Talk:Vlach language in Serbia

First section

Two things:

1. how do the Vlachs name their language in their own language? I presume something like "Româneşte", but I'd want a confirmation first.
2. we should avoid weasel words like "most linguists". I don't think there are any linguists who say that "Vlach language" and "Romanian language" are two different languages.

bogdan 11:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I've addressed the weasel issue (they are identical, aren't they?), however I'm not sure what they call their language. It may be something like "Vlaheste". Telex 12:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "Vlăheşte" would be the likely answer, since they don't declare the language to be Romanian. On the other hand, they (some) may refer to the language as "Româneşte" but simply declare it as "Vlach" in Serbian (since they don't feel as part of the Romanian nation). Ronline ✉ 13:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's quite unlikely for them to say "Vlăheşte". :-) bogdan 15:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

here's what a Vlach said on Talk:Vlachs_of_Serbia#Name:

Yes, but we called our self Vlachs in Serbian language, in our native mother-language we pronounce Io mis roman, ``Io vorbiesc romaniaste``, at least thats the way my gran-gran mother speaks.

bogdan 15:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you think there is some kind of connection between the "st" endings when referring to languages. Like the word Vlaheşte with the Albanian Vllahishte and the formal Greek Βλαχιστί - Vlahisti. Other examples include Italian (Albanian: Italishte; Greek: Ιταλιστί Italisti), German (Albanian: Gjermanishte; Greek: Γερμανιστί - Germanisti). Telex 15:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The ending is obviously from PIE "*-isk", but it's not very clear how it reached those languages...

The traditional explanation in Romanian is Latin -esk ("-esque"): Romanian has the suffix as "-esc(u)" (românesc, sârbesc, grecesc etc), plural "-eşti" < "-esci" (româneşti, sârbeşti, greceşti), "sci"->"şti" being a common Romanian sound change, for example in Latin "scire" -> "şti(re)", to know. Within this family of suffixes, "-eşte" could be explain as being the retrieval of singular form from the plural form, "-eşti". bogdan 19:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Bogdan, we do not know that Vlach said that. Anybody could write that sentence and claimed that he is Vlach. :) I think that Vlachs in fact use two names for themselves, one is Vlasi/Vlahi, and another is Rumani. Same thing could be with language. PANONIAN (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, we should include both names. I think it is quite likely that Vlachs refer to themselves as "Vlachs" when dealing with Serbs, since this is the term that Serbs generally refer to them, but that in their own communities, they are "români" (and that they do not declare Romanian on the census either because they see themselves as separate from the Romanian nation-state or because the believe that "Vlach" is the name of their ethnicity in Serbia - in the same way that Roma may declare themselves "gypsies"; the first option is more likely). Ronline ✉ 01:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should include both names. I know that some Vlachs refer to themselves as Rumani in their language, but I am not sure that all of them use this name for themselves. It would be the best that we know names which Vlachs use for themselves in their own language/dialect. I read that Vlach language even had its own script based on the Greek script some 200-300 years ago, but today Vlach have no written form and Vlachs use either standard Romanian either Serbian for writing. PANONIAN (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Without a doubt in their own tongue the Vlachs say they speak Romanian (rumanesce). There is no such thing as 'vlahesce'.

Whether the Vlachs are Romanian is essentially a political, not an ethnic question. Ethnically they are Romanian.

However they have lived for two centuries under Serbian rule. During this time they lost religious services and schooling in their own language, which many used to have before 1830. The Serbian government and Serbian Orthodox Church have been applying a systematic and unrelenting program of assimilation.

For Vlachs Romanian personal names were forbidden by the Orthodox Church and this prohibition continues to this day. Last names (family names) were created by edict in the late 19th century throughout Serbia since they didn't exist before. All last names had to take the form ending in 'ic', usually using the father's name as the root. For most Vlachs this concealed their non Serb origin, though certain glaring exceptions continue, for example: Floric, Jepurovic, St[a]ngacilovic, etc.

The majority of Vlachs (some 300,000) do not consider themselves Romanian, but Serbian. To a large extent this is because they do not wish to be seen as unpatriotic or disloyal. In addition, since they have no education in their own tongue, many believe that modern culture cannot be expressed in their native tongue.

It is meaningless to point to official Serbian statistics about the 'Vlach' tongue or the number of Vlach speakers. Too many Vlachs suffer from the Stockholm Syndrome:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

C0gnate 16:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Code

Why is ISO code:none; ISO 639 code: none; Ethnologue code: none) constantly deleted? I see no objection in having this text as above. --Preacher, or Princelet 15:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Because if there isn't any ISO, ISO 639, and Ethnologue code, what's the point of mentioning it? —Khoikhoi 15:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Chinese term

Ni-hao! The Chinese word "luómǎníyàyǔ" means "Romanian" (not "Vlach"), and I don't see what the point of linking it here is. Vlachs are not a recognised ethnic group in China and the "Vlach language of Serbia" is not spoken there significantly (if at all!). Thanks, Ronline ✉ 02:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The chinese word was added as part of a revert/edit war, as u can see in the history of the article. seems ridiculous to be there, but before removing it, consider which name u will write first: the uncited alleged name they are said to use, or the official name the serbian state uses...? --Hectorian 16:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's about as ridiculous as the Rumânesce/Rumâneşte in their own designation. We don't know that's their own designation. We could have the designations by which the Romanians call them (they certainly are relevant), but we don't know what they call themselves. Greier's POV pushing has no place here. --Tēlex 17:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Then what is this? Hmmmm? "Federaţia Rumânilor din Serbie" is an association of Serbian "Vlachs" from the Timoc Valley. In their language, they use the term "rumâni" to refer to themselves, but "vlaški" in Serbian. As you can read from that website: "... se ocupă cu păstrarea limbii şi culturii rumânilor". So the language is referred to as "limba rumânilor", referring to what would be called in the Serbian census as "Vlach language". Also, consider that the site has a version in the "Vlach language" which links to a Romanian flag, where they refer to themselves as "rumâni" (from the context, it seems that they see themselves as a subgroup of Romanians, and that the term "Vlach" is used interchangably with "rumâni").

The fact that "rumâni" is their own name for the Serbian exonym "vlaški" can also be seen at CNMNR's site. There, the Serbian version talks about "Vlaške" while the native ("Vlach") version talks about "Rumâni" (once again, a Romanian flag is given for this language, signifying a connection to Romania). In English, the translation given in "Vlach (Roumanian)". So, I think there is a lot of evidence to support the fact that the Eastern Romance peoples in Timoc call themselves "rumâni" and their language "rumâneşte", and that Vlachs is mostly a term used as an exonym, when they are dealing with other people. In English, the term "Vlach" also seems to be the translation used for the "rumâni". PS: This document translates the Serbian "vlaški" into "rumâni" or even "români", never "vlahi". This page refers to the languages are "română", not "vlăheşte" or anything.

So, to answer Hectorian, we would use their native name first then the Serbian name. This is nothing more, IMO, than a translation issue. The term "rumâni" translates to "vlaški" in Serbian, which is seen as being broader than just "Romanian". The official Serbian name used by the state shouldn't have much importance at all. Ethnic Serbs in Romania declare themselves as "sârbi" on the census, but their native name remains "Srbi". A page about the Serbian minority in Romania should list their name first, and then the Romanian exonym. Ronline ✉ 02:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Na nana na na, na na na nana na... You loose!!!!! hahah ha hahaha.... Just kidding. Thanks Ronline for looking into it (i`m a bit surprised, I have to admit)... The very idea of "vlach language" is idiotic: let`s say that you`re a German from Transylvania and at the census they ask you: what language do you speak. Your answer would naturally be "german". But you don`t call it "german" when refering from your view: you call it "deutch"... It`s the same thing as here. Serbia (for clear political purposes) has found the perfect excuse to use this detail in their propaganda... (why does my name apear no more in signature when I write four tildas??) 08:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Go to Special:Preferences. The "signature" box must be totally empty, and the "Raw signature (no auto link; don't use templates or external links in this)" tickbox must also be empty. --Tēlex 08:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn`t work 08:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)08:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)08:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)~~

new try 08:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)~

new try 08:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? Then add [[User:Greier|Greier]] to the "signature" box and then tick the "raw signature" box. --Tēlex 08:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

new try Greier 08:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW if 54,818 said they speak Vlach, and 34,515 said they speak Romanian, what is the difference between both groups? Kind of a Mongtenergin-Serbian, Macedonian-Bulgarian, Moldovan-Romanian relationship? --Tēlex 08:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No, there`s no difference, except that they use more archaism (due to isolation from Romanian education) 08:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Either that or they are the Serbian equivalent of the Vlach-speaking Greeks of Greece. --Tēlex 08:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ethnically, there is no difference. It's just that the Romanians of Vojvodina identify significantly with the Romanian nation-state, while the Vlachs of Serbia see themselves as Eastern Romance peoples whose homeland is Serbia, even if they do also associate with Romania due to cultural similarity (and some of them do see Romania as their homeland); they do see themselves as being different to Romanians, I think, but not in a hostile way (i.e. not like Montenegrins or Moldovans). Greier is right in saying that they don't use "Vlachs" in a tendentious way just to be different to "Romanians" (in the same way that Moldovans or Montenegrins do). This is why they commonly alternate between the two names. Mostly, however, when talking about themselves to Serbs they call themsleves using the Serbian name ("Vlaški"). Ronline ✉ 10:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation of sources

Can someone please explain my contibutions are always reverted? I cited my affirmations with reliable sources, but that doesn't seem to be aknowledged. --Danutz

POV

The article really has a POV issue IMHO.Ernestnywang (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you please explain what seems to be the problem? Adrian (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC on the status of the article

Is Vlach different from Romanian, and how should we treat this topic on Wikipedia? Super Ψ Dro 00:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

So I am opening this RfC basically as a merger discussion since I have seen countless times merger discussions that are forgotten for months and ultimately lead to nothing. I would like to come to a solid conclusion here and a RfC will attract more participants to reach to a better conclusion that is applied more quickly.

I want to propose to merge this article with Romanian language in Vojvodina and create a new article titled Romanian language in Serbia. I want to clarify something: linguistically, the Vlach language does not exist. It is all a political issue. I don't think people would disagree with me here or that someone would call such statement from me as POV. I can provide sources supporting this claim, although it should be noted when searching for sources (in case someone else wants to do it) that the scope of this article is only the Romance-speaking people of the Timok Valley (and not of Vojvodina, the other Romance-speaking region in Serbia, those are undisputedly Romanians speaking Romanian). There are many other peoples called "Vlach", these are the Aromanians (some of which live in Serbia), Megleno-Romanians, Istro-Romanians and, of course, the Romanians, historically mostly. Therefore, some sources refer specially to Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian as "Vlach", mostly when talking about Albania, North Macedonia or Greece, but sometimes also generally. This is what Britannica does [1]. A good idea might be to read the page on the term: Vlachs. That being said, here are some sources:

• [2] "Vlachs, a second biggest ethnic group in the area, who still strictly adhere to cultural customs today, speak Vlach language (Daco-Romanian varieties) and Serbian language." p. 25. "Daco-Romanian" is used for what we commonly call Romanian in the context of a theory according to which Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian, Istro-Romanian and the Romance varieties in Romania, Moldova and the surrondings (Daco-Romanian) are only dialects of a broader language, called Romanian. Note that all the authors have Serbian names, noting as Romanian ones are expected to support the stance that Vlach is Romanian but showing Serbian ones supporting this shows that it isn't only Romanian academic POV.
• [3] "This paper addresses the pluricentricity of Romanian, focusing on the two non-dominant varieties spoken in Serbia, Vojvodina Romanian and Vlach Romanian." From the abstract. Note that one of the authors, A. Sorescu-Marinković, is a Vlach herself I think, but I am not sure.
• [4] "The Vlachs (Vlasi, as they call themselves when speaking Serbian, or rumâń, which is the ethnonym they use for self-identification when speaking their mother tongue) are one of the three main Romanian speaking communities on the territory of Serbia, apart from the Romanians of Vojvodina and the Bayash or Rudari, spread all over the country". p. 47.
• [5] "The Vlachs are a minority of Eastern Serbia closely related ethnographically and linguistically to the Romanians, and speaking an archaic variant of the Romanian language, with a large share of Serbian neologisms.". From the abstract.
• [6] "In this article we examine, from a predominantly sociolinguistic perspective, the writing systems created throughout time for the graphic rendering of the variety of Romanian spoken by the Vlachs of Eastern Serbia." From the abstract.
• [7] "The 2011 Census lists 43,095 speakers of Vlach Romanian, located mainly in Eastern Serbia, which makes 0.59% of the total population of the country". p. 90. Timok Romance is recurrently referred to as "Vlach Romanian" in this paper.
• [8] "That means that the more abstract function realized by the morphemes of the SL, or even associated not just with particular morphemes but with the whole make-up of the verbal system, has not been introduced into Vlach Romanian." p. 7.
• [9] "the same goes for the endeavor to differentiate the Romanian minority of Vojvodina and the one from Eastern Serbia, that practically speak the same Romanian language idiom and can be judged separately only from the point of view of the level of literacy they can achieve in their mother tongue." Note that one of the authors is Romanian.

Many of these papers are from the same authors. This is not the most researched topic in the world. Also, these sources are the best option we have. Timok Romance is not given much attention on major linguistic institutions, such as Ethnologue. As Sorescu-Marinković, Mirić and Ćirković explain on page 90 here [10], "UNESCO's Atlas and ELP do not register Vlach Romanian as an endangered variety in Serbia, while Ethnologue erroneously mentions that Romanian (vigorous) is spoken in Serbia in the "South Bačka district: Timok valley", providing a number of 29,100 speakers, obviously referring to the Romanians in Vojvodina only." When searching "vlach language serbia" on Google, the non-Wikipedia results (excluding Wikipedia mirrors as well) that I got on my first and second page of results was the Austrian Academy of Sciences (refers to Vlach as "Timok Romanian" [11]), this paper [12] (also calls Vlach as Romanian, note that my search did not include the word "Romanian"), this other paper [13] (calls Vlachs as Romanians and their speech as Romanian, not sure of the nationality of the author), this [14] (from Sorescu-Marinković), this [15] (I use Spanish as my language on Google, other people won't get this result), a question from Quora (not linking since its irrelevant), Britannica's article [16] (it says "In Serbia the term Vlach (Serbian Vlah, plural Vlasi) is also used to refer to Romanian speakers, especially those living in eastern Serbia."), another translator page, a forum and this paper [17] (it appears to prefer to stay neutral and does not state that Vlach is the same or different from Romanian. Many papers are like this but I didn't link them as they bring nothing here. I imagine we would give attention to papers stating that Vlach is Romanian and papers stating both languages are different).

This shows Vlach is, linguistically speaking, widely considered to be Romanian. So the question here is if the political element should be given as much weight as to mantain an article on this linguistic variety and to not refer to it as Romanian. If the Romance varieties spoken in the Timok Valley are considered to be notable enough as to have their own Wikipedia page, I also propose that we rename the article to recognize the Romanian nature of Vlach. We could use "Timok Romanian", but this is more common in Romanian-language sources. In English, we only get 7 results in Google Scholar using this term [18], and 1,060 results in Google (in my case, as results vary among countries). This is the term used on Romanian and Polish Wikipedias. Another option is "Vlach Romanian", it gets 103 results on Google Scholar [19] and 2,960 on Google (in my case). This term appears to be quite widespread among recent papers and authors such as Sorescu-Marinković and Huțanu. When only searching "Vlach language" on Google Scholar, we get 243 results [20]. Some of them talk about the Aromanians and other unrelated peoples, so when searching "Vlach language" "Serbia" I get 159 results [21] If we do the same with "Vlach Romanian", results go down to 75 [22]. This means that more than half, that is, a majority, of papers speaking about the Vlach language recognize the language as Romanian and refer to it as such. It also implies that those who do the opposite are probably a minority. A third option I can think of is "Romanian language in the Timok Valley". This exact sequence of words obviously does not have many results but may be deemed as preferable to other alternatives or to the current title. It would also produce consistency with the article dedicated to the Romanian language spoken in the other Serbian region where it is spoken, Romanian language in Vojvodina. At first, I would personally have preferred the third option, mostly for consistency, but it appears "Vlach Romanian" is a common form, and it might be better.

Thus, the options we have are the following:

• 1. Merge. Vlach is not notable enough to have its own page in Wikipedia and information on it can be covered on a new article.
• 2. Rename. The page is notable but a rename may be needed.

2.1. "Timok Romanian".

2.2. "Vlach Romanian".

2.3. "Romanian language in the Timok Valley". Produces consistency with Romanian language in Vojvodina.

2.4. "Vlach language of the Timok Valley". I think that, in the ultimate event that we do not merge or move the page to one of the proposals above, we should still clearly restrict the scope of this article. As I said previously, Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians are also commonly referred to as Vlachs, sometimes even when talking about Serbia [23] [24]. The Megleno-Romanians of Serbia live in Banat and the Aromanians of the country live scattered in cities throughout the country (all the major ones are outside Timok, unless Smederevo and Knjaževac are considered part of this region), so this title would leave clear what people are we talking about.

2.5. Other.

• 3. Do nothing. The article is good as it is. Some may argue that all we need to do is leave clear that Vlach is a Romanian variety in the article's text.

I would like the article to be merged mostly because I don't see much use for a separate article for the Romanian language in Vojvodina. We could simply cover everything in one single article, in my opinion. But some editors may see the article's notability as sufficient, in which case I would support renaming it to "Vlach Romanian" or "Romanian language in the Timok Valley".

Other questions may arise for some editors. For example, what do the Vlachs call their own language? It is something like rumân, which is very similar to român, "Romanian" in Romanian. However, most (not all, specially Vlach scholars and politicians) seem to consider their speech as different from that of Romania. Also, on a certain quote from above, three Romanian-speaking groups are recognized, the Timok Vlachs, the Romanians of Vojvodina and the Boyash. The latter are not discussed here because their speech, unlike Timok/Vlach and Vojvodinan Romanian, is considered a dialect of its own, and it would deserve its own article as such. And by the way, no, Vlach Romanian is not a dialect of its own, so this rationale is not valid to justify the existence of the article. Vlach Romanian is an amalgamation of dialects of Banat (see Banat Romanian dialect) and Oltenia (does not have a page yet), but also some Boyash-speaking communities. I'm aware that this is all unsourced, I am lazy at this point to search for more, but I will if I'm asked to.

Some will see similarities with the situation of the Moldovan language, linguistically Romanian but politically separate. The situation is not the same in my opinion. Moldovan is recognized as the language of a sovereign state (in the constitution of Moldova), while Vlach I believe that it is not even officially recognized as a minority language in Serbia. Furthermore, Moldovan used to have its own clear rules, as it was standardized. Vlach is in the process of standardization, but it is not final yet and there is no widely accepted form to speak or write Vlach.

Finally, I want to make it clear why I think a change is necessary in the first place. In my opinion, the current title of the article gives the false idea that there is a supposed Vlach language and that it is not related to Romanian, which is not the case. It can also give the idea that there is a Vlach language also spoken outside of Serbia, which is not the case either. This has already affected other pages, see for example Vlachs of Serbia. The clear relationship between the Vlachs and the Romanians, including linguistically, is barely noted on the article. As shown above, Vlach is widely referred to as a Romanian variety in the academic world. Based on WP:COMMONNAME, I suppose that the article should not be moved (if it is decided that merging both pages is not necessary), but I think we could skip this rule for the sake of avoiding confusion and go more in line with the academic consensus that Vlach is Romanian. And there is also the issue of whether an article for the Romanian language in Vojvodina is required on Wikipedia.

A formal discussion of this kind is necessary to establish a standard for the Serbian Vlachs. Currently, they and their language are referred to in various ways on Wikipedia, such as simply Vlachs, Serbian Vlachs, Timok Romanians... Of course that this RfC's scope is the language of the Vlachs and not the Vlachs themselves, but changes into this article will also affect that of the Vlachs themselves. I think that, whatever the outcome is, this discussion will benefit Wikipedia. By the way, I realize that this whole text is quite messy and disorganized, and I apologize for that. Super Ψ Dro 00:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• Merge — I think a convincing case has been made. The current split is artificial and we aren’t obliged to maintain it, simply to note that the Serbian authorities do so. — Biruitorul ^Talk 07:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• Merge I don't have anything to add besides that I support the merge Vacant0 (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Merge They're the same people both in how they perceive each other and the way which bibliography discusses them.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Merge per arguments given above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)