Language & Identity

In regards to Natalia and her disagreement with your decision to describe people from here as "Romanian-Moldovans" and "Russian-Moldovans,"

I have to say that, on this count at least, I come down on her side.

In the last census which was carried out in Moldova (late 2004/early 2005) people were asked to describe their nationality. Something like 75-76% described themselves as being "Moldovan." About 6% described themselves as being Russian, maximum 9% as being Ukrainian, and only about 2% opted to call themselves “Romanian”.

The idea of a Moldovan national identity is pretty strong and relatively deeply rooted. For example, my boss. She speaks Russian as her first language, though speaks Moldovan/Romanian reasonably well (though, from a grammatical standpoint, I speak it even more cleanly than she does…)

I met her for the first time about two years ago. Back then I asked her (in Moldovan/Romanian) ... so you are Russian, right ? She said, I consider myself a Moldovan. When she met some friends of mine in Romania a couple of months back (she wanted to convince other people there to teach various languages at her center here ...) she, when asked by a Romanian friend of mine if she considers herself Russian explained that she has no relatives from Russia -- all her relatives are from…Moldova.

I just met her mother and she speaks, I can say fairly, zero Moldovan/Romanian. (Well, maybe she knows 20 words.) I also just found out that her father speaks Md/Ro. as his first language, but also knows Russian well. So at home, they just spoke in Russian. She studied in Russian until 9th grade, after which she studied in Md/Ro. She studies economics (she is thinking of switching to politics) part-time at a University and gets very good marks. I believe she studies in Md/Ro there.

This stuff is typical -- I know a kid who told me that he spoke Md/Ro. as his first language, but always studied Russian in school, always had Russian-speaking friends and has been going to Moscow for some time every year for the last 10 years so that he tells me he knows Russian better than Md/Ro language now. (And its true as I occasionally hear him making a mistake in Md/Ro.) I have other acquaintances who went to Russian-language kindergartens but who subsequently studied in Md/Ro language. Whatever language they know better, they still know the other one at least reasonably ok. And they all describe themselves as Moldovan. This national identity is well-established in (at least) the minds of 75% or a bit more of the population. Interestingly enough, if you add up the percentages of Moldovans, Russians, Ukrainians & Romanians which I mentioned above (I might be off by 1% in one or two of the groupings,) you get something like 92% of the population. The Gagauzi are about 3.3%, Bulgarians 1.9%, Romani/Ashkali (Gypsies) 2% ... Jews 1%, etc, etc, etc. Of course its possible, for example, to be a Jew of Bulgarian nationality who lives in Moldova so there is some overlap there…

In regards to the differences between "Moldovan" and "Romanian," long books could be (and have been) written about this. Essentially, they are 2 different names for the same thing, but the differences might be slightly larger than the ones between the version of English spoken in, lets say, New Zealand and the one spoken in, oh, I dont know, Alabama (Ive never been to either, for the record:)

Here follows a few grammatical differences which clearly do not make "Moldovan" and "Romanian" different languages, but show how this common language evolved along different paths in two separate countries, Moldova and Romania…

Are you ready for a short lesson in Md/Ro language ? No … well too bad :

In Md/Ro language the word "trebuie" means need. If a dative pronoun is put in front of it, it means I need, you need, he/she, etc needs. Otherwise it means I need to (do something) you need to do something, etc …

In Romania, you learn that, when combined with another verb, "trebuie" can be used in three different ways …

Aceasta trebuie facuta (This needs to be done.)

Aceasta trebuie sa se faca (This needs to be done.)

Aceasta trebuie sa fie facuta (This needs to be done.)

Thats it ... these are the three ways. IN ROMANIA.

In Moldova, another form exists, and it is used either the most or the second most. In Romania, this form simply does not exist and is considered by linguists from there to be a mistake.

"Aceasta trebuie de facut." (This needs to be done.)

I have made a similar observation in regards to the word "se poate" (it is possible)

In Romania, you are told that, when combined with another word "se poate" can be used in a number of different ways ...

For example: "Se poate ca aceasta sa se consume" (It is possible for this to be consumed.)

"Aceasta se poate consuma." (it is possible for this to be consumed.)

"Aceasta se poate a fi consumata" (it is possible for this to be consumed.)

"Aceasta se poate sa fie consumata (it is possible for this to be consumed.)

There might even be another form, but thats already four ways of saying the same thing while using the verb "se poate." (there are still other ways of saying the same thing without the use of the word "se poate.")

In Moldova, while the above forms are considered correct, so to is "Aceasta se poate de consumat." (it is possible for this to be consumed.)

Ari, July 31^st 2008. Ari (who I've met twice) is happy to see this published.

Sign in|Recent Site Activity|Report Abuse|Print Page|Powered By Google