointing to the relative origin from where theese people were brought to collonise Southern Dobrudja (beeing broght as the constitution permitted as Romanian) to the Kingdom of Romania."

Their Flags

Hello. I've just added a pic with their flags. The vast majority of scientists, Greece and Diaspora, consider them autochthonous in Northern Greece. (Makedonovlah (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aromanians&oldid=613871023"