Gutza wrote:

> The
> article in question is the one about Jesus. The Romanian (Eastern)
> Orthodox Church says that the name should be spelled "Iisus Hristos".
> Other religions in Romania (mainly Catholic branches) say that the
> Romanian name is Isus Cristos.
>
> Anyhow, the dispute is basically not about the language itself,
> because all religions who dispute the name do it in Romanian. On a
> side note, to put your mind at ease before you assume it as being the
> case, no Magyars are involved in the dispute itself.

I'm glad that you've clearly identified. I thought that your approach
in your approach in your first letter was needlessly evasive.
Personally, I was guessing something based on the speech differences
between Romanian and Moldovan, but now I realize that it has to do with
the Greeks and that there is no imminent Eskimo uprising in Timisoara.
:-) People do bring these issues out of nowhere when they are left to
guess about the problem.

Going with the majority (Google or otherwise) is never satisfactory.
That breeds the tyranny of the majority. In English these problems have
been numerous in relation to usages by the British and Americans.
French, Spanish and Portuguese also encounter differences between
European and New World versions.

I would be asking questions like: How does the secular press deal with
the issue? How was it dealt with in communist days? (Say what you might
about them, I can't imagine that an atheist organization would favour
one religion over the other.)

Ok, I might be wrong or subjective here (I'm actually fuming), but what *do* you imagine such an atheist organization would do? I am trying really hard not to be sarcastic here, so please excuse me if some sarcasm gets through, but what do you imagine an atheist organization would favor? Now now, let's keep things into perspective, think about an "atheist organization" which is trying to doctor you into believing whatever they say. Talk to me, Saintonge, you seem to know how this works, you tell me what such an organization does! If I may "say what I might", the way you put it, I will tell you that they DIDN'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT RELIGION! Sorry, was that too tough for your cute little theory? Then I will tell you a little more, Mr. Theory Man: not only did they give a shit about it, they actually resented it. They took down churches. They forced people to work during holy days. They changed the names of saints. They condemned you for cherishing your saints. Now you tell me, how can such an "atheist organization" relate to the discussion at hand?

What does the Romanian Academy have to say about the matter?

Nothing, they don't regulate these things. If they were somehow forced to actually take a stand, they would probably promote the BOR naming. (BOR = The Romanian Orthodox Church)

Is there such a thing as an "official" religion in Romania?

Yes, the Eastern Orthodox religion.

I can see that the Orthodox version is based on a transliteration from the Greek, but how did the other version come to be what it is. (Romanian, after all, is still a romance language.)

The "other" version came to be due to whatever reasons the Catholic Church in Romania decided. Can't you see that all this is more or less arbitrary? Do you really think that the BOR version is really what one would call "orthodox" in the ethimological sense? No, it's just a conventional name for the same religious and historical person, that's all.

If reviewing all these question does not give *clear* guidance, you should accept both.

Sorry to formulate it this way, but your solution is really cute. Did you actually take the time to read the original message?

For each article where the question is relevant, the first form introduced in that article should have precedence.

Sorry, I might be off on this one, but IMHO the sentence above doesn't say anything practical. Yes, the first form always has precedence because it's the first, but what do you mean? Honestly not being sarcastic.

Ec