Category talk:Moldovan language
Soviet invention as language of Moldavia
[edit]Лобачев Владимир, you have never been able to provide sources connecting the language invented by the Soviet authorities in 1924 with the state that disappeared on 1859. Please stop your original research. Moldovan = not spoken in Moldavia! I am going to keep reverting you every single time you restore that category unless you provide a reliable source, which you have always failed to. I don't care if you start some report, your POV pushing will be rejected once again on it, as has happened before and will keep happening. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- If in 1989 in Moldova the Moldovan language and alphabet were replaced by Romanian, this does not mean that until 1989 the Moldovan and Romanian languages were identical.
Sources saying that in the Moldavian principality, the Moldovan language was the official language since the 17th century.
- Черепнин Л. В. История Молдавской ССР: С древнейших времен до Великой Октябрьской социалистической революции. — Кишинёв: Картя молдовеняскэ, 1965. — С. 263.
- Pierre Lescalopier l’an 1574 de Venise a Constantinople, dans Paul Cernovodeanu, Studii și materiale de istorie medievală, IV, 1960, p. 444
- Paul Cernovodeanu, Studii și materiale de istorie medievală, IV, 1960, p. 444.
The language of the first Chronicle of the Moldavian principality, written not in the Slavic language. Scientific sources.
Ru: «Летопись Земли Молдавской» Григоре Уреке. Написанное на молдавском языке в первой половине XVII в.
En: Chronicle of the Moldavian Land ”Grigore Ureke. Written in Moldovan in the first half of the 17th century.[1]
Ru: «Летопись Страны Молдовы, отколь образовалось государство, о течении годов и о жизни господарей» — первое письменное исследование на молдавском языке, охватывающее период 1359-1594 гг.
En: "Chronicle of the Country of Moldova, when the state was formed, about the course of the years and about the life of the rulers" - the first written research in the Moldovan language, covering the period 1359-1594.[2]
Ru: В XVII в. на смену официальному славянско-молдавскому летописанию приходит боярское летописание на молдавском языке (кириллицей). Наиболее известными молдавскими летописцами были Еустратие Логофет (?-1646), Григоре Уреке, Мирон Костин, Николай Костин, Аксинтий Урикарул, Ион Некулче.
En: In the 17th century, the official Slavic-Moldavian chronicle was replaced by the boyar chronicle in the Moldavian language (Cyrillic). The most famous Moldovan chroniclers were Eustratie Logofet (? -1646), Grigore Ureke, Miron Kostin, Nikolai Kostin, Aksinti Urikarul, Ion Nekulce.[3]
Ru: Инициативная роль в боярском летописании Молдавского княжества принадлежала Григоре Уреке (1590-1647), автору первой дошедшей до нас летописи на молдавском языке — «Летописи Земли Молдавской отколь образовалось государство, о течении годов и о жизни господарей, повествующей от Драгоша-воеводы до Арона-воеводы».
En: The initiatory role in the boyar chronicle of the Moldavian principality belonged to Grigore Ureca (1590-1647), the author of the first chronicle in the Moldavian language that has come down to us - “The Chronicle of the Moldavian Land otkol formed a state, about the course of the years and the life of the rulers, telling from Dragos-voivode to Aron-voivode".[4]
- ↑ Руссев Н. Молдавский митрополит Феоктист Старый: оценки Димитрия Кантемира и исторические факты // Журнал «Русин», № 1–2, 2008
- ↑ Загривная Т. А. Особенности развития просветительства в Молдове: историко-культурный экскурс // Журнал «Человек и образование», 2017
- ↑ Суляк С. Г. Русины в молдавском летописании // Журнал «Русин», № 4, 2017
- ↑ Бутучел Р. Григоре Уреке и Мирон Костин — летописцы XVII в. о молдавской идентичности // «Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. История», 2014
--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
History of the "Moldovan language"
[edit]Лобачев Владимир, in 1924, Soviet authorities invent the Moldavian SSR (outside of any land within historical Moldavia) and start modifying the Romanian speech of its inhabitants into a new standardized "language" written in Cyrillic and called "Moldovan". Romanian archaic words and Russian neologisms were the basis of this language, at least that was the aim. Here are the sources for what I've been saying: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Notice that only ONE is a Romanian (I think) writer. There also is a Moldovan one.
It is clear the Soviet authorities failed miserably to promote a new Moldovan ethnicity, contrary to how it had been done with the Karelians in the USSR or the Macedonians in Yugoslavia. In 1989 and a few years later, without any kind of external influence from the unstable Romanian state, the Moldovan leaders passed the national language to the Latin alphabet, recognized its similarity with the Romanian language, considered renaming Moldova to "Romanian Republic of Moldova" and Mircea Sneagur even offered to unite with Romania in a federal state composed by two entities. All of this is true, and I can give you sources if you wish to see them. I am not sending them here right now so as to save me some 5-10 mins of my time, but I can easily find them. A nation that is separate and independent doesn't just voluntarily gravitate towards another one, specially when other external nation is also attempting to influence them (Russia). Romania really hasn't done anything impressive to try to influence Moldovan public, yet in 4 years and under a pro-Russian president (not anymore), unionist feelings doubled [6], if not way more [7] [8]. You don't see this stuff in, say, Czechia about unification with Poland. Maybe something is wrong here, don't you think?
1924 is the first time when the Romanian of Bessarabia is attempted to be standardized and when Moldavian regionalist feelings are seriously and actively promoted. Moldavian regionalism hasn't been strange in history, important Romanian figures such as Nicolae Iorga already defended it. Yet never on an attempt to show Moldavians as different from Romanians. In Bessarabia this was more common, as the region had been under the poor Russian Empire and isolated from the rest of Romanian historical regions when Romanian nationalism rose. A strong Romanian identity thus never had the time to form in Bessarabia as in Bukovina or Transylvania, and even in 1918 the leaders who voted unification with Romania were sure at 100% of their Romanian identity. Sources: [9]. I recommend you to read this Wikipedia article [10], it has some important quotes you might be interested on such as "According to Miron Costin, a prominent chronicler from 17th-century Moldavia, the inhabitants of the Principality of Moldavia spoke Romanian and called themselves "Moldavians", but also "Romanians" which, he notes, comes from "romanus"."
In conclusion, any reference to a "Moldovan language" before 1924 is due to a lack of a strong ethnic identity prior to the rise of nationalism. It is logical that Moldavians would identify with Moldavia as that was the most logical thing to do before nationalism. This was present in all of Europe. Any reference to a "Moldovan language" after 1924 refers to the Soviet invention in an attempt to claim Bessarabia from Romania. Simple. Well, not quite. And I please ask you to put any sound recording in "Moldovan" to a Romanian and viceversa, and they will understand it. I don't understand why do you chose to trust in sources from a country that is not related to the other two rather than native speakers of the language they are talking about. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- I do not deny the closeness of the languages and cultures of Romanians and Moldovans. But I believe that, for example, Serbian and Montenegrin languages and cultures are even closer to each other. The question "language or dialect" is usually associated not so much with linguists and cultural scholars, but more with politicians. The politicians decided to call it that (in the Moldavian principality, in the USSR, in modern Moldova), and nothing can be done about it. But I agree that there is a point of view that you defend. And here, too, primarily politics. I have distant relatives and friends in Moldova. And I am familiar with the linguistic situation of contemporary Moldova. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Again, I don't think this situation can be compared to Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian. None of these ever had a common designation or ethnic affiliation. To say that Montenegrin is a Serbian dialect is as accurate as saying Serbian is a Bosnian dialect. This is not the case with Moldovans, since they used to be counted simply as Romanians. Also apparently we have different POVs because I'd rather follow linguistics than politics. Politics may not be objective, they can easily be used with hidden agendas behind. Linguistics however are more objective and there's not much disagreement between linguists. By the way, you claim to be more focused on politics. Sure thing, but the Constitutional Court of Moldova said in 2013 that the Moldovan Declaration of Independence where Romanian is stated to be the language of Moldova had more priority over the Constitution of Moldova [11]. The Parliament of Moldova also stated in 2003 that "Moldovan" and "Romanian" were two names of the same language [12] ("Avînd originea comună, dispunînd de un fond lexical de bază comun, limba naţională moldovenească şi limba naţională română îşi păstrează fiecare lingvonimul/glotonimul său ca însemn identificator al fiecărei naţiuni: moldovenească şi română"). Edits of yours such as this are thus double-standard and do not go in line with what Moldovan politics currently say (that Moldovan and Romanian are the same language). Regarding the principality, I again ask for sources showing the relation between modern "Moldovan" language and the term that was used in the Principality of Moldavia. I think you agree with me that there's difference before and after 1924 or that at least it is controversial to talk about a supposed continuity between the documents used in the 19th century in Moldavia and the still-kept modern term. I will cite this quote again: "According to Miron Costin, a prominent chronicler from 17th-century Moldavia, the inhabitants of the Principality of Moldavia spoke Romanian and called themselves "Moldavians", but also "Romanians" which, he notes, comes from "romanus".". We cannot make a relation between the purely regionalist term of the 19th century with the 20th-21st centuries one that attempt to promote a separate Moldovan ethnicity. Until 1924, "Moldovan language" meant something different to what it does today. We have two meanings, yet Commons uses the most recent one for the category of the language. To impose the 20th-21st century view over 19th century and before topics is not accurate. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Until 1924, "Moldovan language" meant something different to what it does today. Can you cite sources for this statement? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- ""Moldovan language" first came into being as a political initiative in 1924 when Soviet Union tried to artificially create a "Moldovan" identity and state east of river Dniestr" [13]. "This book focuses on a Soviet nation-building project that failed". "Before the 1920s, few specialists thought of the Moldovans as anything more than an eastern offshoot of the Romanians". [14] (page 2). Are YOU able to mention sources that say otherwise, that the Moldovan language was different from Romanian and not just a (rare) regional term for it before 1924? I will note that in this whole discussion, you haven't linked any source. I linked 14. Please stop reverting if you have no sources to dispute my edits. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Лобачев Владимир, this category was protected for a month and you were blocked from editing an item on Wikidata for two weeks. I'll be grateful if this ends our edit-wars or if further escalation will be needed for them to end, but I want to say that, reached this point, it is highly certain that if edit-warring is to continue, it will not end up in your favor. Maybe I also get some retaliation in the future, but so far, administrators have been more convinced by my point of view and the sources I've shown than by yours. So I please ask for peace and tranquility now. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- ""Moldovan language" first came into being as a political initiative in 1924 when Soviet Union tried to artificially create a "Moldovan" identity and state east of river Dniestr" [13]. "This book focuses on a Soviet nation-building project that failed". "Before the 1920s, few specialists thought of the Moldovans as anything more than an eastern offshoot of the Romanians". [14] (page 2). Are YOU able to mention sources that say otherwise, that the Moldovan language was different from Romanian and not just a (rare) regional term for it before 1924? I will note that in this whole discussion, you haven't linked any source. I linked 14. Please stop reverting if you have no sources to dispute my edits. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Until 1924, "Moldovan language" meant something different to what it does today. Can you cite sources for this statement? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Again, I don't think this situation can be compared to Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian. None of these ever had a common designation or ethnic affiliation. To say that Montenegrin is a Serbian dialect is as accurate as saying Serbian is a Bosnian dialect. This is not the case with Moldovans, since they used to be counted simply as Romanians. Also apparently we have different POVs because I'd rather follow linguistics than politics. Politics may not be objective, they can easily be used with hidden agendas behind. Linguistics however are more objective and there's not much disagreement between linguists. By the way, you claim to be more focused on politics. Sure thing, but the Constitutional Court of Moldova said in 2013 that the Moldovan Declaration of Independence where Romanian is stated to be the language of Moldova had more priority over the Constitution of Moldova [11]. The Parliament of Moldova also stated in 2003 that "Moldovan" and "Romanian" were two names of the same language [12] ("Avînd originea comună, dispunînd de un fond lexical de bază comun, limba naţională moldovenească şi limba naţională română îşi păstrează fiecare lingvonimul/glotonimul său ca însemn identificator al fiecărei naţiuni: moldovenească şi română"). Edits of yours such as this are thus double-standard and do not go in line with what Moldovan politics currently say (that Moldovan and Romanian are the same language). Regarding the principality, I again ask for sources showing the relation between modern "Moldovan" language and the term that was used in the Principality of Moldavia. I think you agree with me that there's difference before and after 1924 or that at least it is controversial to talk about a supposed continuity between the documents used in the 19th century in Moldavia and the still-kept modern term. I will cite this quote again: "According to Miron Costin, a prominent chronicler from 17th-century Moldavia, the inhabitants of the Principality of Moldavia spoke Romanian and called themselves "Moldavians", but also "Romanians" which, he notes, comes from "romanus".". We cannot make a relation between the purely regionalist term of the 19th century with the 20th-21st centuries one that attempt to promote a separate Moldovan ethnicity. Until 1924, "Moldovan language" meant something different to what it does today. We have two meanings, yet Commons uses the most recent one for the category of the language. To impose the 20th-21st century view over 19th century and before topics is not accurate. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)