Re: Romanian linguistic works

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "S & L" wrote:

> From: tolgs001

>>> don't use the romanian Dex with too much confidence though,
>>> since it was made specifically to induce the opinion that
>>> romanian and russian are brothers, so romanians have no
>>> reason to try to free themselves from CCCP-USSR. the Dex
>>> was made in the "comunist" era, and it remained so to this
>>> days. It wasn't really updated, just reedited.
>
>> This is only some sort of... urban legend. In spite of
>> the fact that DLRM (Dictionarul Limbii Romîne Moderne)
>> and its successor DEX (Dictionarul Explicativ al Limbii
>> Române) were compilated during the commie era, they are
>> solid linguistic works, their authors being the finest
>> academic linguists Romania had at that time; moreover,
>> these dictionaries are by no means new concoctions, they
>> are based on what had been published before their editions
>> (of the 50s, 60s, DEX 70s ff.).
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> I hope that you are not speaking seriously [especially about the
> "cominternist" Iorgu Iordan but also about his "gang"!].

Of course George means it, and if you really want to, I can
ensure you that it is an urban legend.

> As we are indeed because in the last half of century in the
> Romanian linguistics the Slavists made the ruling.

You don't know what you're talking about.

> Being an academician in the communist Romania had almost nothing
> to do with somebody's achievements in the scientific field

Well, in Iordan's case, it does. He was already a name in Romanian
philology in 1945 when being accepted at the Academy, at 57 years.

>> For example, inter alia, on Atlasul Lingvistic Român, that was
>> finished towards the end of the 30s, and the team was coordinated
>> by the great Sextil PuScariu.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Yes, BUT is the only one finished

You need only a good one, not tons of them. Of course, reprinted and
revisited.

>> When among the authors you have scholars such as and Grigore
>> BrâncuS, Ion $iadbei, and when the finishing was supervised by
>> such titans as Dimitrie Macrea and Iorgu Iordan, then you gotta...
>> încremene$ti in awe! ;^)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Unfortunately, you do not read in Romanian otherwise I would suggest
> some web sites with some critical observations regarding your

"titan"

> Iorgu Iordan!

Please do. Both George and I have some ability to read in our
mother tongue. Don't forget to precise who are the guys responsible
for the content of those web sites and what is their linguistical
background.

>> However, etymology isn't their main purpose; therefore, the etym.
>> notes are very brief [...]
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> DEX is "Dictionarul explicativ al limbii romane"/ie the "explanatory
> dictionary of the romanian language".

Thank you, we do know that.

> As far as I can see in it [ed. 1975], for each word the etymology is
> given [even if as "unknown" etymology]. So, one of it's purpose was
> to explain ALSO the etymology of the word along with the meaning.

Since you claim being able to read Romanian, just take a look on the
prefacing notes of DEX (those about etymologies being given there not
as purpose but in order to observe some tradition).

> Let see how "good" the work is by giving only one example: BAN
> [pl. BANI ; with the general meaning of money: odd money, etc.]
> which is given with unknown etymology even if for more then half
> of century the Romanian numismatists proved

"Numismatists" =/= "linguists". Sorry, they do not qualify.

> [Constantin Moisil in 1919/1924] that the word is coming from
> DENARII BANALES which in Hungarian language were known as BÁNI
> DENÁROK in the XIII-XIV century.

Since the immediate source of loan for Romanian is not clarified
(for linguists), the word has still "et. nec." in the last DEX '98.

> Today, on the National Romanian Bank's web site [...]

So?!

> A last comment; in the 1975 edition of DEX all the words having some
> ideological connotation are still explained trough the marxist
> ideology. So, the BAN/money is a "good" being the "equivalent of the
> good's value". A crystal -diamond theory!- pure marxist explanation.

Have you thought that "money" spent on something should have some
link with "value" regardless ideology?! Just check other
dictionnaries.

> The third column of this dictionary is for the "first certify of the
> word". The most ancient source quoted is "Dictionarium valachico-
> latinum" known for the authors of this dictionary as "Anonymus
> Caransebesiensis" [why not as his founder named it more then a
> century a go/ie Anonymus Lugoshiensis?], which is dated as second
> half of the XVII Century. So, according to the authors of the
> "micul dictionar academic", the Romanian language wasn't specked
> before the second half of the XVII Century. Nice, isn't it!?

It's not nice to see on a linguistical forum such BS. Have you ever
read "Dictionarul Limbii Romane Vechi"?! it's quite new. :-)

> The protochronists were never truly at "power" in Romanian. Not
> even in the 80's and certainly not in the 90's.

In "power" fortunately, no. But some influence they still had, and
it was accepted ant encouraged by Ceausescu in his last years (up
to some point). They are still active nowdays. Meetings, TV shows,
publications, books.

> P.S. I subscribe to Cristi Mindrut's advice: don't use the
> romanian Dex with too much confidence!

Who are you addressing to?!

Cheers,
Marius Iacomi