User talk:Spiridon MANOLIU~enwiki

Please, if you can, use french or spanish languages. My english is poor and when I must use it, I need a help from one of my friends... Thank you, --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 12:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Imperiul Bizantin

Mai, scuza-ma, dar engleza spui ca nu o prea stii, iar spaniola si franceza nu le stiu eu... Asa ca te rog sa-mi spui unde vrei sa ajungi! Mai precis, vrei sa spui ca Romana sau proto-Romana a aparut in Balcani?(teorie cunoscuta si ca "a lui Rossler") AdrianCo (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nu, vorbeam de vatra straromana a lui Capidan, Iorga s.a., care se întindea la nord si sud de Dunare, iar cand s-a produs separarea, vorbirea nordica a evoluat in Daco-Romana, cea sudica in Aromana si celelalte (Istro, Megleno) fara sa fie nevoie sa migreze mase de oameni din nord spre sud sau invers. Migrau doar ciobanii, dar era o migratie pendulara (transhumanta). Taranii, atat Romani cat si Aromani, sunt bastinasi acolo unde ii mai gasim si azi. Harta aceasta incearca se redea situatia:

File:Valaques-Vlachs.jpg

Cred ca ai dreptate, spre rusinea mea nu sunt foarte scolit in istoria aromanilor(+istro + magleno), din cate stiu eu insa, mi se pare ca au cam migrat in buna parte din nord spre sud(in urma diferitelor invazii) iar actualii aromanii sunt o combinatie din vlahii care au migrat la sud de dunaree dupa sec ~10(cred) pana prin sec 19. Dar am nevoie de surse si de o structurare ceva mai buna! Asa ca te rog da-mi date, cifre,ani, referinte la diversi autori/carti! Ca altfel or sa sara toti pe mine, si s-a intamplat asta chiar si la cazuri in care eram mai bine documentat. AdrianCo (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Mai, ar fi o idee buna sa imi dai citate exacte ca sa pot sa dau si eu raspunsuri concrete. Mai precis: Autor-Carte-Editura si eventual si citat...daca mi le dai, o sa le traduc. Bine asa? AdrianCo (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Vlachs: were are they from ?

Well: if the Vlachs of later Middle Ages are not the result of the evolution of the Latin groups in early Middle Ages, were are they from ? From Dacia (opinion of the south-slavic and some romanian historians) ? But the german, hungarian and russian historians have another opinion: the ancestors of the Romanians came from the balkan area, their ancestors are the early latin groups from the Byzantine empire... Who's right ? Who's wrong ?

I didn't say that the Vlachs did not evolve from Latin groups in the Middle Ages. I simply said the exact relationship is not proven. You were suggesting adding some very specific statements that, as far as I am aware (and what you seem to be suggesting above), are only opinions. Although I think most scholars think that the Vlachs would either have evolved in the BE or in Dacia (or both) I have read some opinions that they may have come from Latin groups further west (don't know how serious those opinions are). --Mcorazao (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a political incidence in history when some historians wrote a nomadic history about the Latin groups : germans, hungarians and russians historians support the south-north migration idea against the romanian arguments about their ancient history in Transylvania and east-Moldavia (Bessarabia), but south-slavic and greek historians support the north-south migration idea against the aromanian arguments about their ancient history in the Balkans; some romanian historians support this thesis because that's good for the romanian thesis about Transylvania... Oh, boy !

The answer is in the languages. Why are the Romanian and Aromanian languages so different ? (in Aromanian: no hungarian and very few slavic words, but many greek words from the early Middle Age; in Romanian: many slavic and hungarian words, and the greek words are all in their slavonic version).

I don't dispute your opinion (I think you are probably right) but this is original research (albeit "original" in the sense of your choosing to side with one segment of the scholars based on your own insight). So far as I know this has not been proven to the satisfaction of the general community of scholars. --Mcorazao (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Mystery, mystery... if we refuse to consider that the early Latin groups in the lower Danube have a different evolution in the north and the south side, as the gallo-romanic groups who given a Langue d'Oïl in the north of France and a Lengua d'Oc in the south...

Not sure what the means but anyway ... --Mcorazao (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

More discussion on Vlachs

Hello, about Vlachs, the actual formulation about languages (with the right reference) is OK, isn't ? --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you asking whether I think your theory about how the languages formed is correct?

--Mcorazao (talk) 06:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

...in the article. I think YOUR theory is right, and I have not another theory.

In another side, I say and repeat: "Even without historic texts for proved it, the East-romanic languages (so, the Vlachs) can't come from another origin that the people's latin language spoken in the eastern side of the Roman empire. But we HAVE a prove: Theophanes and Simocattas attest in the VIth century than the autochtons of Haemos (today Balkans) speak latin... If we have doubts about THIS origin, logically we must suppose an Italian or Rhaetian origin for these poor Vlachs ! !"

Vishes, --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with what's there.

I honestly am not familiar with all of the theories out there and what proof there is. What you're saying makes sense. It is certainly true that there were always people speaking Latin in various parts of the East. In any event feel free to write down whatever you have references for.

--Mcorazao (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)