Does Romanian haxe a Vocative Case

[Felix Tilley]

sorry to bother you guys again.

Does Romanian have a vocative case?

My only contact with a Roman is 5 miles asway. He denies Romanian has a
vocative case. He said

et tu Felikia.


Felix

[pauljk]

"Felix Tilley" <fti...@linux.site> wrote in message
news:pan.2012.02.29....@linux.site...

If you google "roma language vocative" the first hit will give you
the following and much more:

Nominative: phrala (the brothers as a subject)
Genitive: phralengo (of the brothers)
Dative: phralenge (to the brothers)
Accusative: phralem (the brothers as an object)
Vocative: phralale (brothers!)
Locative: phralesta (in/on the brothers)
Instrumental: phralensta (with the brothers)
Ablative: phralendar (by the brothers)

pjk

[pauljk]

"pauljk" <paul....@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:jikah0$ts6$1...@dont-email.me...

Sorry, I just realised you were probably asking about Rumanian/Romanian
not Romani.

Anyway, the first hit googling for "rumanian language vocative" will
give you:

Romanian has inherited from Latin five cases: nominative, genitive, dative,
accusative, and vocative. Morphologically the nominative and the accusative
are identical; similarly the genitive and the dative share the same form.
The vocative is less used as it is normally restricted to nouns designating
people or things which can be addressed directly; additionally, nouns in
the vocative often borrow the nominative form even when there is a distinct
vocative form available.

pjk

[Jim Heckman]

On 28-Feb-2012, "pauljk" <paul....@xtra.co.nz>
wrote in message <jikaq3$utj$1...@dont-email.me>:

Graham Mallinson has this to say in his chapter on Rumanian in
_The World's Major Languages_ (ed. Bernard Comrie, OUP 1987).

The vocative case is defective, being reserved mainly for
animates, especially humans. It also usually occurs in the
definite form: <om> 'man' -> <omule> 'o man'; <cuma(tru>*
'godfather' -> <cuma(trule> 'o godfather' (but also
<cumetre> -- the use of kin terms without possessives or
definite determiners being common in Rumanian, as in other
languages).

Proper names also occur as vocatives, the use of the definite
suffix depending on the stem termination: <Radu> -> <Radule>
but <Gheorghe> -> <Gheorghe> (not <Gheorgele>); <Ana> ->
<Ana>, <Ana(> or <Ano>.

The vocative case is under very heavy pressure and is likely
to disappear. Its occurrence in the modern language, as
limited as it is, is felt to be a Slavonic legacy -- in
particular, feminines in <-o> (<Ano>; <vulpe> 'vixen' ->
<vulpeo> 'o vixen' -- though this latter is admittedly rare).
This directly reflects a Slavonic termination and cannot
readily be accounted for by normal evolution from the Latin
vocatives.

* I'm using <a(> for a-with-breve, as in ASCII Vietnamese.

--
Jim Heckman

[Christopher Culver]

"Jim Heckman" <rot13(reply-to)@none.invalid> writes:
> The vocative case is under very heavy pressure and is likely
> to disappear.

Not the masculine, which is extremely common in daily language. However,
the feminine vocative is rarely used, and when it is used, it's
considered to express a sharp and rude tone.

[Dan Smeu]

On 29.02.2012 02:30, Felix Tilley wrote:

>sorry to bother you guys again.
>
>Does Romanian have a vocative case?

Yes, it does. Feminine gender nouns get the ending -o.
(But this is a characteristic of standard and Southern
Romanian subdialects only.) Masc. gender nouns get
the ending -e. These 2 general rules also apply to many
names.

The plural gets the ending -lor for both. (Otherwise
there's no difference from the nominative case.)

Dan

[Dan Smeu]

On 29.02.2012 05:45, pauljk wrote:

>>Does Romanian have a vocative case?
>>
>>My only contact with a Roman is 5 miles asway. He denies Romanian has a
>>vocative case. He said
>>
>>et tu Felikia.
>
>If you google "roma language vocative"

Why do you google "roma"?! In the subject line as well as
in the text body your read Romanian three times and
no Roma!

>the first hit will give you
>the following and much more:
>
>Nominative: phrala (the brothers as a subject)
>Genitive: phralengo (of the brothers)
>Dative: phralenge (to the brothers)
>Accusative: phralem (the brothers as an object)
>Vocative: phralale (brothers!)
>Locative: phralesta (in/on the brothers)
>Instrumental: phralensta (with the brothers)
>Ablative: phralendar (by the brothers)

But this not Romanian, this a different language, Romany.
(Bagatzi-as belciuge-n rit.)

Dan

[Dan Smeu]

On 29.02.2012 05:50, pauljk wrote:

>Sorry, I just realised you were probably asking about Rumanian/Romanian
>not Romani.

Errare humanum est - perseverare diabolicum.

>The vocative is less used as it is normally restricted to nouns designating
>people or things which can be addressed directly;

Of course! How the heck could you else use a vocative case without
addressing people or pretending you were talking to things and
animals as though they were human beings?

>additionally, nouns in the vocative often borrow the nominative form
>even when there is a distinct vocative form available.

This esp. applies to feminine nouns if the native speaker does not
come from Southern subdialects areas (incl. Bucharest, the capital).

e.g. Ana (the Romanian variant of Anne):

- according to the -o ending rule: "Ano!" "Ano, vino incoace!" (Ann, come
here!)
- according to the non-official rule, but which applies to more than 50%
of the native-speakers: "Ana!" "Ana, vino incoace!"
- a third variant replaces the final -a with a schwa: I'll use this
character: &
"An&!" "An&, vin& incoace!" (noteworthy: the same groups of people will
tend to use in the verb tha schwa as well: vino -> vin&)

(That Romanian guy living 5 km away will be able to confirm all this.)

Dan

[Dan Smeu]

On 29.02.2012 09:24, Jim Heckman wrote:

>Graham Mallinson has this to say in his chapter on Rumanian in
>_The World's Major Languages_ (ed. Bernard Comrie, OUP 1987).
>
> The vocative case is defective, being reserved mainly for
> animates, especially humans. It also usually occurs in the
> definite form:<om> 'man' -> <omule> 'o man';<cuma(tru>*
> 'godfather' -> <cuma(trule> 'o godfather' (but also
> <cumetre>

Although perfect as far as grammar and idiomatics are concerned,
<cumatrule!> is virtually never used! Amost always <cumetre!>

What's the difference? <Cumatrule> contains the definite article
<-le> (which in Romanian is attached to a noun as if it were a
suffix), whereas <cumetre> is a sheer vocative form without any
article.

This is a bit difficult, since one has to learn these things by heart.
There are many exceptions to these actually simple rules. One
exception is already stated above: <om> "man". Its vocative is
always <omule!>. There is no vocative of it without the definite
article: *ome.

> Proper names also occur as vocatives, the use of the definite
> suffix depending on the stem termination:<Radu> -> <Radule>
> but<Gheorghe> -> <Gheorghe> (not<Gheorgele>); <Ana> ->
> <Ana>,<Ana(> or<Ano>.

Radu in the vocative case always with the -le article: <Radule>.
There is no *Rade vocative. Whereas Gheorghe stays unchanged
in the vocative. But its variant George can get a <Georgele!>
vocative, in which George turns to a diminutive Georgel, to which
one attaches the male vocative ending -e.

> The vocative case is under very heavy pressure and is likely
> to disappear.

This is not true. Or, the author rather means: "More and more
the vocative variants will look like the nominative and accusative
ones."

>Its occurrence in the modern language, as
>limited as it is

This leads to an false conclusion! The vocative is by no means
vanishing!

>is felt to be a Slavonic legacy -- in
>particular, feminines in<-o> (<Ano>;

It isn't "felt", but it is supposed to be influenced by *South*-Slavic.
But, as I stated, this rule applies only the the Romanian spoken
in the South (in the provinces of Banat, Oltenia, and Muntenia).
The rest does know of this rule only via... school and standard
Romanian, but in their own subdialects they never used this
feminine -o rule, because it is not ... theirs!

A thing that virtually all linguistic books and manuals pertaining
to Romanian fail to point out! (Out of... laziness!)

><vulpe> 'vixen' -> <vulpeo> 'o vixen'

<Vulpe> is no "vixen"! It is a "fox"! And even in the figurative
sense, in Romanian one'd use various other terms, but not
<vulpe>! <Vulpe> is far too ... positive!

The vocative <vulpeo> sounds weird in the ears of 2/3 of Romanians.
It is "at home" only in South-Romania (incl. Bucharest).

>* I'm using<a(> for a-with-breve, as in ASCII Vietnamese.

For what?

Dan

[Dan Smeu]

On 29.02.2012 11:38, Christopher Culver wrote:

Not the masculine, which is extremely common in daily language. However,
> the feminine vocative is rarely used, and when it is used, it's
> considered to express a sharp and rude tone.

No, this ain't true: it is because of the reason I've already stated.
The feminine -o ending is used only in South-Romanian dialects
as well as in standard Romanian (because Bucharest and its
surroundings belong to a Southern subdialect).

All the rest will replace this -o ending either with an -a
or with a schwa (in written: an a with a diacritical sign on
it).

Example for both situations:

"Ano lugojano!" vs. "Anä lugojanä!" (the latter being common Romanian
for a *majority* of the Romanian native-speakers)

(Ana lugojana (nominative + accusative) means "Ann from the city of Lugoj".)

Dan

[António Marques]

Let me express my satisfaction at finally having a native romanian speaker
here at sci.lang. Only don't be so harsh.

I have no practical suggestion on how to write a-circumflex and a-breve -
other than either do it with the correct â and ă or use a one-letter ASCII
substitute (say, & and @ or + and @ or something) (I think ts/tz and sh/sz
do their job reasonably and I think it's about time to abandon i-circumflex).

[Peter T. Daniels]

You are confusing the function of addressing a person with the
existence of a dedicated case-ending for that function (which is what
the author of the chapter is talking about).

> >is felt to be a Slavonic legacy -- in
> >particular, feminines in<-o>  (<Ano>;
>
> It isn't "felt", but it is supposed to be influenced by *South*-Slavic.
> But, as I stated, this rule applies only the the Romanian spoken
> in the South (in the provinces of Banat, Oltenia, and Muntenia).
> The rest does know of this rule only via... school and standard
> Romanian, but in their own subdialects they never used this
> feminine -o rule, because it is not ... theirs!
>
> A thing that virtually all linguistic books and manuals pertaining
> to Romanian fail to point out! (Out of... laziness!)

Or because "linguistic books and manuals" are explicitly describing
the standard language and not the dialects.

> ><vulpe>  'vixen' -> <vulpeo>  'o vixen'
>
> <Vulpe> is no "vixen"! It is a "fox"! And even in the figurative
> sense, in Romanian one'd use various other terms, but not
> <vulpe>! <Vulpe> is far too ... positive!

"Vixen" is English for 'female fox' (compare mare, sow, ewe).

> The vocative <vulpeo> sounds weird in the ears of 2/3 of Romanians.
> It is "at home" only in South-Romania (incl. Bucharest).
>
> >* I'm using<a(>  for a-with-breve, as in ASCII Vietnamese.
>
> For what?

To write the a-with-breve letter that cannot be typed in ASCII.

[Dan Smeu]

On 29.02.2012 15:10, António Marques wrote:

>Let me express my satisfaction at finally having a native romanian
>speaker here at sci.lang.

Oh, thank you.

>Only don't be so harsh.

Sorry! (We've had hard times. :-))

>I have no practical suggestion on how to write a-circumflex and a-breve
>- other than either do it with the correct â and ă or use a one-letter
>ASCII substitute (say, & and @ or + and @ or something)

I know. Some servers and newsreaders don't render OK a-breve and
@ (or: @ might be misinterpreted as an email address now and then).

>(I think ts/tz

In telegrams and teletype texts Romanians have for decades used -tz-
instead of that t with a diacritical.

>and sh/sz do their job reasonably and I think it's about time to abandon
>i-circumflex).

Circumflexes are no problem on any platform (incl. Linux, Unix).
Usually, $ (taken for Romanian s with a cedilla, for -sh-) is also
rendered OK (Windows, Mac, Linux).

I'd avoid -sz- because of confusions: Romania has an important
Hungarian minority, and -sz- stands in Hungarian for [s] (unlike in
Polish, where -sz- is a -sh-, i.e., read [S]).

Dan

[Dan Smeu]

On 29.02.2012 19:01, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>You are confusing the function of addressing a person with the
>existence of a dedicated case-ending for that function

No, I am not. I understood what the author was talking about.

>(which is whatthe author of the chapter is talking about).

The author seems to have concluded those endings keep
vanishing. However, in reality, that what's extant today
has been so for several centuries now: almost nothing has
changed. The author must have been impressed by the
extremely numerous cases where no special ending is
added for the vocative. As well by those which can have
both ways. And for the feminine -o ending I explained the
reason why -o isn't popular except for some southern
regions, and a standard usage influenced by them (and
almost never used by the rest, even in texts).

As for names, many of them cannot get the endings. But
those that can get them will get them in 100-200 years
too. (The mentioned Radu can be put in the vocative
either as such, or as by adding the definite article in
vocative case: -le, i.e., Radule; and this is the most
frequent usage. NB: there is no *Rade vocative in
Romanian. In contrast, various other male names get
the ending -e, *without the definite article*. E.g. Virgil,
Octavian, Traian -> Virgile, Octaviane, Traiane.The
articled variants Virgilule, Octavianule, Traianule are
possible, but highly unusual, odd.)

>Or because "linguistic books and manuals" are explicitly describing
>the standard language and not the dialects.

Of course! But it is a... bad habit, since one gets an
incomplete or rather fals information. Only a minority of
the Romanian native-speaker population call Ano!
Anutzo! Mario! Lenutzo! and even *male* names ending
in -a or -e as if they were female names: Mirceo!
(< Mircea) Ganeo! (< Ganea) etc., which for the rest of
the population really is a kind of a no go.)

On top of that: all those whose -o usage is natural *also use
the vocative variants without it!* I.e., they also call Ana!
Anutza! (as in Sicilian: Annuzza) Maria! Lenutza! and
Mircea! Ganea! (in the case of such masculine vocative this
is the chief usage in the South as well!). And they also use
older pan-Romanians unarticled variants Anä! (with the schwa)
Anutzä! Marie! or Märie! (with the schwa in the root of the
word, as if it were an umlaut). Or these diminutivals of
Maria: Märiutza, Märiuca, Maricica -> voc. Märiutzo!
Märiuco! Maricico! & Märiutza! Märiuca! Maricicä! &
Märiutzä! Märiucä! Maricicä!

All these are also *standard* possibilities. And I underline:
all those without the -o ending are *also* popular throughout
all regions where the population is accustomed to the
-o ending. Manuals talk in an almost autistic way only of
the -o-vocative variant (for feminine names).

(BTW: Romanian spoken in Romania and in surrounding
areas with Romanian populations does not have ... dialects.
It has only subdialects. Compared with it, Aromanian,
Meglenoromanian and Istroromanian, as well as an extinct
Dalmatian Romanian once spoken by a population
called Mavroromanians or Morlacians stay/stood in a
dialect relationship when compared with Romanian.)

>"Vixen" is English for 'female fox' (compare mare, sow, ewe).

Oh, sorry, I thought the figurative sense of it (when addressing
a woman) had been meant exclusively. But, of course, in
fairy tales this vocative, vulpeo, is used (vulpe, without -o,
too). The bear and wolf get ursule! and lupule! - i.e., only
with the def. article, never without it: *urse! *lupe! are
wrong. There are other cases where one can add the masc.
ending -e without the article. An interesting example is
the colloquial domne! (for "sir! mister!"; or colloquially used
in an extended sense "man!", "my man!", "oh boy!") , which has
been more and more popular for only the last 2-3 decades
or so. The traditional vocative is articled: domnule! It's
short form: dom-le! (or dom'le!). Perhaps domne! was initially
a sloppily uttered dom-le! And there is one more vocative
for domn with the vocative -e, without article, and with
the diphtongation of the -o- in domn > -oa-: doamne! But
this one has a special meaning: "my lord!" - both for God,
and for a prince or a king. (Otherwise, doamne is the
feminine plural nominative/accusative of doamna "lady".)

>To write the a-with-breve letter that cannot be typed in ASCII.

I see. Use instead of it the umlaut-a: ä. Or, if possible, the
~ sign (either on it, for example on Macs one can do that
easily; or this way: a~; or the Angstrom ° sign).

Some people also use the accent: à À in ASCII posts.

Dan

--
ă ă ă Ă Ă Ă şŞ ţŢ șȘ țȚ

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Feb 29, 5:22 pm, Dan Smeu <dans...@tempemail.net> wrote:
> On 29.02.2012 19:01, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> (BTW: Romanian spoken in Romania and in surrounding
> areas with Romanian populations does not have ... dialects.

Do you know what "dialect" means to a linguist?

> It has only subdialects. Compared with it, Aromanian,
> Meglenoromanian and Istroromanian, as well as an extinct
> Dalmatian Romanian once spoken by a population
> called Mavroromanians or Morlacians stay/stood in a
> dialect relationship when compared with Romanian.)

> >To write the a-with-breve letter that cannot be typed in ASCII.
>
> I see. Use instead of it the umlaut-a: ä. Or, if possible, the
> ~ sign (either on it, for example on Macs one can do that
> easily; or this way: a~; or the Angstrom ° sign).
>
> Some people also use the accent: à À in ASCII posts.

There are no accented letters in ASCII.

> --
> ă ă ă  Ă Ă Ă        şŞ   ţŢ       șȘ  țȚ

Those aren't even in "upper ASCII," the misnomer for positions 128-255.

[pauljk]

"Dan Smeu" <dan...@TempEmail.net> wrote in message
news:4f4e2230$0$29158$6e1e...@read.cnntp.org...

> On 29.02.2012 05:45, pauljk wrote:
>
>>>Does Romanian have a vocative case?
>>>
>>>My only contact with a Roman is 5 miles asway. He denies Romanian has a
>>>vocative case. He said
>>>
>>>et tu Felikia.
>>
>>If you google "roma language vocative"
>
> Why do you google "roma"?! In the subject line as well as
> in the text body your read Romanian three times and
> no Roma!

If you bothered to read my message sent only 5 mins later
my first one you'd see I realized my mistake.

[António Marques]

pauljk wrote (01-03-2012 05:47):
> "Dan Smeu" <dan...@TempEmail.net> wrote in message
> news:4f4e2230$0$29158$6e1e...@read.cnntp.org...

>> Why do you google "roma"?! In the subject line as well as in the text
>> body your read Romanian three times and no Roma!
>
> If you bothered to read my message sent only 5 mins later my first one
> you'd see I realized my mistake.

You didn't, however, provide a reason for it!

[Dan Smeu]

On 01.03.2012 00:41, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>Do you know what "dialect" means to a linguist?

Yes. (Romanian spoken in Romania is only 1 dialect. This
has been a standard conclusion in Romance linguistics for
more than hundred years.)

Dan

[Ruud Harmsen]

António Marques <anton...@sapo.pt> schreef/wrote:

The reason for ANY mistake is of course UTTER stupidity combined with
GROSS negligence and carelessness. That is true of all of us.

What else is new?
--
Ruud Harmsen,
http://rudhar.com/new

[Dan Smeu]

On 01.03.2012 06:47, pauljk wrote:

>If you bothered to read my message sent only 5 mins later
>my first one you'd see I realized my mistake.

Indeed. I apologize! (I was in a hurry, and had thought it
might have been a troll of a certain kind.)

Dan

[António Marques]

There is no precise concept of dialect in Linguistics. I know what you mean
by saying there are no dialects in Romania (up to the Dniester, while we're
at it), but that is one specific usage of 'dialect' that, no matter how
legitimate, isn't 'the' meaning of that word when used here. Here, it means
nothing more than 'variety'. Linguists have long since learned to live
without clearly-defined taxa (both as concepts and as instances).

[Peter T. Daniels]

It's not humanly possible for a speech community even as small as that
of Romanian to have no geographic variation.

[Dan Smeu]

On 01.03.2012 15:55, António Marques wrote:

>There is no precise concept of dialect in Linguistics.

It must be a new fad, perhaps based on "PC".

>I know what you mean by saying there are no dialects in Romania
>(up to the Dniester,

Beyond it: the Romanian-speaking population there speaks the
same Romanian as does the Romanian minority in Hungary and
in Serbia (or in the Californian diaspora for that matter).

The reason: the differences between the *sub*dialects are too small,
almost negligible, as compared with, say, the German, Italian, French,
Spanish/Portuguese etc. languages. Similarity as far as degrees of
differences and difficulty in mutual intelligibility you'll find in Romanian
only when you compare it with the other three Romanian variants:
Aromanian, Meglenite and Istroromanian. In order to achieve a
good communication, either one needs special knowledge (additional
vocabularies) or an interpreter.

> Here, it means nothing more than 'variety'.

Well, then use variety. "Dialect" is an exaggeration where it doesn't
fit. Several phonetical differences and 2 dozen different words in
the main vocabulary aren't enough to speak of "dialects". (To me,
Portuguese and Spanish rather look like they were dialects of a
common idiom. :))

>Linguists have long since learned to live without clearly-defined
>taxa (both as concepts and as instances).

Being intimidated by "PC", I'm afraid... (Hence wikipedia calls any
tiny variety "language", a term which is a bigger exaggeration in
the relevant contexts.)

Dan

[Dan Smeu]

On 01.03.2012 17:05, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>It's not humanly possible for a speech community even as small as that
>of Romanian to have no geographic variation.

I didn't suggest anything like that. Quite the contrary: I mentioned
the term *subdialect*, recommending instead of dialect whenever
judging the varieties of Romanian spoken in Romania and her
immediate geogr. vicinity.

Of course it has varieties. First of all, three main groups. Each
being then divided into several subgroups. Any native-speaker
born into one of the subgroups automatically understands
each one out of the rest, except for few, negligible regional
words. Phonetical differences play no role in the understanding.
And the *emulation* of other subdialects is very easy. (By
analogy: this is so as if a Cockney automatically could speak
a quite good type of Scottish English.)

But in Romanian taxonomies, up to now, it has been said (officially,
in Romanian linguistics), Romania's Romanian isn't made of real
dialects, but of varieties that deserve another term: subdialects.
If younger generations (esp. in America) tend to change these
concepts, be it. I only wanted to underline that my assertions
aren't my own ad-hoc inventions.

Incidentally, I myself agree with this concept. Germans, Austrians
and Swiss may talk of dialects: they indeed speak dialects. But
Romanians - with the exception of Aromanians and the other 2 groups
that are almost vanishing - speak varieties that are far too closed
to one another as well as each of them to the standard language.
And, by the way, the same (or even to a higher extent) applies in
the case of neighbouring Hungarian.

Dan

[António Marques]

No, it's got nothing at all to do with that. It's got to do with the fact
that linguistic taxa such as 'language' and 'dialect' are not usable with
precision in the real world. They are usable *if* one accepts that the usage
is loose (which renders discussions over precise usage pointless). It's not
that one can't define precise meanings for those taxa, but the degreee of
precision is inversely proportional to the number of real cases they can be
used for. What is a dialect (or even language) in one context will not be
one in another context. A dialect in romanian is not the same as a dialect
in french, much less in turkish. In fact, the only arena in which those
concepts are reasonably well-defined is politics, and politics can't inform
linguistics. In politics you create languages by decree.

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <jio9ut$81t$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

Dan Smeu <dan...@tempemail.net> wrote:

> On 01.03.2012 15:55, António Marques wrote:
>
> >There is no precise concept of dialect in Linguistics.
>
> It must be a new fad, perhaps based on "PC".

The impossibility of rigorously defining "dialect" has been known for
a long time. This is hardly new, let alone "PC".

In fact, it would be "PC" to use "subdialect" to refer to varieties of
Romanian, since that's what Romanians themselves seem to prefer.
Political correctness is stereotypically taken to be (among other
things) a concern for respecting a group's choice of nomenclature. It
would be decidedly *un*-"PC" to ignore the particular quirks of
Romanian variation and just crudely lump it together with all other
linguistic variation using the blanket term "dialect".

> >I know what you mean by saying there are no dialects in Romania
> >(up to the Dniester,
>
> Beyond it: the Romanian-speaking population there speaks the
> same Romanian as does the Romanian minority in Hungary and
> in Serbia (or in the Californian diaspora for that matter).
>
> The reason: the differences between the *sub*dialects are too small,

There is no rigorous, reliable, objective measure of "differences
between" linguistic varieties. What may be "too small" by one
person's reckoning may be crucially distinctive by another's.

For example, a phonologist would be much more sensitive to and place
more importance on phonological differences between linguistic
varieties than a syntactician would.

> almost negligible, as compared with, say, the German, Italian, French,
> Spanish/Portuguese etc. languages. Similarity as far as degrees of
> differences and difficulty in mutual intelligibility you'll find in Romanian

Mutual intelligibility isn't a reliable defining factor for dialect
distinctions (see, for example, the notion of dialect continuum).

> (Hence wikipedia calls any
> tiny variety "language", a term which is a bigger exaggeration in
> the relevant contexts.)

"Dialect" and "language" are just fuzzy terms for any group of
idiolects that share commonalities, regardless of how big that group
is, or how similar or divergent it is to other dialects.

There is a tendency to use "dialect" and "language" to coincide with
notions of mutual intelligibility and political boundaries, but these
uses are not rigorous, not have they ever been (e.g., English vs.
Chinese, Arabic vs. the Romance languages, the different ways of
counting the languages of Italy, etc.).

Nathan

--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org/

[Dan Smeu]

On 01.03.2012 20:14, Nathan Sanders wrote:

>The impossibility of rigorously defining "dialect" has been known for
>a long time.

I know that. (And it is indeed quite difficult.)

>In fact, it would be "PC" to use "subdialect" to refer to varieties of
>Romanian, since that's what Romanians themselves seem to prefer.

Here, I have to give a further explanation: Romanian linguists and
grammarians have for many decades made use of this kind of
terminology. This is what has been taught in schools. (Except
for most recent possible changes I'm not aware of.)

BUT, the rest of the population, by and large, uses the word...
dialect! To most of them, the term subdialect is virtually unknown.
They also use another popular, colloquial Romanian word as a
synonym, <grai> (which linguists in turn deem a synonym of
<subdialect>).

>Political correctness is stereotypically taken to be (among other
>things) a concern for respecting a group's choice of nomenclature.

As for Romanians, this is no problem, since the non-professional
native-speaker are accustomed to the words <dialect, plural
dialecte> (despite the fact that in school all of them once were
taught something concerning the "four Romanian dialects" and
the fact that Romanian spoken in Romania is deemed as one
dialect of them; in the lingo of experts it is called "the Dacoromanian
dialect", <"dialectul dacoromân">. At least most Romance linguists
know that: this has been standard for over 150 years now.)

>It would be decidedly *un*-"PC" to ignore the particular quirks of
>Romanian variation and just crudely lump it together with all other
>linguistic variation using the blanket term "dialect".

Actually, little or no problem there. I only wished to give you
this information, because I immediately realized the participants
in this thread haven't heard of the standard taxonomy as far as
Romanian is concerned, and which you might deem as "peculiar"
or "strange". Feel free to use <dialect>, most Romanians do that
as well. I only informed you that connoisseurs proceed differently,
and I, personally, don't care (I ain't no official person whatsoever :)).
But in my own texts I'll go on using <dialect> and <subdialect> as
I already explained in this thread.

> There is no rigorous, reliable, objective measure of "differences
> between" linguistic varieties.

But in this precise context, namely that of Romanian, there is.
The firstmost criterion is namely this one: the differences
between Romania's Romanian (the so-called "Dacoromanian
dialect") and the other three dialects are huge. So much so,
that the mutual intelligibility and a genuine conversation is
hardly possible. And so much so, that many native-speakers
of the Aromanian (a.k.a. Macedo-Romanian) dialect reject
all theses and taxonomy criteria, stating Aromanian is a
separate *language*, as any other Romance language, and
no dialect of Romanian. (Anyway, the separation of
the so-called Dacoromanian dialect = Romanian from the
other three (actually four, but the fourth is extinct) must
have happened at least about one millennium ago.

>What may be "too small" by one person's reckoning may be
>crucially distinctive by another's.

I'm not talking here of one person's reckoning, but of
scientific conclusions by several generations of scholars
(among them such luminaries as Miklosich, Mayer-Lübke,
Carlo Tagliavini etc. etc.).

>Mutual intelligibility isn't a reliable defining factor for dialect
>distinctions (see, for example, the notion of dialect continuum).

Of course not; but it is impossible to pour into a single
posting the exhaustively explanatory text comprising
everything which is relevant, i.e. worth of, say, 300
pages of printed matter (in Times 9 points)! :-)

>"Dialect" and "language" are just fuzzy terms for any group of
>idiolects that share commonalities, regardless of how big that group
>is, or how similar or divergent it is to other dialects.

That's right. But, to me, the usage of "dialects" whenever
talking of, say, two varieties of a language that barely have
a few differences concerning 2 vowels and 3 consonants
(the way one pronounces them) and 2-3 dozens of regional
lexemes referring to food, agriculture, clothing is ..... *ludicrous*!

>There is a tendency to use "dialect" and "language" to coincide with
>notions of mutual intelligibility and political boundaries, but these
>uses are not rigorous, not have they ever been (e.g., English vs.
>Chinese, Arabic vs. the Romance languages, the different ways of
>counting the languages of Italy, etc.).

BTW, is standard American English a ... dialect of English in
the opinion of a Briton? Is British English a ... dialect of E.
in the opinion of an American and a Canadian?

Dan

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Mar 1, 12:15 pm, Dan Smeu <dans...@tempemail.net> wrote:
> On 01.03.2012 17:05, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >It's not humanly possible for a speech community even as small as that
> >of Romanian to have no geographic variation.
>
> I didn't suggest anything like that. Quite the contrary: I mentioned
> the term *subdialect*, recommending instead of dialect whenever
> judging the varieties of Romanian spoken in Romania and her
> immediate geogr. vicinity.

Sorry, but you don't get to change century-old terminology on a whim.

Or because you think the word "dialect" is derogatory or disrespectful.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Mar 1, 3:30 pm, Dan Smeu <dans...@tempemail.net> wrote:
> BTW, is standard American English a ... dialect of English in
> the opinion of a Briton? Is British English a ... dialect of E.
> in the opinion of an American and a Canadian?

It is not a matter of opinion. English has hundreds or thousands of
dialects. Probably, there are some features common to all American
dialects of English and some other features that are common to all
British dialects of English, and there is probably great overlap
between those two sets, because Americans and Englishmen have never
been out of communication with each other.

Other well-known national varieties include Indian, South African,
Australian, and New Zealand English, and there are many, many less
well known ones.

[Dan Smeu]

On 01.03.2012 22:27, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>Sorry, but you don't get to change century-old terminology on a whim.

Exactly. In scientific texts, to call the subdialects of the
Dacoromanian dialect would mean a change which
woul take place today, on a whim. Just ask the opinion
of some of your Romance linguists teaching colleagues
in America and Europe. And pls. post the result on sci.
lang.

>Or because you think the word "dialect" is derogatory or disrespectful.

This has nothing to do with Romanian linguistics and
dialectal taxonomy. I mentioned "PC" only because
I *assume* that it might have something to do with
it in North-American and West-European circles in
recent years. But, of course, my *assumption* might
be wrong/unwarranted.

It even didn't occur to my mind that "dialect" is or isn't
"disrespectful". I only conveyed you a tiny piece of info,
Mr Daniels. I see in the web that you are a university
professor specialized in Semitic linguistics and alphabet
system. I expect from such a distinguished person
with such a brilliant background to quickly get such a
simple message. And my English isn't that bad and
gibberish-like, so that nobody is able to get the
message contained in several posts.

In other words, I only gave you an "f.y.i." on what
terminology is used in the relevant domain.

I didn't make a personal proposal to be discussed
here, as something new. I myself play no role
in the established terminology. The standard
taxonomy and terminology have been in use as such
AFAIK for more than 150 years now - not only in Romania,
but also abroad, within the professional branch that
deals with Romanian linguistics.

Dan

[Dan Smeu]

I asked you a precise question. I referred to both *standard* AE and
*standard* BE. I didn't refer to either New York, New England, Boston,
Midwest, Dixie AE -- or to Cockney, Manchester, Sheffield, Edinburgh,
Ireland English (let alone India's, S-Afr., AUS, NZ types of varieties).

I was interested in your own opinion. What other opinions look like
(for example of the generation of scholars from among you had
your professors) I know or can look up in their books.

But, anyway, it doesn't matter: the choice of some terms can
vary (matter of "gustibus"). Of importance is only that participants
in a discussion can "decode" all words/notions thrown into that
discussion. You may call it "marshmallow", it doesn't matter
so long as I get the chance to understand you mean "noun".

Dan

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

On Mar 2, 10:27 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 12:15 pm, Dan Smeu <dans...@tempemail.net> wrote:
>
> > On 01.03.2012 17:05, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > >It's not humanly possible for a speech community even as small as that
> > >of Romanian to have no geographic variation.
>
> > I didn't suggest anything like that. Quite the contrary: I mentioned
> > the term *subdialect*, recommending instead of dialect whenever
> > judging the varieties of Romanian spoken in Romania and her
> > immediate geogr. vicinity.
>
> Sorry, but you don't get to change century-old terminology on a whim.

The century-old terminology is hardly precisely defined or universally
understood.
And he's not proposing to change it anyway.

> Or because you think the word "dialect" is derogatory or disrespectful.

I don't think it's that. Wikipedia's article "Romanian subdialects"
addresses the issue:

"The term dialect is often avoided when speaking about the Daco-
Romanian varieties [i.e. those spoken in Romania itself], especially
by Romanian linguists, for two main reasons. First, according to many
linguists, the Romanian language (in the wider sense) is already
divided into four dialects: Daco-Romanian, Aromanian, Megleno-
Romanian, and Istro-Romanian; these, according to other linguists, are
separate languages. The second reason is that, in Romanian, the term
dialect is used in its narrow sense of large group of speech varieties
that show considerable differences compared to the reference language
(standard Romanian in this case), while other terms are used for
smaller, more similar divisions. Unlike other Romance languages, all
Daco-Romanian varieties are very similar to each other, so that
usually they are called subdialects."

[António Marques]

On Mar 1, 10:21 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> On Mar 2, 10:27 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 1, 12:15 pm, Dan Smeu <dans...@tempemail.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 01.03.2012 17:05, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > > >It's not humanly possible for a speech community even as small as that
> > > >of Romanian to have no geographic variation.
>
> > > I didn't suggest anything like that. Quite the contrary: I mentioned
> > > the term *subdialect*, recommending instead of dialect whenever
> > > judging the varieties of Romanian spoken in Romania and her
> > > immediate geogr. vicinity.
>
> > Sorry, but you don't get to change century-old terminology on a whim.
>
> The century-old terminology is hardly precisely defined or universally
> understood.
> And he's not proposing to change it anyway.

Dan was making a point about romanian which simply can't be
meaningfully expressed that way unless the target audience already
knows all about it.

> > Or because you think the word "dialect" is derogatory or disrespectful.
>
> I don't think it's that. Wikipedia's article "Romanian subdialects"
> addresses the issue:
>
> "The term dialect is often avoided when speaking about the Daco-
> Romanian varieties [i.e. those spoken in Romania itself], especially
> by Romanian linguists, for two main reasons. First, according to many
> linguists, the Romanian language (in the wider sense) is already
> divided into four dialects: Daco-Romanian, Aromanian, Megleno-
> Romanian, and Istro-Romanian; these, according to other linguists, are
> separate languages.

This is pertinent, but it just showcases why 'dialect' as a precise
concept is useless.

> The second reason is that, in Romanian, the term
> dialect is used in its narrow sense of large group of speech varieties
> that show considerable differences compared to the reference language
> (standard Romanian in this case), while other terms are used for
> smaller, more similar divisions. Unlike other Romance languages, all
> Daco-Romanian varieties are very similar to each other, so that
> usually they are called subdialects."

But the varieties of daco-romanian aren't any more similar to each
other than those of spanish or standard french (as opposed to the
dialects of the langue d'oil). Within Romania there are clear
geographically-based dialects. Of course, they are very close to one
another, but they are recognisable. Surely Dan can in many cases tell
from which broad part of Romania a given speaker comes.

English (for instance) presents another reason why 'dialect' can't be
used with precision: scope. You can spek of dialects within England;
you can do something similar for the US. But you can't meaningfully
say that, say, BrE, is 'a dialect' and AmE 'another dialect' of a
common english language while keeping the same idea of dialect you
were using to contrast Lancashire and Norfolk. You might could if
'standard BrE' or 'general AmE' were real varieties rather than
abstractions, but they aren't. Yes, 'Lancashire' can be an abstraction
too; it's a matter of degree.

[pauljk]

"António Marques" <anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in message
news:jinps1$38q$1...@dont-email.me...

Isn't that obvious?
I misread the initial OP's message, or is there something else you
need a reason for?

pjk

[pauljk]

"Dan Smeu" <dan...@tempemail.net> wrote in message
news:jinr2e$u59$2...@speranza.aioe.org...

No worries friend, I am guilty of doing the same thing in
the past myself.

pjk

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

On Mar 2, 1:08 pm, António Marques <ento...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 10:21 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 10:27 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 1, 12:15 pm, Dan Smeu <dans...@tempemail.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On 01.03.2012 17:05, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > > > >It's not humanly possible for a speech community even as small as that
> > > > >of Romanian to have no geographic variation.
>
> > > > I didn't suggest anything like that. Quite the contrary: I mentioned
> > > > the term *subdialect*, recommending instead of dialect whenever
> > > > judging the varieties of Romanian spoken in Romania and her
> > > > immediate geogr. vicinity.
>
> > > Sorry, but you don't get to change century-old terminology on a whim.
>
> > The century-old terminology is hardly precisely defined or universally
> > understood.
> > And he's not proposing to change it anyway.
>
> Dan was making a point about romanian which simply can't be
> meaningfully expressed that way unless the target audience already
> knows all about it.

And the correct response seems to me for the target audience to try
and find out why he is using the terms that way.
My first reaction was that maybe he was expressing an ideological
proposition -- "Everybody speaks the same here." -- just as some
countries would prefer linguistic minorities not to exist. But this is
clearly not the case.

> > > Or because you think the word "dialect" is derogatory or disrespectful.
>
> > I don't think it's that. Wikipedia's article "Romanian subdialects"
> > addresses the issue:
>
> > "The term dialect is often avoided when speaking about the Daco-
> > Romanian varieties [i.e. those spoken in Romania itself], especially
> > by Romanian linguists, for two main reasons. First, according to many
> > linguists, the Romanian language (in the wider sense) is already
> > divided into four dialects: Daco-Romanian, Aromanian, Megleno-
> > Romanian, and Istro-Romanian; these, according to other linguists, are
> > separate languages.
>
> This is pertinent, but it just showcases why 'dialect' as a precise
> concept is useless.

So why is Peter claiming Dan is violating its hallowed century-of-use
meaning?

> > The second reason is that, in Romanian, the term
> > dialect is used in its narrow sense of large group of speech varieties
> > that show considerable differences compared to the reference language
> > (standard Romanian in this case), while other terms are used for
> > smaller, more similar divisions. Unlike other Romance languages, all
> > Daco-Romanian varieties are very similar to each other, so that
> > usually they are called subdialects."
>
> But the varieties of daco-romanian aren't any more similar to each
> other than those of spanish or standard french (as opposed to the
> dialects of the langue d'oil).

So apparently you disagree with the Wikipedia writer as to the facts
of the case?

Within Romania there are clear
> geographically-based dialects. Of course, they are very close to one
> another, but they are recognisable. Surely Dan can in many cases tell
> from which broad part of Romania a given speaker comes.

Sure. It's just that he and his fellow Romanian linguists are in the
habit of referring to them as "sub-dialects", for reasons which I
thought Wikipedia plausibly explained.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Mar 1, 5:06 pm, Dan Smeu <dans...@tempemail.net> wrote:
> On 01.03.2012 22:27, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >Sorry, but you don't get to change century-old terminology on a whim.
>
> Exactly. In scientific texts, to call the subdialects of the
> Dacoromanian dialect would mean a change which
> woul take place today, on a whim. Just ask the opinion
> of some of your Romance linguists teaching colleagues
> in America and Europe. And pls. post the result on sci.
> lang.
>
> >Or because you think the word "dialect" is derogatory or disrespectful.
>
> This has nothing to do with Romanian linguistics and
> dialectal taxonomy. I mentioned "PC" only because
> I *assume* that it might have something to do with
> it in North-American and West-European circles in
> recent years. But, of course, my *assumption* might
> be wrong/unwarranted.
>
> It even didn't occur to my mind that "dialect" is or isn't
> "disrespectful". I only conveyed you a tiny piece of info,
> Mr Daniels. I see in the web that you are a university
> professor

Where "in the web" did you find such a slander?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Mar 1, 5:21 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> On Mar 2, 10:27 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 1, 12:15 pm, Dan Smeu <dans...@tempemail.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 01.03.2012 17:05, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > > >It's not humanly possible for a speech community even as small as that
> > > >of Romanian to have no geographic variation.
>
> > > I didn't suggest anything like that. Quite the contrary: I mentioned
> > > the term *subdialect*, recommending instead of dialect whenever
> > > judging the varieties of Romanian spoken in Romania and her
> > > immediate geogr. vicinity.
>
> > Sorry, but you don't get to change century-old terminology on a whim.
>
> The century-old terminology is hardly precisely defined or universally
> understood.
> And he's not proposing to change it anyway.
>
> > Or because you think the word "dialect" is derogatory or disrespectful.
>
> I don't think it's that. Wikipedia's article "Romanian subdialects"
> addresses the issue:
>
> "The term dialect is often avoided when speaking about the Daco-
> Romanian varieties [i.e. those spoken in Romania itself], especially
> by Romanian linguists, for two main reasons. First, according to many
> linguists, the Romanian language (in the wider sense) is already
> divided into four dialects: Daco-Romanian, Aromanian, Megleno-
> Romanian, and Istro-Romanian; these, according to other linguists, are
> separate languages.

I'm sure Mrs. Ceausescu is very proud of you. You espouse the
imperialist viewe that werever "dialects" of the "language" in
question are spoken, those areas are "Greater Romania."

You are using _political_ terms as if they had meaning in linguistics.

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

Get a grip, Peter! Neither I nor the Wikipedia writer say anything of
the kind.

> You are using _political_ terms as if they had meaning in linguistics.

Which terms do you consider 'political'?

[Dan Smeu]

On 02.03.2012 05:58, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>I'm sure Mrs. Ceausescu is very proud of you. You espouse the
>imperialist viewe that werever "dialects" of the "language" in
>question are spoken, those areas are "Greater Romania."

Not at all. I'm merely pointing out this: the area where the
so-called "Dacoromanian dialect" is spoken. It almost coincides
with today's territory of the country called Romania. This is
accurately shown on this map at en.Wikipedia:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Map-balkans-vlachs.png

In green: the areas where the Romanian language (the so-called
Dacoromanian dialect) is spoken.

The other colours: for remote "isles" where those 3 dialects
(“AR, MR, IR”) are spoken. Actually, the green area should also
have contained some magenta spots, since in RO there are many
Aromanian native-speakers as well (perhaps at least hundred thousand
in good command of their dialect; many others don't speak the
dialect or only poorly understand it when spoken by their grand
parents et al. relatives). And of course there are diaspora “isles”
in Europe and N-America (which can’t be shown on the same
map).

Most of the basic vocabulary + grammar = the same, and
there are very numerous features with identic or similar
counterparts in the green area (within the... dialects, to use
your beloved word, of it). Yet, the differences are huge.

That was valid in the 18th and 19th centuries, when many
linguists started dealing with this stuff in a scientific way,
that's valid, and described as such by science, today.

Yet, there is a difference: today, those 3 “outer” dialects
(in Greece, Albania, Bulgaria, FYROM) will disappear soon.
And the one (“IR”) spoken in some villages in the Istria
Peninsula Romanian almost has disappeared for good.

All those people are mentioned/enlisted and monitored
by the international "Society of Threatened Peoples",
because they will soon be completely assimilated by the
national majorities in those countries. (Actually, this
strong tendence was there 100 years ago too!)

And everything I've stated in this thread is international
linguistic standard as far as Romanian dialects are concerned.
Instead of insulting (by hurling at me such things, "Mrs.
Ceausescu", "imperialistic view" and "Greater Romania"),
you'd better get some information provided by some American
fellow linguists who deal with Romance and Romanian
linguistics.

Dan

[António Marques]

Since Dan wasn't asking anything, the proper reaction is to bring to
attention what the issues with the terminology are.

>>>> Or because you think the word "dialect" is derogatory or disrespectful.
>>
>>> I don't think it's that. Wikipedia's article "Romanian subdialects"
>>> addresses the issue:
>>
>>> "The term dialect is often avoided when speaking about the Daco-
>>> Romanian varieties [i.e. those spoken in Romania itself], especially
>>> by Romanian linguists, for two main reasons. First, according to many
>>> linguists, the Romanian language (in the wider sense) is already
>>> divided into four dialects: Daco-Romanian, Aromanian, Megleno-
>>> Romanian, and Istro-Romanian; these, according to other linguists, are
>>> separate languages.
>>
>> This is pertinent, but it just showcases why 'dialect' as a precise
>> concept is useless.
>
> So why is Peter claiming Dan is violating its hallowed century-of-use
> meaning?

The general hallowed use is to use it loosely. The original remark suggested
Dan thought otherwise.

>>> The second reason is that, in Romanian, the term
>>> dialect is used in its narrow sense of large group of speech varieties
>>> that show considerable differences compared to the reference language
>>> (standard Romanian in this case), while other terms are used for
>>> smaller, more similar divisions. Unlike other Romance languages, all
>>> Daco-Romanian varieties are very similar to each other, so that
>>> usually they are called subdialects."
>>
>> But the varieties of daco-romanian aren't any more similar to each
>> other than those of spanish or standard french (as opposed to the
>> dialects of the langue d'oil).
>
> So apparently you disagree with the Wikipedia writer as to the facts
> of the case?

What's unclear about 'but' and 'the varieties of daco-romanian aren't any
more similar to each other than those of spanish or standard french'?

>> Within Romania there are clear
>> geographically-based dialects. Of course, they are very close to one
>> another, but they are recognisable. Surely Dan can in many cases tell
>> from which broad part of Romania a given speaker comes.
>
> Sure. It's just that he and his fellow Romanian linguists are in the
> habit of referring to them as "sub-dialects", for reasons which I
> thought Wikipedia plausibly explained.

WP presents two reasons. I'm talking about the second one specifically here,
and saying it's wrong.

You used to be such a reasonable debater.

[António Marques]

Dan Smeu wrote (02-03-2012 10:42):
> On 02.03.2012 05:58, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >I'm sure Mrs. Ceausescu is very proud of you. You espouse the
> >imperialist viewe that werever "dialects" of the "language" in
> >question are spoken, those areas are "Greater Romania."
>
> Not at all. I

Peter was replying to Ross! There's little love lost between the two these days.

>'m merely pointing out this: the area where the
> so-called "Dacoromanian dialect" is spoken. It almost coincides
> with today's territory of the country called Romania.

Well, except for part between the Prut and the Dniestr.

It bears mentioning that unlike other 'Greater X', 'Greater Romania' didn't
start out as an irredentist slogan. It's just the name now given to interwar
Romania, which, due more to good fortune than any planned political or
military manoeuvres, found its borders _almost_ exactly coinciding with its
language's borders (though with sizable hungarian, german and gagauz enclaves).

[Dan Smeu]

On 02.03.2012 12:26, António Marques wrote:

>>It almost coincides
>>with today's territory of the country called Romania.
>
>Well, except for part between the Prut and the Dniestr.

This is why the additional word <almost>. (As well as in
other areas beyond the Dnestr.)

>It bears mentioning that unlike other 'Greater X', 'Greater Romania'
>didn't start out as an irredentist slogan. It's just the name now given
>to interwar Romania,

Like a nickname.

>which, due more to good fortune than any planned
>political or military manoeuvres,

Absolutely.

>found its borders _almost_ exactly coinciding with its language's
>borders

The language being one of the already mentioned dialects, namely
the so-called Dacoromanian one (generally known as Romanian)

>(though with sizable hungarian, german and gagauz enclaves).

And Serbo-Croatian, Ukrainian, Russian, Yiddish (well, this is
also a German dialect, as close to Hochdeutsch as are the
other German dialects spoken in Romania), Turkish (well,
Gagauz is Turkish as well), Tatar, Bulgarian, Armenian, even
Slovak, Czech and Polish ones.

Dan

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Mar 2, 8:27 am, Dan Smeu <dans...@tempemail.net> wrote:

> And Serbo-Croatian, Ukrainian, Russian, Yiddish (well, this is
> also a German dialect,

Ok. There goes any legitimacy you _might_ have had for talking about
European languages.

[António Marques]

The reason for misreading?
We can't let this issue rest!

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

On Mar 3, 12:11 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:

...and we insist very strictly on this loose usage....:-)

>The original remark suggested Dan thought otherwise.

Some might have thought at first that Dan was claiming there was no
regional variation in Romanian, but he quickly made it clear that he
was not.

>
> >>> The second reason is that, in Romanian, the term
> >>> dialect is used in its narrow sense of large group of speech varieties
> >>> that show considerable differences compared to the reference language
> >>> (standard Romanian in this case), while other terms are used for
> >>> smaller, more similar divisions. Unlike other Romance languages, all
> >>> Daco-Romanian varieties are very similar to each other, so that
> >>> usually they are called subdialects."
>
> >> But the varieties of daco-romanian aren't any more similar to each
> >> other than those of spanish or standard french (as opposed to the
> >> dialects of the langue d'oil).
>
> > So apparently you disagree with the Wikipedia writer as to the facts
> > of the case?
>
> What's unclear about 'but' and 'the varieties of daco-romanian aren't any
> more similar to each other than those of spanish or standard french'?
>
> >> Within Romania there are clear
> >> geographically-based dialects. Of course, they are very close to one
> >> another, but they are recognisable. Surely Dan can in many cases tell
> >> from which broad part of Romania a given speaker comes.
>
> > Sure. It's just that he and his fellow Romanian linguists are in the
> > habit of referring to them as "sub-dialects", for reasons which I
> > thought Wikipedia plausibly explained.
>
> WP presents two reasons. I'm talking about the second one specifically here,
> and saying it's wrong.

OK.

>
> You used to be such a reasonable debater.

I haven't changed.

[pauljk]

"António Marques" <anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in message

news:jiqpr1$23e$1...@dont-email.me...

I don't remember exactly what my thoughts were at the time but
most probably the reason was as follows:
Even though I am well aware of two alternate English spellings,
Rumania and Romania, in my mother's tongue it's always spelled
with Ru-, never Ro-. Consequently, when I saw 'Romanian' in
the OP's message I incorrectly assumed he was talking about 'Romany'
(Gypsy) language. I realized the mistake when I saw the message
redisplayed seconds after I hit 'send' and followed with an apology
and summary status of vocatives in Rumanian.

pjk

[António Marques]

"benl...@ihug.co.nz" <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 12:11 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>> benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote (02-03-2012 04:24):
>>> On Mar 2, 1:08 pm, António Marques<ento...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> This is pertinent, but it just showcases why 'dialect' as a precise
>>>> concept is useless.
>>
>>> So why is Peter claiming Dan is violating its hallowed century-of-use
>>> meaning?
>>
>> The general hallowed use is to use it loosely.
>
> ...and we insist very strictly on this loose usage....:-)

In retrospect, was there actually any time 'dialect' had a precise
unambiguous meaning? I ask this because at the same time it was being used
for something like the dialects of Irish, it was also being used to
categorise African languages, not to mention the languages of a family
relative to the whole.
--
Sent from one of my newsreaders

[António Marques]

I actually find this explanation interesting.

[pauljk]

"António Marques" <anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in message

news:jiua6d$bhh$3...@dont-email.me...

OK, good. You actually forced me to think about what I was thinking at the time.

pjk

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Mar 3, 6:41 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:

> "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 12:11 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> >> benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote (02-03-2012 04:24):
> >>> On Mar 2, 1:08 pm, António Marques<ento...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>>> This is pertinent, but it just showcases why 'dialect' as a precise
> >>>> concept is useless.
>
> >>> So why is Peter claiming Dan is violating its hallowed century-of-use
> >>> meaning?
>
> >> The general hallowed use is to use it loosely.
>
> > ...and we insist very strictly on this loose usage....:-)
>
> In retrospect, was there actually any time 'dialect' had a precise
> unambiguous meaning? I ask this because at the same time it was being used
> for something like the dialects of Irish, it was also being used to
> categorise African languages,

That was the pejorative sense.

> not to mention the languages of a family
> relative to the whole.

Meillet's first book (1906?) was *The Dialects of Indo-Euopean*.