/>/ 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?
No need to get so worked up about a topic when it's only religion. If
they were equal opportunity oppressors they would have treated both
groups in the same way. In the course of their using the Romanian
language, some reference to the words that you now find difficult would
have been inevitable.
What does the Romanian Academy have to say about the
_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)
Not that I support the right of any academy to regulate language - there
is no academy for English. Still the term that they tend to use in
their publications would be some kind of evidence.
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
Of course it's arbitrary. And of course etymological orthodoxy is not
implied by religious Orthodoxy. The real "conventional" name is the one
that everybody accepts, but the problem is that you have no convention.
I can now see that the Catholic version has Latin in the background, but
Greeks and Romans have been arguing over religious nothings for many
If reviewing all these question does not give *clear*
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?_
Since you mentioned it I made a point of re-reading the original post.
There's nothing to prevent you from accepting both forms as correct. If
I had wanted to suggest something cute I would have taken note that it
is a two part name, and split the baby down the middle with one part of
the name from each group.
For each article where the question is relevant, the
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
I see it as perfectly practical, and objective. Whoever started the
primary disputed article has earned the right to name it. I don't know
which version that person used, and I don't want to know. (I have no
intention to edit in Romanian, so my own personal preference doesn't
matter.) As you said the other form would redirect anyway. If another
person wants to link from another article, he should be free to use
whatever form he wants there. Internal consistency within an article
should still be encouraged. It certainly works with the huge number of
spelling variations that there are between British and American, and
that's without getting into Canadian, Australian, Indian, South African,
or Trinidadian variations.
You raised the question, and I think that all those who responded did so
in good faith, perhaps it would be a great exercise of Wikiquette to
recognize that fact. How you decide your question, will not affect
anything we do where we do it.