altamix@ wrote:
>From: "wtsdv" <liberty...>
>
>What about "Vlakh"? Are Romanians offended
>if referred to as Vlakhs?
>
>David
>
>there is no offend because the name is
>unknown.
Alex is right: the average Romanian has little
knowledge (if at all) of "Vlakhs"/"Walachians".
A bit more of knowledge pertaining to "Walachians"
there is among the Romanians (i.e. a "DacoRumanian"
subdialect speaking) in Serbia, except those in the
province of the Timoc (ancient Timacus) valley
(partially spreading into Bulgaria), whom the Serbians
have called Vallachians and to whom, until a few years
ago, Serbian authorities did not allow to call
themselves Romanians officially.
OTOH, in Transylvania and Banat (provinces of Austria-
Hungary up to 1919) very few people know today that
"oláh" (the Hungarian) means "Vlakh/Walachian". And:
very few people know that the "Vlakhs/Walachians"
in Albania, (former) Yugoslavia, Greece and Bulgaria
actually represent, together with Romanians, the same
nation (at least linguistically).
Why? Because in all these dialects (i.e. ... from
within), this ethnonym has never been used. This is
an ethnonym used by foreigners. (As German for
Deutsche, Hungarians for Magyars, Dutch for
Flaamse and Gypsies for Sinti & Roma.)
I myself was flabbergasted many years ago to see
in Polish newspapers that... Wlochy [vwoXI] meant...
Italy. :)
George