Aurel Vlaicu., 100 years ago...

I'm gonna close this topic........

RedBaron, I was merely replying to your inaccurate statement that "All countries refer to us as Romania (RO) or Roumanie (ROU)."

"Anglo-Saxon"? There is only ONE "Anglo-Saxon" language and that is "English" (hence the "Anglo" bit). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_language
As already pointed out, the word "Rumanian" is perfectly acceptable in English and is included in the English Oxford Dictionary and other (no less pretigious) dictionaries.

The "Saxon" bit in "Anglo-Saxon" is a major part of Germanic and Scandinavian languages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Low_German
I listed some "Saxon" examples above, but here they are again:
Danish = Rumænien
German = Rumänien
Icelandic = Rúmenía
Swedish = Rumänien

"Wales" is neither "Anglo" nor "Saxon". It is "Gaelic". Even in Romanian it is called "Tara Galilor" as a recognition of that.

Bill Bryson's "Mother Tongue" is a great book explaining the origin of English as a language and the reason why there are so many variations in the way words are spelled.

Radu

Wow! I didn't realise there are so many "irredentist, horthyst" authors and publishers who deliberately use Rumania in their books!
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResu...sts=t&x=39&y=19
(4240 results listed).

Gen. Dénes

P.S. The French Roumanie (ROU) quoted above also sounds as a "u", doesn't it?

This post has been edited by Dénes on May 07, 2011 10:14 am

Enought!
DEnes,you schould write 100 times rumania or romania/
Vranceanu same with you ,only with Constanta/Konstanza.
I'll write myself (only 10 times cause I'm the host of this area) -Adiss-Abebba.

Denes, je ne savais pas que vous maitrisez aussi le francais !

In French, Hungary is "Hongrie" [ongri] , in my next book I shall write "Ongaria" not "Ungaria" !

don't be [shocked].
Konstanza is simply the german name, or better said, the german phonetical spelling for Constanta, just as Nuremberg is used in romanian publications instead of Nürnberg. The english speaking world can't be bothered to use München instead of Munich and the french still call Mainz, Mayence.
Now what if Denes used "Kreuzburg an der Bistritz" for Piatra Neamt or even "Kronstadt" for Brasov! oh, the outcry!

This post has been edited by dead-cat on May 10, 2011 09:25 pm

On the top of that, the German name of Brasov (Kronstadt), along with the Hungarian name (Brasso), are written on the official town signs posted at the entrances to the town. This is also part of what is known as 'Transylvanism', some people don't seem to comprehend.

Gen. Dénes

Vranceanu,
do you somehow think that anyone reading "Ongaria" in your book will automatically think "Denes is a horthyst"? Who do you think is going to appear a "fool"? This is like cutting your own nose to spite your face!

The word RUMANIA is perfectly acceptable in English. Bucharest (Not Bucuresti) is perfectly acceptable in English. Transylvania (not Transilvania) is perfectly acceptable in English. Dobruja (not Dobrogea) is perfectly acceptable in English. Carpathians (not Carpati) is perfectly acceptable in English.

Iarna nu-i ca vara, engleza nu-i ca romana.

Radu

PS
It is not my intention to cause further shocks, but this is how others call Constanta:
Greek = Κωνστάντια
Turkish = Köstence
Russian = Констанца
Shall we picket these horthyst/irredentist embassies or can be express anger via this forum?

Radu B, I didn't said "Denes is a hothist" but "the map on the second cover of his book is hothist".
Guys, you tell a lot of things, but nobody answered me to my normal questions:

1.- why Denes write about romanian aviations' beginnings, and mention only Bleriot, but no romanian pioneer, until 1913 ?
2. - why he put ONLY the map 1940 - 1944, with mutilated Transsylvania, but not the map with Great Romania before 1940, and no map with Romania after 1944 ? Why, if the book is about 1938 - 1947 ?

I have not else to say until I receive logic and normal and common sense answers to theese questions.

This post has been edited by Vranceanu on May 11, 2011 04:52 pm

he didn't write about Otto Lilienthal or the creation of the solar system either.

why this glaring omission? hmmm...
perhaps because the book is called "Rumanian Air Force, The Prime Decade 1938-1947". The focus is ww2. not ww1. not the first decade of the 20th century. perhaps because the scope of the foreword was not to deliver a list of every contribution to manned flight.

i'm all for critical reviews. especially when it comes to books. but let it be facutal, perhaps a disagreement on the conclusions drawn, the language, the format, the quality and why not, the price.
but a percieved omission of persons the book isn't about in the introduction or the display of a map, which turned out the be historically accurate with a proper description, from a period of time some readers have come to dislike, the usage of foreign names and/or spelling for places, when the rest of the world does exactly the same thing, fits in none of the above.

Denes writes books for aviation enthusiast with a focus on ww2. I have yet to meet one who never heared of Vlaicu. or Vuia. and so forth.

Dead-cat, the answers you mentioned are obvious to most good-willed readers and usually would not need any further explanations.

The title gives clearly the topic of the book. Also, I wrote the note on the map exactly to avoid any attacks from those who, for some reason, don't like it, even if it is historically accurate. Also, it is clear to everyone who flicked through the book that there is no more room for maps (this one, too, ended up on the rear side of the front cover - an unusual occurrence - and I had hard time to convince the Publisher to do it due to lack of printing space).

However, I am afraid all these obvious explanations would not satisfy the few persons who harbour some anti-this, anti-that feelings, who have some sort of agenda. These belong to the minority "club", whose "prominent" representant told me many years ago in Bucharest, as quoted, "why do you write about our aviation history? Why don't you write about Hungarian aviation instead?"

I am more than open and willing to have an academic debate on what's in the book, which would further our knowledge on the history of Rumanian military aviation. However, I have no patience left for those who are acting like “Gica contra”. That's why I keep telling them: "if what I wrote is not up to your liking, please write your own version of the topic", knowing that any reasonable explanations would be futile anyhow.

Everyone would be better off if more books were published, in English, on this highly interesting topic unfortunately still little known in the so-called "West". I will be among the first one to buy such a book and initiate a fair debate on it - right here, on this very forum.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on May 11, 2011 08:28 pm

Dead cat, you do not understand or do not want to.
Ok, Denes was not forced to write about Vlaicu, but, in this case, he musn't write about the beginnings. Ok ? He could began with 1913... But, to not mention Vuia, for exemple, is like sombody write about american pioneers but do not mention Wright brothers ! If this is Ok to you, I have nothing to say.

I must say I respect and even admire Mr Denes Bernad, and this is not a personal attack.
He is for me a great author and his books are very wellcome, very usefull and rich in information.

OK, issue closed.
Let's get back to Aurel Vlaicu, one of the greatest Rumanian aviation pioneers.

Gen. Dénes