Cronologia poate spune „nu”

The Reichenau Glosses can be used as an indirect snapshot of spoken Romance because glossators replace learned/older Latin words with forms they expect readers to understand.

Evidence: The paper treats the post-700 glossary substitutions as evidence about ongoing lexical replacement.

Inference: The gloss pairs create a quasi-natural experiment between older and later lexical choices.

contested · methodological

The mature chronology therefore argues that Romanian did not become fully separate from proto-Romance before approximately 500–600 AD.

Evidence: The lexical comparison is combined with broader morphological/phonological chronology.

Inference: A post-Roman-imperial shared phase is required in the model.

contested · historical

A later author-uploaded chronology draft extends the same method to individual words and meanings such as sera, cognatus and collocare, treating their first secure late-Latin attestations as chronological constraints.

Evidence: The author says Romanian contains words/meanings that become visible only in later Latin and uses them to reject a very early split.

Inference: Lexical innovations function as dated markers rather than merely etymological curiosities.

contested · methodological

The four published Reichenau dating scenarios are not reproduced consistently by a single transparent linear interpolation using either 49/66 or the paper's rough 2/3 factor.

Evidence: Published scenarios are 400–600→~540, 400–700→600, 500–600→~530, 500–700→~540.

Inference: 540–600 should be treated as a rough author-model chronology, not a calibrated statistical interval.

editorial_assessment · methodological

Ungureanu's 2024 Reichenau chronology creates a real tension with the 2016 formulation that Romanian was already separated from the Romance trunk in the 4th century; the tension can be reduced only by distinguishing early regional dialectalization from later final separation.

Evidence: 2016 says separated in 4th c; Reichenau analysis attributes many later Romance lexical selections to Romanian and proposes a later effective split.

Inference: A two-stage model—early dialectal source but continued participation in wider Proto-Romance change—fits the corpus better than a single separation date.

editorial_assessment · intellectual_history

The 66-item Reichenau sample needs a reproducible inclusion rule because the paper selects words described as relevant to Romanian history from a much larger, heterogeneous gloss tradition.

Evidence: The paper states it discusses only words relevant to Romanian history; historical scholarship describes >1,000 Foerster-numbered selections and around 5,000 glosses in the fuller tradition.

Inference: Selection/ascertainment bias must be tested before interpreting 49/66 as an unbiased sample proportion.

editorial_assessment · methodological