Talk:Romanian language

No mater what the disscution is about the truth must prevail.How can Kricxjo pretend that the discution is minor.If you can't explain a fact that means you have to work more to find the truth.No way to give definition before you knou the facts.Fact is that nowere in this world was seen such a phemomenon.To conquer a small piece of land and the rest of the country to voluntarely change its language and customs.What I want to say is that everybady is saying:"Dacia was conquered" and nnathing more.What if is more.Lets open the door that nobody wants to open.The facts are very known by everybody there is not something I grow up in my romanian head.Dacia,England,Italy,Germany have a common history but the truth must be equal for all.How can some one decide that "Dacia was conquered"and don't even know what it is about.The information on Wikipedia must be trustfull.OK.So if you say the truth about Dacia nobody will trust you?What is going on guys?It is about truth not Romanians nor Enlish.What we are doing over here is verifiing the facts which will bring us closer to the truth. Jacob Stirbu-Ann Arbor Michigan

You deleted the discussion so that no one would see the arguments against your posting of theories, which is a very dishonest tactic. I stand by what I wrote. Wikipedia is too present tried-and-true information. If you have your own theory, you should convince the scholarly community instead of talking about it here on Wikipedia, where you merely make articles less trustworthy and more reminiscent of cranks. Kricxjo 22:22 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi Jacob, I'm a Romanian myself, and I'm trying to be as neutral as I can be. I have to say Kricxjo is right, what you're saying is polemics, not verified facts, and this is an encyclopedic project, not a project debating the truth in whatever area. Please note neither Kricxjo nor myself are denying your theories a priori -- just back them up with some substance and everybody will be happy to see them included in the main article. Also, please don't take this personal, I can see you're very patriotic and I appreciate that, but please try to look at this from a NPOV and you'll see pure theories are not really what's expected in an encyclopedia. And finally, I'm sure you deleted the previous discussion only because you thought it wasn't needed anymore -- but Kricxjo is right again, as long as the topic is still debated, please don't delete anything else, it does indeed look like you wanted to remove the other party's replies. Gutza 02:07 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

================================================================================"To put an end to this disgraceful arrangement, Trajan resolved to crush the Dacians once and for all. The result of his first campaign (101-102) was the siege of the Dacian capital Sarmizegetusa, and the occupation of a part of the country; of the second (105-106), the suicide of Decebalus, the conquest of the whole kingdom and its conversion into a Roman province. The history of the war is given in Dio Cassius, but the best commentary upon it is the famous Column of Trajan in Rome. The province was limited to Transylvania and Oltenia. It was under a governor of praetorian rank, and Legio XIII Gemina with numerous auxiliaries had their fixed quarters in the province. To make up for the ravages caused by the recent wars colonists were imported to cultivate the land and work the mines, and the old inhabitants gradually returned. Forts were built as a protection against the incursions of the surrounding barbarians, and three great military roads were constructed to unite the chief towns, while a fourth, named after Trajan, traversed the Carpathians and entered Transylvania by the Roteturm pass. The chief towns of the province were Colonia Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (today Sarmizegetusa, Hunedoara county, Romania), Apulum (today Alba-Iulia, Alba county), Napoca (today Cluj-Napoca, Cluj county) and Potaissa (today Turda, Cluj county). With the religion the Dacians also adopted the language of the conquerors, modern Romanian language being a Romance language.

In 129, under Hadrian, Dacia was divided into Dacia Superior and Dacia Inferior, the former comprising Transylvania, the latter Little Walachia or Oltenia. Marcus Aurelius redivided it into three (tres Daciae): Porolissensis, from the chief town Porolissum (near Moigrad, Salaj county), Apulensis from Apulum and Malvensis from Malva (site unknown). The tres Daciae formed a commune in so far that they had a common capital, Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, and a common diet, which discussed provincial affairs, formulated complaints and adjusted the incidence of taxation; but in other respects they were practically independent provinces, each under an ordinary procurator, subordinate to a governor of consular rank.

  I deleted the disscution by mistake and I am sorry.It looks like both of you are missing the point.One of you seams to be against only becouse of"romanian"the other one in favor because of "romanian".Icoppied a text from Wikipedia only to show you my point.As you can see in the begining in the same phrase the author says that only a part of the country was occupated and the whole kingdom was conquered and transformed into a Roman province.Does any of you describe what hapened?And as you may see everibody is doing almost the same misteke.Take a map and try to see what hapened.It is not about some foolish theories,it is just a very simple question.How?I didn't make any afirmation.All I have written was an iterogation.You took it to personal.Why?There is someone anoyed by Romanians or by the weaknisses shown by some linguistic theories.Let's try to rewrite the article in a logical way and you will see that the house doesn't have a foundation.