george knysh wrote:
> ******GK: I earlier used the Ukrainian form
> ("Rumuny"). I think other Slavic languages have it
> also. But I now try to consistently write "Romanians"
> in English. Apologies for any slips.******
Not just slavic but other languages too. In fact the normal development
of 'romanus' ( in my opinion not in the meaning of citisien of roman
empire but as "christian") , weel this development _is_ rumân. The
oficialy change to Roman & Romania is just a cosmetic operation.
All the neighbours use the root "rum-" but not "rom-". In Germany is
"rum-" too ( see Rumäne, Rumänien, Rumänisch).
P.S. George , in Rom. there is no archaeological evidence for Huns too,
does it mean they have been not at all there? I guess the archaeological
evidence is plenty there. The only problem from the Romanian point of
view is breaking of the Daco-Roman evidence, not of the Dacian one.
As strange as it sounds, between IV-VIII centuries there is still Dacian
evidence with burial cemeteries but the Roman or Daco-Roman one
beginning with IV AC century ceased to exist. Beginning with IX century
the specialists in archaeology complain about the impossibility of
distinguish anything clear more because of a homogenising of the