Sursa, migrația și formarea sunt lucruri diferite

The apparent tension between 'Latin was already dialectalized in the 2nd century' and 'proto-Romanian separates around 500–600' is not necessarily a contradiction: the former concerns regional differentiation of the source Latin, the latter the later separation of Romanian from shared proto-Romance developments.

Evidence: 2016–17 papers argue early regional Latin differentiation; 2024 tracks shared later changes before Romanian's full separation.

Inference: The two dates refer to different stages in the proposed genealogy.

editorial_synthesis · interpretive

Ungureanu's geographic model changes materially between 2016 and 2024: the 2016 book treats Romanian as separated from the Romance trunk in the 4th century and aims to identify the Dacian colonists' precise northern-Italian source, whereas the 2024 book explicitly places Romanian formation south of the Danube along Via Egnatia while retaining a northern-Italian source Latin.

Evidence: 2016: separation in c. IV + precise Dacia-colonist source; 2024: south-Danube/Via Egnatia formation from 4th-c northern-Italian-source Latin.

Inference: Source dialect, date of regional dialectalization and place of final Romanian formation must be tracked as distinct variables across his work.

editorial_assessment · intellectual_history

Independent historical evidence for Roman Dacia shows a diverse colonist population rather than a demonstrated narrow Western-Lombard source population.

Evidence: Prosopographic review lists Italians, Noricans, Pannonians, Thracians, Dalmatians, Greeks/Greek-speakers, easterners etc.; mining zones especially Illyrian/Dalmatian and Asia-Minor Greek-speaking groups.

Inference: The migration bridge from linguistic affinity to a precise Western-Lombard colonist source is not independently demonstrated by current historical controls.

editorial_assessment · field_context

A current Balkan-language synthesis places East Balkan Romance in a broad Romanized zone east of Dalmatia, likely on both sides of the Jireček line, and explicitly treats the north-/south-Danube continuity question as contested because of the documentary gap.

Evidence: Cambridge chapter says East Balkan Romance descends from colonists/Romanized peoples east of Dalmatia, likely north and south of Jireček line; calls continuity dispute circumstantial/uncertain.

Inference: The narrow north-Italian-source model should be labelled a contested hypothesis inside a broader and still uncertain Balkan-Romance history.

contested · field_context

Shared late-Romance innovations such as the Reichenau lexical pattern can constrain the duration of Romanian's common Romance history without identifying the geographical source of second-century Roman colonists.

Evidence: Late lexical innovations operate centuries after the initial Roman conquest/colonization chronology invoked in early source-population models.

Inference: Chronological and geographic evidence must not be conflated.

editorial_assessment · methodological