User talk:78.178.36.168

Recent edits
Please stop adding the category “Romanian terms derived from Turkish” to Romanian terms – formats used in the etymology section automatically place these terms in appropriate categories. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Then, why wasn't dușman, for example, listed under the category "Romanian terms derived from Turkish" before I added it even though Turkish had been tagged in the etymology section? I'm aware that düşman is a Persian loan word in Turkish so it doesn't really "derive" from Turkish but a big percentage of the words in the subcategories "Romanian terms derived from Turkish‎" and "Romanian terms derived from Ottoman Turkish" don't derive from Turkish either. They're Persian, Greek, Arabic etc. I was just trying to fix the significant discrepancy between the list at "Romanian terms derived from Ottoman Turkish" and the list at "Romanian terms derived from Turkish". All the Turkish loan words in Romanian were borrowed during the Ottoman period and all the "Ottoman Turkish" words on the list are still widely used in modern Turkish too, so why do those separate categories even exist? You guys should either merge them into Romanian terms borrowed from Turkish (or Ottoman Turkish) and place only the ones derived from Turkish words of Turkic origin under its subcategory "Romanian terms derived from Turkish" or fix the whole inconsistency and confusion however you like.
 * We treat Ottoman Turkish as a separate language from Modern Turkish, in the same way we treat Middle English as a separate language from English and we treat Ancient Greek as a separate language from Modern Greek (we call the latter just Greek). While it's true that both Ottoman Turkish and Modern Turkish are Turkish, we only use the name "Turkish" without a modifier to refer to Modern Turkish. Putting that category in the entries would give the incorrect impression that the borrowings happened during the Modern Turkish period. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)