There are fun exploitable ambiguities, like how Russian Romani činel means both "cut down, mow" and "write." Or how English "enjoin" means itself and its opposite.

But then there are ambiguities that confuse me, make it impossible to know what you mean, and generally leave me feeling like a caveman trying to decide between cellphone providers. I submit that if you're writing about the languages of the balkans, you should just never use the word "Romanophone." That word means a) a speaker of a Romance language, b) a speaker of the Romanian language, c) a speaker of Romani, d) a speaker of Latin.

Any and all of these could come into play, in any and all combinations, when you're writing about Balkan languages. There have been people whose ancestors spoke Romance but now do not e.g. the Pannonians. There are the Albanians whose ancestors were bilingual in Latin at one point, but instead of switching to Latin like the ancestors of the Romanians, became monolingual in their local language. There are people in the Balkans, and in Romania even, who speak Romance languages other than Romanian. There have been Istroromanian-speaking Roma....

Why would you ever use the word "Romanophone" in this context unless you were secretly hoping that your ideas would remain a secret? Unless you were, say, trying to avoid taking a position as to whether Istroromanian, Aromanian and Meglenoromanian are separate languages from Romanian, the use of this word is about as graceful as a concussed ox trying to help a toddler rewire a fusebox.

No comments:

Post a Comment