# Romania / Rumania



## irinet

Hi,
As I found interesting motives behind my country's name in one of my recent posts here, I have decided to open a new one and see if there are other reasons of saying Ru-mania and Ru-manian and not Romania/ Romanians.
So, how do you people spell my country's name: Romania or Rumania and can you please explain the reasons for spelling it one way or another?
I have always translated it Ro-mania and Romanians and never thought of Rome or Romans except for a far remote origin. And neither I thought of other Romance links to this name.
Thank you,


----------



## ewie

Hullo Irinet.  It's generally spelt with an *o* in English these days.
My answer to your question is in this thread where it's explained that the now-obsolescent *u/ou* spellings in English are derived from the French version _(Roumanie)_ which has the vowel sound  rather than any form of [o].  Why French has that sound I don't know


----------



## sound shift

When I was too young to think about this sort of issue, I called it "Rumania", simply because that was what others were doing. Then for some reason "Romania" got the upper hand over "Rumania". We in Britain had no reason to change the spelling, so presumably we were given encouragement from outside . I've been using "Romania" for some time.


----------



## Nipnip

sound shift said:


> When I was too young to think about this sort of issue, I called it "Rumania", simply because that was what others were doing. Then for some reason "Romania" got the upper hand over "Rumania". We in Britain had no reason to change the spelling, so presumably we were given encouragement from outside . I've been using "Romania" for some time.



Do you pronounce different Romania and Rumania?

I say: Roo-me-nia. Almost like Roo-maniac.


----------



## sound shift

I write "Romania", but I say "Rumania": it rolls off the tongue more easily. Goodness knows what I'd say if the official name was still "The Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia".


----------



## irinet

Oh, I can see that the 'u' sound started from the French pronounciation of "Roumanie". It's kind of strange though, you pronounce 'u' but spell it with 'o'. I wonder what does France have to do with Romania to this context?
I can understand Bosnian for saying Rumunija for not mixing things up since they have mountains ' s name Romanija to the East of Sarajevo.


----------



## rusita preciosa

In Russian it it *Румыния* /roomyniya/, so it is *u* after the R, but I do not know the reason.


----------



## irinet

Thanks, Rusita. Was it always 'roomyniya'?


----------



## rusita preciosa

irinet said:


> Thanks, Rusita. Was it always 'roomyniya'?


I just checked the Russian Wiki and it seems it was always spelled that way (with the Cyrillic *у* pronounced like the English *oo* after the R). In the 19th century in Russian literature the territory of Romania ex-Transylvania was called (I'm transliterating from Russian) Moldo-Valakhia.

BTW, from Wiki I also just found out that Romanian was declared the official language of Moldova last month (Dec-2013).


----------



## Rallino

In Turkish:
The country is called *Romanya*, the people who live there are called *Rumen*, but many people wrongly use the word Romen, which technically means someone from Rome, Italy. It probably comes from French.


----------



## lingpil

rusita preciosa said:


> In Russian it it *Румыния* /roomyniya/, so it is *u* after the R, but I do not know the reason.



It's probably due to the French influence, which affects many names of different places in the Russian language. The explication for the German name Rumänien is maybe the same.


----------



## wildan1

irinet said:


> Oh, I can see that the 'u' sound started from the French pronounciation of "Roumanie". It's kind of strange though, you pronounce 'u' but spell it with 'o'.


The /u/ sound is always spelled in French with the letter cluster _ou_, unless it is a foreign word. Normally the single letter _u_ represents a different French vowel sound -- /y/. 

I always pronounce _Romania_ in English with an O-sound; I think that is more usual in American English.


----------



## irinet

That is I have always done, and surprisingly enough for me, I've noticed Rumania instead.
That is why, I asked here where this came from because I still have doubts about this usage with 'u'.


----------



## Perseas

In Greek it is _Ρουμανία_ (_Rumania_), probably from French. _Romania_ (_Ρωμανία_) is sometimes encountered as another term for Byzantium (East Roman Empire).

Edit: Perhaps the place of this thread should be in EHL forum.


----------



## merquiades

As I said in the other thread you opened I've always written Rumania and Rumanian but say something like /rɐmeiniɐ/.  I'm feeling too lazy to repeat myself but I'll hook on the article by Orbilat that gives a thorough background on the double spelling/usage.

By the way, for info, in Spanish it is Rumanía and Rumano


----------



## Nipnip

merquiades said:


> By the way, for info, in Spanish it is Rumanía and Rumano



True, I always say "Rumania", though.


----------



## irinet

merquiades said:


> As I said in the other thread you opened I've always written Rumania and Rumanian but say something like /rɐmeiniɐ/.  I'm feeling too lazy to repeat myself but I'll hook on the article by Orbilat that gives a thorough background on the double spelling/usage.
> 
> By the way, for info, in Spanish it is Rumanía and Rumano



Yes, Merquiades, you are right about your contribution to another thread of mine but with another topic. And I also stated that I shall open a new thread with this one which is normal I suppose. I need to double my thanks for your interesting link now!


----------



## merquiades

irinet said:


> Yes, Merquiades, you are right about your contribution to another thread of mine but with another topic. And I also stated that I shall open a new thread with this one which is normal I suppose. I need to double my thanks for your interesting link now!



No need for thanks.  I just put it here for people who aren't subscribed to the other thread.


----------



## irinet

It means that both variants, 'Romania' and 'Rumania' are valid.


----------



## Ben Jamin

From Wikipedia:
_Etymology of Romania (România)
Neacșu's Letter, the oldest surviving document written in Romanian has the oldest appearance of the word "Rumanian" 
The earliest preserved document written in the Romanian language is a 1521 letter that notifies the mayor of Brașov about an imminent attack by the Turks. This document is also notable for having the first occurrence of "Romanian" in a Romanian text, Wallachia being called here the Romanian Land—Țeara Rumânească (Țeara < Latin Terra = land). As in the case of the ethnonym "român/rumân", Romanian documents use both forms, Țara Românească and Țara Rumânească, for the country name.
 A common Romanian area embracing Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania is mentioned by the chronicler Miron Costin in the 17th century.[17]
 In the first half of the 18th century the erudite prince Dimitrie Cantemir systematically used the name Țara Românească for designating all three Principalities inhabited by Romanians.[18]
The name "România" as common homeland of the Romanians is documented in the early 19th century.[19]
The etymology of "România" didn't follow the Romanian pattern of word formation for country names, which usually adds the suffix -ia to the ethnonym, like in "grec" → "Grecia", "Bulgar" → "Bulgaria", "rus → "Rusia", etc. Since it is a self-designation, the word "România" has an older history, coming from "românie" which in turn resulted as a derivation of the word "român" by adding the suffix -ie, like in ""moș → moșie", "domn" → "domnie" or "boier" → "boierie" (lord → lordship). Initially, "românie" may indeed have meant "Romanianship", ( just like "rumânie" meant "serfdom" before disappearing) being then used in the eve of the 19th century to designate the common homeland of Romanians.
The name "Romania" (România) was first brought to Paris by young Romanian intellectuals in the 1840s, *where it was spelled "Roumanie" in order to differentiate Romanians (fr.: Roumains) from Romans (fr.: Romains).* The French spelling version (Roumanie) spread then over many countries, such as Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany.
 In English, the name of the country was originally borrowed from French "Roumania" (<"Roumanie"), then evolved into "Rumania", but was eventually replaced after World War II by the name used officially: "Romania". With a few exceptions such as English and Hungarian ("Románia"), in most languages, the "u" form is still used (German and Swedish: Rumänien; Bulgarian: Румъния; Serbian: Румунија / Rumunija, Polish: Rumunia, etc.). In Portuguese, to distinguish them from the Romans, the Romanians are called romenos and their country Roménia. The e reflects the distinct quality of the Romanian â, even though it's not very similar._


----------



## berndf

irinet said:


> As I found interesting motives behind my country's name in one of my recent posts here, I have decided to open a new one and see if there are other reasons of saying Ru-mania and Ru-manian and not Romania/ Romanians.


It is quite normal that spelling changes in original languages are not always reflected in loans in other languages. Especially if change is a relatively recent one. The name of the Principality of Wallachia, from which the name of the modern country is derived, was at least in the 18th century still officially spelled *Цѣра Рȣмѫнѣскъ* (_Țara Rumânească_) spelled with an omicron-upsilon ligature, *ȣ*, which represented the sound /u/ in the early Cyrillic alphabet used to write Romanian at the time. See e.g. this facsimile of the famous 18th century "Istoria Ţării R*u*mâneşti". Modern editions in Latin letters change the spelling to _R*o*mâneşti_, but not always (example).

EDIT: Crossed with #20.


----------



## Ben Jamin

berndf said:


> It is quite normal that spelling changes in original languages are not always reflected in loans in other languages. Especially if change is a relatively recent one. The name of the Principality of Wallachia, from which the name of the modern country is derived, was at least in the 18th century still officially spelled *Цѣра Рȣмѫнѣскъ* (_Țara Rumânească_) spelled with an omicron-upsilon ligature, *ȣ*, which represented the sound /u/ in the early Cyrillic alphabet used to write Romanian at the time. See e.g. this facsimile of the famous 18th century "Istoria Ţării R*u*mâneşti". Modern editions in Latin letters change the spelling to _R*o*mâneşti_, but not always (example).
> 
> EDIT: Crossed with #20.


This is consistent with the "re-latinization of the Romanian language" tendencies.


----------



## Nino83

In Italy we say Romanìa [roma'nia] and rumeno [ru'meno]. Romània [ro'mania] is the territory where Romance languages are spoken while romano [ro'mano] is a person resident in Rome. 

In Portuguese there is România (for Romance-speaking Europe) and Romênia (for Romania, Rumenia).


----------



## Walshie79

Everyone in Britain spells it with an "o", but you often hear people born before about 1960 pronounce it as "Rumania". Similarly the same people often say "the Ukraine" and "the Sudan" and you can still hear Malaysia called "Malaya" quite frequently.


----------



## jasio

In Polish it's "Rumunia" (and the people are "Rumuni" (sgl. "Rumun"). I do not know the etymology, although the name seems to be relatively new, especially considering that the names of Wołoszczyzna (Valacchia), Mołdawia (Moldova) and Siedmiogród (Transylvania) are very well established in Polish, even though not so often used nowadays.

As a contrast, in Polish Rome is called "Rzym", and Romans (both ancient, and modern) are "Rzymianie".


----------



## Lugubert

It probably won't mean very much to most of you that Swedish writes  Rumänien for the country. I'm inclined to think that we have adapted a  reading pronunciation. Our <u> isn't at all pronounced like all  your u's. The short <u> of Rumänien is a curiosity which just  slightly resembles the [ɵ] at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_vowel_chart_with_audio. (The long [ʉː] at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Close_central_rounded_vowel.ogg is even further away from what we use).


----------



## Apollodoros

Slovak: Rumunsko 
Czech: Rumunsko
I'd guess Slovak and Czech pronunciation and spelling with 'u' is influenced by German 'Rumänien'.

Greek: Ρουμανία (Rumanía)
Possibly influenced by French?


----------



## francisgranada

Apollodoros said:


> ... I'd guess Slovak and Czech pronunciation and spelling with 'u' is influenced by German 'Rumänien'.


 This doesn't explain the second "u" in Rum*u*n(sko). However, my question is if it is necessary to suppose influences of other languages (French, German...) in cases when there is "u" instead of "o" in the first syllable, when the proper Romanians used the spelling (supposedly the pronoiunciation as well) with "u"?

P.S. For a "Slavic ear" _rumân _may easiliy sound _rumun_.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Here are some excerpts from a lengthy article found at the Internet (Full text available on http://www.roconsulboston.com/Pages/InfoPages/Commentary/RomaniaName/Origin.html)

>> Excerpted from "What, if Anything, is a Byzantine?" by Clifton R. Fox, Professor of History - Tomball College (Texas), 1996  Source: http://afgen.com/what_is.html
Editorial Note: There is confusion regarding the origin of the name Romania given that it long appeared in history books and on maps as referring to an area currently encompassed by Bulgaria. This article provides a cogent explation of the evolution of the name.

…, medieval Westerners referred to the territory of the *Romaion *Empire with the name "*Romania*"[Romanland]. …, the city of Ravenna was the capital of the Romaion province of Italy, the headquarters of the Exarch.  (today's *Romagna*)
Western Europeans were not the only despoilers of the *Romaion *Empire to refer to it by the name of Rome. In the eleventh century, a branch of the Seljuk Turks established a Sultanate in Asia Minor carved out of land in Asia Minor. …  This Turkish state was called "*Rum*." from *Rome*. The Sultanate of Rum continued until after 1300 with its capital at Konya [Iconium].
 The later Ottoman Turks adopted the term "*Rumelia*" to designate the portions of the Balkan Peninsula that they acquired from the Romaioi in the fourteenth century. "… The name "Rumelia" survived into the nineteenth century. 
One might wonder why the name "Romania" became applied to the present nation called Romania. The association of the name "Romania" with the present nation "Romania"stems from the nineteenth century.  … How did Latin speakers find their way to this remote part of Europe north of the Danube River? Scholars developed the theory that the Vlachs were descended from Roman colonists and Latinized natives who lived in the area north of the Danube River during the second and third centuries AD. In the period, the region constituted the Roman province of Dacia. Whether the theory is right or not, it became the basis of Romanian nationalist feeling in the nineteenth century. The idea of a Roman descent gave Vlachs new pride in themselves. After Wallachia and Moldavia coalesced into a single entity in 1859, the name "Romania" was selected in 1862 to describe the combined state. At the time, Romanian unity and independence required the support of France under Emperor Napoleon III [1852-1870]. The "Latin connection" with France aided the Romanian cause by inspiring French interest in their "sister nation" of Romania. …  In light of the late date at which modern Romania acquired its name, it appears clear that earlier, the term "Romania" referred to the territory where the Greek speaking "Romaioi" lived. For more than a millennium, the state that we call, inaccurately, the Byzantine Empire was "Romania." After the end of the Empire, Greek speaking inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire continued to call themselves "Romaioi."<<


----------



## killerbee256

Ben Jamin said:


> Here are some excerpts from a lengthy article found at the Internet (Full text available on http://www.roconsulboston.com/Pages/InfoPages/Commentary/RomaniaName/Origin.html)
> 
> >> Excerpted from "What, if Anything, is a Byzantine?" by Clifton R. Fox, Professor of History - Tomball College (Texas), 1996  Source: http://afgen.com/what_is.html
> Editorial Note: There is confusion regarding the origin of the name Romania given that it long appeared in history books and on maps as referring to an area currently encompassed by Bulgaria. This article provides a cogent explation of the evolution of the name.
> 
> …, medieval Westerners referred to the territory of the *Romaion *Empire with the name "*Romania*"[Romanland]. …, the city of Ravenna was the capital of the Romaion province of Italy, the headquarters of the Exarch.  (today's *Romagna*)
> Western Europeans were not the only despoilers of the *Romaion *Empire to refer to it by the name of Rome. In the eleventh century, a branch of the Seljuk Turks established a Sultanate in Asia Minor carved out of land in Asia Minor. …  This Turkish state was called "*Rum*." from *Rome*. The Sultanate of Rum continued until after 1300 with its capital at Konya [Iconium].
> The later Ottoman Turks adopted the term "*Rumelia*" to designate the portions of the Balkan Peninsula that they acquired from the Romaioi in the fourteenth century. "… The name "Rumelia" survived into the nineteenth century.
> One might wonder why the name "Romania" became applied to the present nation called Romania. The association of the name "Romania" with the present nation "Romania"stems from the nineteenth century.  … How did Latin speakers find their way to this remote part of Europe north of the Danube River? Scholars developed the theory that the Vlachs were descended from Roman colonists and Latinized natives who lived in the area north of the Danube River during the second and third centuries AD. In the period, the region constituted the Roman province of Dacia. Whether the theory is right or not, it became the basis of Romanian nationalist feeling in the nineteenth century. The idea of a Roman descent gave Vlachs new pride in themselves. After Wallachia and Moldavia coalesced into a single entity in 1859, the name "Romania" was selected in 1862 to describe the combined state. At the time, Romanian unity and independence required the support of France under Emperor Napoleon III [1852-1870]. The "Latin connection" with France aided the Romanian cause by inspiring French interest in their "sister nation" of Romania. …  In light of the late date at which modern Romania acquired its name, it appears clear that earlier, the term "Romania" referred to the territory where the Greek speaking "Romaioi" lived. For more than a millennium, the state that we call, inaccurately, the Byzantine Empire was "Romania." After the end of the Empire, Greek speaking inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire continued to call themselves "Romaioi."<<


I think it has to with 2 thing; they never stopped calling themselves "roman" Vlachs is a name given to them by outsiders. And rejection of anything related to their neighbors, the "latin island in a slavic sea" mentality that has lead to a slow relatinization of the language. And as I'm sure you know in the early middle ages all of romance speaking (western) Europe called and thought of themselves as "Romania" for the same reason that the Greeks called themselves that.


----------



## irinet

Many thanks to your nice contributions!


----------



## Ben Jamin

killerbee256 said:


> I think it has to with 2 thing; *they never stopped calling themselves "roman"* Vlachs is a name given to them by outsiders. And rejection of anything related to their neighbors, the "latin island in a slavic sea" mentality that has lead to a slow relatinization of the language. And as I'm sure you know in the early middle ages *all of romance speaking (western) Europe called and thought of themselves as "Romania"* for the same reason that the Greeks called themselves that.



The information in *bold *in your text is new to me. Could you quote any sources?


----------



## killerbee256

Ben Jamin said:


> The information in *bold *in your text is new to me. Could you quote any sources?


The easiest to site are these.
"The self-designation of Romanians as Romans is mentioned in scholarly works as early as the 16th century by mainly Italian humanists travelling in Transylvania, Moldavia and Walachia. Thus, Tranquillo Andronico writes in 1534 that Romanians (Valachi) "now call themselves Romans"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Romania
Neacus's letter written in church slavic uses _Țeara Rumânească_ in 1521
"The word _Vlach_ is ultimately of Germanic origin, from the word _Walha_, "foreigner", "stranger", a name used by ancient Germanic peoples to refer to Romance-speaking..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valach#Etymology
"The name _Romagna_ comes from the Latin name _Romània_, which  originally was the generic name for "land inhabited by Romans", and  first appeared on Latin documents in the 5th century."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romagna 
Now what I wonder is if "Romania" or some from of it was used in the former Dacia the whole time or if it was reintroduced by the french in the 18th century.


----------



## Ben Jamin

killerbee256 said:


> The easiest to site are these.
> "The self-designation of Romanians as Romans is mentioned in scholarly works as early as the 16th century by mainly Italian humanists travelling in Transylvania, Moldavia and Walachia. Thus, Tranquillo Andronico writes in 1534 that Romanians (Valachi) "now call themselves Romans"."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Romania
> Neacus's letter written in church slavic uses _Țeara Rumânească_ in 1521
> "The word _Vlach_ is ultimately of Germanic origin, from the word _Walha_, "foreigner", "stranger", a name used by ancient Germanic peoples to refer to Romance-speaking..."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valach#Etymology
> "The name _Romagna_ comes from the Latin name _Romània_, which  originally was the generic name for "land inhabited by Romans", and  first appeared on Latin documents in the 5th century."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romagna
> Now what I wonder is if "Romania" or some from of it was used in the former Dacia the whole time or if it was reintroduced by the french in the 18th century.



Your quotations refer to earliest sources from the 16th century. So, I don't see enough foundation for the statement "*they never stopped calling themselves "roman" .
*Moreover, calling themselves Roman was truly done by a little bunch of scholars, having rediscovered their roots in the time of Renaissance. The question is what the people calles themselves.

Have you also any quotations for the other statement about all the peoples in the Mediterranean?


----------



## francisgranada

According to the Italian Wikipeadia, the toponym _Romagna_ (< lat. _Romania_)was used from the 6th century to distiguish the part of Italy belonging to Rome from that ruled by the Longobards. 

I think we are speaking about two things: the name of the country _Romania _(that seems to be a 19th century introduction) and the proper ethnonym _rumân/român. _The term _román/romance _(and variants) was used in other Romance languages as well before the birth of the modern Romance nations to distinguish the local "vulgar Romance" from the Latin language. For example in the 13th century Gonzalo Berceo, a writer in the monastery of San Millán de la Cogolla in Spain wrote:  _Quiero fer una prosa en román paladino, en el qual suele el pueblo fablar a su vecino. _I.e. he decided to write in "Spanish" (this term was not used then) and not in Latin. An other example is the _Rumantsch _language spoken in the southeastern Switzerland.

The expression _Țara Rumânească_ does not automatically imply the existence of the geographical name _Romania _in the 16th century.  

(However, I don't know how the Romanians called themselves around the 16th century and earlier)


----------



## Ben Jamin

francisgranada said:


> An other example is the _Rumantsch _language spoken in the southeastern Switzerland.


In't  _Rumantsch  _ an exonym?


----------



## francisgranada

Ben Jamin said:


> In't  _Rumantsch  _ an exonym?


No, at least not nowadays. In their own langage it's  _il rumantsch_ or _la lingua rumantscha. _In fact, the ending -_tsch s_uggests a German derivate, so historically it might be an exonym (I don't know the history of the usage of this word).The _Rumantsch _belongs to the so called Rhaeto-Romance languages spoken in the former Roman province of Rhaetia.

P.S. We have to be a bit careful because the concept of nation, nationality etc. in the past did not have the same importance/meaning as today. So e.g. even if Gonzalo Berceo (in my example #35) wrote and spoke _román_, this does not mean that he identified himself in the 13th century as a _Romano_ (in the sense of "nation"). He was rather a _Riojano _(Rioja is the name of the territory where the monastery of San Millán lies) speaking the local _Román _language. This may be somehow true also for the Romanians, i.e. their language, ethnical denomination and the countries/territories where they lived  could have names of different origin in the past (valachi, Valachia etc.)


----------



## killerbee256

francisgranada said:


> The expression _Țara Rumânească_ does not automatically imply the existence of the geographical name _Romania _in the 16th century.


 True, but I never implied that in fact as has already been said the idea of nation state didn't exist until very recently. All this says is that they used the term "roman" to identify themselves. 





Ben Jamin said:


> Your quotations refer to earliest sources from  the 16th century. So, I don't see enough foundation for the statement "*they never stopped calling themselves "roman" .
> *Moreover, calling themselves Roman was truly done by a little  bunch of scholars, having rediscovered their roots in the time of  Renaissance. The question is what the people calles themselves.
> 
> Have you also any quotations for the other statement about all the peoples in the Mediterranean?


 And yes with Romanian we have the issue of no early sources, which is why this is such a huge debate. I did read before the term "Romania" was used early, in a book on Romance languages even, but I can't remember the title. If I still has access to my university's library I could find it but that's several thousand miles away now.


----------



## francisgranada

killerbee256 said:


> ... All this says is that they used the term "roman" to identify themselves.  And yes with Romanian we have the issue of no early sources sources, which is why this is such a huge debate ...


I agree, however in general, there may be a difference between how one calls his own language and the term one uses to indetify himself (as nation/people or something like this). So the question is if the Romanian speaking persons in the historical Valachia, Bessarabia (Moldavia), Ardeal (Transylvania) ... really indentified themselves as _rumân/român. _And also, if they called their language _limba română _(or a variant of this), or other terms were used. 

P.S. To give a "modern" example: not all the native English speaking people identify themselves as _English _...


----------



## tysonm

killerbee256 said:


> The easiest to site are these.
> "The self-designation of Romanians as Romans is mentioned in scholarly works as early as the 16th century by mainly Italian humanists travelling in Transylvania, Moldavia and Walachia. Thus, Tranquillo Andronico writes in 1534 that Romanians (Valachi) "now call themselves Romans"."
> Name of Romania - Wikipedia
> Neacus's letter written in church slavic uses _Țeara Rumânească_ in 1521
> "The word _Vlach_ is ultimately of Germanic origin, from the word _Walha_, "foreigner", "stranger", a name used by ancient Germanic peoples to refer to Romance-speaking..."
> Vlachs - Wikipedia
> "The name _Romagna_ comes from the Latin name _Romània_, which  originally was the generic name for "land inhabited by Romans", and  first appeared on Latin documents in the 5th century."
> Romagna - Wikipedia
> Now what I wonder is if "Romania" or some from of it was used in the former Dacia the whole time or if it was reintroduced by the french in the 18th century.


..interesting you should mention Walha (a V sound)- the Dacians of the same area were known to be fearless in battle due to their strong belief in reincarnation. Valhalla was like a Pagan heaven in Germanic and Norse Paganism. Seems more than fitting that the Germans would refer to them as Walha. (To me this indicates it could refer to people who fight with integrity).. Meaning of words change over time. Sound and the ideas connected to the sounds however seem slightly more concrete.


----------



## Awwal12

lingpil said:


> It's probably due to the French influence, which affects many names of different places in the Russian language. The explication for the German name Rumänien is maybe the same.


Romanian "român" [roˈmɨn] ("Romanian") is basically an _invented_ word of the 19th century, coming from the literary language, in an obvious atttempt to assert the Roman heritage (a result of "re-Latinization", as Wiktionary formulates it). The natural, regular development of the Latin "romanus" in Romanian is "rumân" (= "rumîn") [ruˈmɨn], which remained in limited use both as an endonym for various East Romance communities and as an exonym, whence Russian "румын" [ɾʊˈmɨn] ("a Romanian") and, ultimately, "Румыния" [ɾʊˈmɨnʲɪə]. No loan from German or French could produce "ы" [ɨ] in Russian, that's for certain; it looks like a direct loan from Romanian into East Slavic languages (which is really unsurprising, taking the geography into account).


----------



## Penyafort

I'm surprised though that, just like the names of Spain and Italy were reinstated for similar purposes, they didn't do the same with the name of Dacia. If I remember rightly, the term already encompassed Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldavia in Roman times.


----------



## Awwal12

Penyafort said:


> I'm surprised though that, just like the names of Spain and Italy were reinstated for similar purposes, they didn't do the same with the name of Dacia. If I remember rightly, the term already encompassed Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldavia in Roman times.


At least the Roman province of Dacia was definitely smaller. Anyway, re-Latinization is one thing, but reinstating the long-forgotten name would be something different.


----------



## danielstan

Awwal12 said:


> Romanian "român" [roˈmɨn] ("Romanian") is basically an _invented_ word of the 19th century, coming from the literary language, in an obvious atttempt to assert the Roman heritage (a result of "re-Latinization", as Wiktionary formulates it). The natural, regular development of the Latin "romanus" in Romanian is "rumân" (= "rumîn") [ruˈmɨn], which remained in limited use both as an endonym for various East Romance communities and as an exonym, whence Russian "румын" [ɾʊˈmɨn] ("a Romanian") and, ultimately, "Румыния" [ɾʊˈmɨnʲɪə]. No loan from German or French could produce "ы" [ɨ] in Russian, that's for certain; it looks like a direct loan from Romanian into East Slavic languages (which is really unsurprising, taking the geography into account).


Indeed Latin "romanus" evolved to Romanian "rumân" (= "rumîn") [ruˈmɨn] and to Aromanian  "armân" [arˈmɨn] (in Aromanian an "a" is prepended to words starting by "r"). Even today in rural Oltenia the term "rumân" is used by older generation with more of a social meaning ("peasant") than ethnic meaning (an Oltenian woman may refer to her husband as "rumânul meu").

For the direct loan from Romanian "rumân" to Russian "румын" [ɾʊˈmɨn] I think this was happening via diplomatic channels in the middle of the 19th century, especially during the peace negociations after the Crimean War (1853-1856) when a French proposal of United Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia was discussed. This proposal (which resulted in the unification of 1859 and the adoption of the country name "Romania" in 1861) was subject to press articles and international negociations between the Great Powers. At the time Russian Empire had diplomats in Bucharest and Jassy since 1792, had Russian officials in Bessarabia since 1812, thus plenty of Russian speaking well educated people who could have loaned this word from the Romanian population and transmitted it in writing as "румын" to Sankt Petersburg.
Note: the term "Bessarabia" appeared during the Russo-Turkish war 1806-1812 in the diplomatic correspondance between Russian Empire and Ottoman Empire and also in the Russo-French negociations at the time.
Compare with present time terms of "Kosovo/kosovar" which appeared in European mass media around 1998.

Regarding the loan of "român"/"rumân" in the Western Europe, 2 aspects need consideration:
- the need to distinguish it from the term "roman" (inhabitant of the Roman Empire), so some countries preferred the "rumân" loanword
- the lack of sound "â" [ɨ] in Western European languages, which resulted in all the variants enumerated in the beginning of this thread (_rom*e*no_, _roum*a*no_, _roum*ai*n _etc.)


----------



## Awwal12

danielstan said:


> For the direct loan from Romanian "rumân" to Russian "румын" [ɾʊˈmɨn] I think this was happening via diplomatic channels in the middle of the 19th century, especially during the peace negociations after the Crimean War (1853-1856)


Surely earlier, especially considering that the Russian Empire directly bordered the principality of Moldavia since 1792.

"Румыния" ("Romania") seems to appear in the Russian corpus in 1829, "румынский" (adj. "Romanian") in 1833 and "румын" ("a Romanian") in 1848.


----------



## Penyafort

In Catalan, the first attestations of the name Romania seem to be in the Catalan Chronicles of the 13th and 14th centuries. But then it was referred to the Eastern Empire, maybe taken from the Greek _Ῥωμανία_.

_Per aquela terra de la Morea cuydà gasayar lo rey Karles tota _*Romania *_e destruir los crestians grecs._​Through those lands of Morea, king Charles thought he would conquer the whole Romania and would destroy the Greek Christians.​​The modern use probably entered the language in the late 19th century and started to appear in the early 20th. It's hard to find out whether the first ones where Romania or Rumania, partly because _romania_ in Catalan also means 'stayed' and that's how it mostly appears in texts, and partly because both pronunciations are correct, depending on whether it's Western Catalan /o/ or Eastern Catalan /u/. But the adjective, romanès, does indeed appear both with u and o instances in the 1910s.

Nowadays, though, it's always written with o, probably because it allows to be read in the two ways. So we have:

*-Romania *[rumə'niə / roma'nia] 'the country' - adj. *romanès *[rumə'nεs / roma'nεs]
-Romània [ru'maniə / ro'mania] 'the Romance-speaking sphere' - adj. romànic
-Romanya [ru'maɲə / ro'maɲa] 'Romagna, the region in Italy' - adj. romanyès [rumə'ɲεs / roma'ɲεs]


----------



## Olaszinhok

Penyafort said:


> But the adjective, romanès, does indeed appear both with u and o instances in the 1910s.



 Also in Italian we have two forms for Romanian *rumeno* and *romeno* and both are common, while the country is called Roman*i*a


----------



## francisgranada

danielstan said:


> Indeed Latin "romanus" evolved to Romanian "rumân" (= "rumîn") [ruˈmɨn] and to Aromanian  "armân" [arˈmɨn] (in Aromanian an "a" is prepended to words starting by "r"). Even today in rural Oltenia the term "rumân" is used by older generation with more of a social meaning ("peasant") than ethnic meaning (an Oltenian woman may refer to her husband as "rumânul meu").


 Ok, but as far as I know, the orthography "_rumîn" _was changed to "_român_" artificially, changing "u" to "o" and inventing a new letter "_â" .... _Excuse me and correct me if I am mistaken. 



> For the direct loan from Romanian "rumân" to Russian "румын" [ɾʊˈmɨn] I think this was happening via diplomatic channels ....



Independently on the  diplomatic channels, from the linguistic/phonetic point of view the  Russian form румын  seems  to reflect very well the pronunciation of the proper Rumanian "_rumîn"...._ Further more_, _ in the Western Slavic (Czech, Polish, Slovak) the corresponding term is "rumun" and not  e.g. "***roman". 



> Regarding the loan of "român"/"rumân" in the Western Europe, 2 aspects need consideration: ....


In my opinion the  forms _r*u*mano, r*u*meno, r*ou*main, r*u*mänisch, r*u*mun_, _р*у*мын _etc .... simply seem to derive directly  ("spontaneously") from the pronounced form of the proper Romanian _r*u*mîn ....* 

********************_
I have a question: What is the oldest attested/documented form of the ethnonym Romanian ? (independently on orthography, of course)


----------



## danielstan

francisgranada said:


> I have a question: What is the oldest attested/documented form of the ethnonym Romanian ? (independently on orthography, of course)


The oldest attestation of the ethnonym Romanian is in a Slavonic document of 1489 where a boyar _Bodea *Rumărul*_ - "The Romanian" is mentioned (to be distinguished from another boyar _Bodea *Srăb*_*ul* - "The Serb"):
Bodea Rumărul dintr-un hrisov al lui Ștefan cel Mare, emis la Suceava pe 13 martie 1489 (6997)

Note the cyrillic alphabet used in Romanian documents (inspired from the medieval Bulgarian alphabet) did not have a letter for the sound "â" [ɨ], thus what is spelled _Bodea Rum*ă*rul_ must be read as  _Bodea Rum*â*rul_.
The 2nd "r" in _Rumă*r*ul_  is an original "n" transformed in "r" (rhotacism) in some regions inhabited by Romanians (the Romanian texts written in  Maramureș since XVI century have plenty of such examples: Rotacism).

The oldest attestation of this ethnonym ("_Țeara Rumânească_") in a document written in Romanian is from 1521 (Neacșu's letter).

The first religious books printed by Coresi in XVI century contained the ethnonim _"r*u*mân" _(_"să înveațe *rumânii *cine-s creștini"): Diaconul Coresi, Evangheliar românesc, Brașov, 1561_
The son of Coresi printed in 1582 such a book containing the ethnonym _"r*o*mân" ("pe întru întrământura Beseareceei Sfântâ a *românilor*")_ (obviously, an artificial word): Palia de la Orăștie, 1582

Printing religious books by Romanians was done in the beginning under the influence of the Reform (Hussites) in Maramureș and other regions of Transylvania. Surely the Romanian editors (Coresi and others) were aware of the Latin origin of their people and probably they tried a re-Latinization of "r*u*mân" to "r*o*mân".


----------



## francisgranada

Hello danielstan !

Thank you very much for your detailed and very interesting answer to my  question!

(I knew only the _Scrisoarea lui Neacşu _ [The Neacsu's letter], but I did not know anything about the other documents you have mentioned)


----------



## danielstan

francisgranada said:


> (I knew only the _Scrisoarea lui Neacşu _ [The Neacsu's letter], but I did not know anything about the other documents you have mentioned)


Well, in general the oldest surviving documents in Romanian belong to 3 categories:
- personal letters (like _Neacşu's_) which are precious because they use the spoken Romanian, without any litterary licences
- administrative documents (acts of land purchase, royal confirmations of land ownership etc.) which have a legal style, following a certain pattern and not bringing much info about the spoken Romanian of their time
- religious works in manuscript or printed, which are also precious because they have a rich content (where a linguist could make statistics on the various forms of a specific word, like _"r*u*mân"/"r*o*mân")._

The religious books must be studied with care because usually these are translations of the Bible from Slavic, Hungarian or Greek. Sometimes they follow too close the original in word-by-word translations which result in unusual sentences in Romanian. At the time the editor took a great risk to be considered "heretic" if the translation would have been considered (by the Orthodox priests) as a missinterpretation of the Bible. 

The problem debated here (the oldest attestation of the ethnonym  _"r*u*mân"/"r*o*mân"_) was studied by various Romanian lingvists and was subject of some articles (I read some of them pointing me to the documents I mentioned). They all conclude the normal outcome of Latin _romanus_ is Romanian "r*u*mân" while "r*o*mân" is an invented word used by educated people in litterary works.


----------



## OBrasilo

Slovenian eems to be an outlier, as it's the only Slavic language where Romanian has an o: _Romun_, _Romunija_. No idea why that is.


----------



## Awwal12

francisgranada said:


> Ok, but as far as I know, the orthography "_rumîn" _was changed to "_român_" artificially, changing "u" to "o" and inventing a new letter "_â"_


"Â" and "î" are different orthographic ways to describe the same phoneme /ɨ/. Before 1904, in fact, that phoneme was written etymologically by up to 5 different letters (â, ê, î, û, and ô). In that light the change must have been deliberate but still largely irrelevant. The change from "u" to "o", on the other hand, actually created a new word.


----------



## Linnets

Nino83 said:


> In Italy we say Romanìa [roma'ni:a] and rumeno [ru'mɛ:no]. Romània [ro'ma:nja] is the territory where Romance languages are spoken while romano [ro'ma:no] is a person resident in Rome.


There were some errors in the quoted post (I marked them in red); however it's worth noting that _Romania_/_Rumania_ and _romeno_/_rumeno_ are all in use (although _Rumania_ sounds a bit old fashioned); they are rather recent words since in Italian the country was historically called _Valacchia_ [vaˈlakkja] and the ethnonym was _valacco _[vaˈlakko].


----------



## Olaszinhok

Linnets said:


> (although _Rumania_ sounds a bit old fashioned)


I have never heard it in all my life in Italian, only in Spanish.  Regards Valacchia, it is just a historical region of Romania for me.  Probably I am both too young and too uneducated.   
However, I reckon this article is interesting indeed:
Si dice romeno o rumeno? - Consulenza Linguistica - Accademia della Crusca


----------



## Linnets

Olaszinhok said:


> I have never heard it in all my life in Italian, only in Spanish.


I found it in some old books (around the half of XX century).



Olaszinhok said:


> Regards Valacchia, it is just a historical region of Romania for me.  Probably I am both too young and too uneducated.


Don't worry, it was used two-three centuries ago.  
Now it refers only to Țara Românească, as you correctly wrote.


----------



## symposium

Actually, the country we now call Romania was most commonly referred to in modern times as "Danube Principalities" (Principautés danubiennes/ Principati danubiani etc.).


----------



## Linnets

symposium said:


> Actually, the country we now call Romania was most commonly referred to in modern times as "Danube Principalities" (Principautés danubiennes/ Principati danubiani etc.).


You're right, I checked Battaglia, Battisti & Alessio, and Nocentini: both _romeno_/_rumeno_/_rumano_ and _valacco_ date back to the XIX century, not before.


----------



## Penyafort

Olaszinhok said:


> Regards Valacchia, it is just a historical region of Romania for me.  Probably I am both too young and too uneducated.


But it's the quintessential one. Just like many people refer to the UK as England or the Netherlands as Holland, for much of European late Medieval and early Modern history, Romanians have been called Vlachs. In fact, that's what you're going to find in most texts previous to the 20th century.


----------



## Olaszinhok

Penyafort said:


> Just like many people refer to the UK as England


Yes, of course, but I don't think Welsh and particularly Scottish people would be pleased with that kind of denomination.


----------



## francisgranada

Olaszinhok said:


> Regards Valacchia, it is just a historical region of Romania for me.  Probably I am both too young and too uneducated.    .....


You surely know that the term _Olasz _means _Italian _in Hungarian. The same is valid for _Oláh _ which was used to denote the Romanian speaking people during centuries, practically until the I. World War.  I do not know the exact history of the word _Román _in Hungarian, however the official decision to use _Román _instead of _Oláh _was politically motivated, i.e. not spontaneous.

As to _Oláh _and _Olasz,  _from the linguistical point of view, both these words come from the Slavic _Vlach_, plural _Vlasi_, which derive from Germanic _Walah, Walh_, etc. Finallly, they are words of Celtic origin through Latin.  The term _Valacchia _is of the same etymological origin, of course.  As far as I know, before the Turkic  invasion in Europe,  no State or political entity did exist with the name _Romania_.

In Sovakia (historically part of Hungary), but also in Moravia (now part of the Czech Republic) there are  toponyms that contain the word_ Vlach, Valach_, e.g. :_ Spišské Vlachy, Valašské Meziříčí_.


----------



## apmoy70

^^
And in 18th - (early) 19th c. Greek, the Danubian principalities (which for the most part of their Ottoman history, had a Greek sovereign in charge) were called _Μολδοβλαχία_, something like _Moldova-Wallachia_


----------



## danielstan

apmoy70 said:


> ^^
> And in 18th - (early) 19th c. Greek, the Danubian principalities (which for the most part of their Ottoman history, had a Greek sovereign in charge) were called _Μολδοβλαχία_, something like _Moldova-Wallachia_


That's because in the Middle Ages there was a Wallachia at South of Danube, inhabited by Aromanians and which, at some historical stage, gained a kind of statehood.
For the same reason _Țara Românească_ was called in the internal documents (written in Slavonic language) _Ungro Vlahia / Ugro Vlahia _(Wallachia from Hungary) to be distinguished from the others Wallachias at the time.
See the seal of Michael the Brave (circa 1600): Sigiliul lui Mihai Viteazul.jpg with the Slavonic inscription:
"IO Mihail Ugrovlahiskoi voevod Ardealskoi (i) Mold(avskoi) Zemli"


----------



## Perseas

danielstan said:


> That's because in the Middle Ages there was a Wallachia at South of Danube, inhabited by Aromanians and which, at some historical stage, gained a kind of statehood.
> For the same reason _Țara Românească_ was called in the internal documents (written in Slavonic language) _Ungro Vlahia / Ugro Vlahia _(Wallachia from Hungary) to be distinguished from the others Wallachias at the time.
> See the seal of Michael the Brave (circa 1600): Sigiliul lui Mihai Viteazul.jpg with the Slavonic inscription:
> "IO Mihail Ugrovlahiskoi voevod Ardealskoi (i) Mold(avskoi) Zemli"


Μολδοβλαχία simply means Μολδαβία (Moldava) and Βλαχία (Wallachia). The region south of Danube was not part of that region.


----------



## francisgranada

I have two questions (probably for danielstan):

1. As the Romanian people were identified/denoted in written documents and in toponyms quite exclusively by terms derived from _Vlah, Vlach, Valach, Wallach, etc..._, I'd like to know whether also the proper Romanians in the past identified themselves as _valachi, valahi,_ or something similar ?

My question is about the self-denomination (endoethnonym), not about the name of the Romanian language, etc. that we have already discussed before.

2. When we speak about the Slavonic influence on Romanian language, which Slavic language has to be considered?

For example, the famous _Neacşu's letter _begins with an introduction in Slavic/Slavonic language. Which concrete Slavic language it is? Is it still some variant  of the _Old Church Slavonic_, or rather a concrete Slavic spoken language around the 16th century in the _Țara Rumânească _? .....


----------



## Linnets

Check this article.


----------



## danielstan

Perseas said:


> Μολδοβλαχία simply means Μολδαβία (Moldava) and Βλαχία (Wallachia). The region south of Danube was not part of that region.


I beg to differ. Here are few documents where the country name *Moldovlahia *is mentioned in contexts related to a single country (Moldova), not Moldova + Wallachia:

Document in Slavonic from 1407:
Iosif Mușat, mitropolitul Moldovlahiei (document din 7 ianuarie 1407)
(Slavonic text: "[С(вѧ)тѣишїи митропоʌит(ъ) кyр(ъ) Iωсифъ *Моʌдавʌахїискыи*]."
Translation: Holy metropolit Sir Iosif the Moldovlahian)

Document in Greek printed around 1716, about the voivod Ioan Mihail Racoviță "ruler of the whole Moldovlahia" (he was the ruler (voivod) of Moldova alone, not Moldova + Wallachia):
Nicolae Chiparissa, Descrierea luptelor lui Mihai Racoviță cu austriecii în 1716-1717


----------



## Perseas

danielstan said:


> Document in Greek printed around 1716, about the voivod Ioan Mihail Racoviță "ruler of the whole Moldovlahia" (he was the ruler (voivod) of Moldova alone, not Moldova + Wallachia):
> Nicolae Chiparissa, Descrierea luptelor lui Mihai Racoviță cu austriecii în 1716-1717


As to the passage in Greek:
I don't read that he was ruler only of Moldova.


----------



## danielstan

Perseas said:


> As to the passage in Greek:
> Yes, he was ruler of the whole Moldovlahia, i.e. Moldova *and* Wallachia.


Mihai Racoviță - Wikipedia - he was a Phanariot who ruled over Moldova and over Wallachia, but not simultaneously. Anyway, if this example is ambiguous for your claim, consider the document of 1407. If you insist I could find more such unequivocal documents from XV century, but I sustain here that a concept of Moldovlahia meaning "*Moldova + Wallachia*" was *not *a political project, neither a political reality until the 19th century.

Here is an article about Μεγάλη Βλαχία - the Great Wallachia located South of Danube which was a state in the 12nd century: 
Great Vlachia - Wikipedia
It is so obvious that in the next centuries the documents related to _Țara Românească_ and _Moldova_, written in Slavonic, made a distinction from this Great Wallachia, while later, when Great Wallachia was forgotten, the country names UngroVlahia and MoldoVlahia were still used due to the tradition.
We are speaking of official documents issued by the chancellary of the voivod and such documents followed a certain pattern for their legal aspects and historical tradition.


----------



## Perseas

danielstan said:


> Mihai Racoviță - Wikipedia - he was a Phanariot who ruled over Moldova and over Wallachia, but not simultaneously. Anyway, if this example is ambiguous for your claim, consider the document of 1407. If you insist I could find more such unequivocal documents from XV century, but I sustain here that a concept of Moldovlahia meaning "*Moldova + Wallachia*" was *not *a political project, neither a political reality until the 19th century.
> 
> Here is an article about Μεγάλη Βλαχία - the Great Wallachia located South of Danube which was a state in the 12nd century:
> Great Vlachia - Wikipedia
> It is so obvious that in the next centuries the documents related to _Țara Românească_ and _Moldova_, written in Slavonic, made a distinction from this Great Wallachia, while later, when Great Wallachia was forgotten, the country names UngroVlahia and MoldoVlahia were still used due to the tradition.
> We are speaking of official documents issued by the chancellary of the voivod and such documents followed a certain pattern for their legal aspects and historical tradition.


I still don't understand why you mix the rulers of the Danubian Principalities with Greater Vlahia, which was a province in southeastern Thessaly in the late 12th century according to the link.


----------



## danielstan

francisgranada said:


> I have two questions (probably for danielstan):
> 
> 1. ... I'd like to know whether also the proper Romanians in the past identified themselves as _valachi, valahi,_ or something similar ? ...
> 
> 2. When we speak about the Slavonic influence on Romanian language, which Slavic language has to be considered?
> ...


1. No, Romanians did not identify themselves with any ethnonym derived from Vlachs, Wallachians or so.
It would be difficult for me to prove this with links to some documents or sites, because you are asking about a negative fact (which would require the inspection of the entire Romanian litterary corpus from 1521 to 19th century).
Anyway, would they called themselves "Vlachs" this would have been mentioned in some Wikipedia articles related to the ethnonym _"rumân"/"român"_...
2. Slavonic language is a generic term used to describe the chancellary language used in Wallachia and Moldova for the official documents.
Here is a link in Romanian: Limba slavonă - Wikipedia

It's worth mentioning this language was based on _Old Church Slavonic_, which on its turn was based on the Bulgarian dialect spoken in the Ohrid - Salonica area.
The term "limba slavona" used in Romanian historiography means more accurately "Old Slavonic Church language of Romanian redaction" - here emphasizing that the Romanian grammarians which were using this language were deviating from its Standard during centuries because of 2 main aspects:
- they knew approximatively OCS from the books and documents they were reading (from archives or from neighbouring countries), so that some Romanian calques can be found in the documents they produced
- centuries after centuries the new generations of grammarians were relying more on the documents found in Wallachian and Moldovan archives in order to learn OCS than on original documents issued in this language some centuries before.
- a 3rd aspect is the loanwords they introduced from the neighboring Slavic languages, e.g. from Serbian, Ukrainian etc. in the documents they wrote

For the Romanian calques I have one example:
- the accusative case formed with Romanian "_pe_" (< lat. _per_) is sometimes used with the Slavic "_po_" which is certainly a deviation from OCS (* note with examples)
For the loss of original OCS I could cite the case of UgroVlahia name which was originally spelled UggroVlahia (XIV century) and was read "UngroVlahia" following the Greek pattern of double GG (gamma) read as "NG". In the XVI century UgroVlahia (with single G) was the norm.

(*) examples of Slavonic accusative with "po":
https://www.diacronia.ro/ro/indexing/details/A14645/pdf
Page 574:
"_kako est pomiloval Radul voevoda *po *jupan Dragul" _
which in Romanian is:_ "cum a miluit Radul vodă *pe *jupân Dragul"_


----------



## danielstan

Perseas said:


> I still don't understand why you mix the rulers of the Danubian Prinipalities with Greater Vlahia, which was a province in southeastern Thessaly in the late 12th century according to the link.


Because this is a reasonable explanation of why they felt the need to name their respective countries "UngroVlahia", respectively "MoldoVlahia" instead of saying simply "Vlahia" and "Moldova".
The oldest surviving documents (written in Slavonic) from Wallachia and Moldova are from XIV century.
But surely the rulers of these countries were emitting official documents during XII and XIII century when Greated Vlahia was a political reality, thus at those times they needed to differentiate, while centuries afterwoods the historical tradition made them keep this differentiation until XVIII and possibly XIX century.

Note: what do I mean by "tradition" in writing official documents is:
- a grammarian from the XIV century, when conceiving an official document, surely was looking in the archive to documents of similar topics written in the XII and XIII century and he was immitating the style, some dedicated formulae in the beginning and the end of the document etc.

As example, Romanian voivods were using a nobiliary particle "IO" (spelled with Greek letters) in front of their names, while in the XIV century some were using the particle "IOAN". Historians believe they were referring to an important ancestor ruler which probably was Ioan Caloian, although a voivod from the XIX century did not know it.


----------



## Perseas

danielstan said:


> Because this is a reasonable explanation of why they felt the need to name their respective countries "UngroVlahia", respectively "MoldoVlahia" instead of saying simply "Vlahia" and "Moldova".


Nikolaos Maurokordatos became the first sovereign of Wallachia in 1709 and Moldavia in 1710. This is clearly about the Danubian Principalities, isn't it?


----------

