"== Removing Dyer references ==

I propose removing from the references section the books written by Dyer. I have not read Dyer's books, but from what Node_ue says, it seems to me that he's just a crank. He appears to have no clue in linguistics.

I don't think a sane linguist would take two random people, put them to translate a text from Yiddish, compare the resulting texts and get to the conclusion: ""yep, we have two different languages"".

Also, he uses made-up expressions such as ""sovetul (sic!) de deputaţi"" or ""cuvinte slujitoare"" to prove his points, which is akin to data fabrication in regular science. 

Bogdan, Dyer did not come to the conclusion that Moldovan and Romanian are truly separate languages.
With regards to the parallel translation, he says ""the greatest difference between these two texts are in the vocabularies and in the styles they employ. There is a more 'flowering' prose in the Moldovan text... to reiterate, the difference here is one of style, not one of substance"".

 Actually, ""le style est l'homme même"", as Buffon once said. Dyer starts from the premise that the style in each country is homogenous: it is not, there are much more differences between different individuals in the same country. His ways of studying language is just as useless as the way the Nazis studied genetics by assuming the homogenity of the Aryan race.  

 Yes, that's his point. That nearly all of the differences between the two passages are not differences between two languages, but just because two different translators.
 Earlier, you said ""...a sane linguist would take two random people, put them to translate a text from Yiddish..."". Actually, he got these comparisons from published translations in ""Romanian"" and ""Moldovan"". He didn't just walk up to random people on the street.  

The only actual possible grammatical difference he finds in the texts is Moldovan ""pe tot ce vretsi"", and Romanian ""pe cît vretsi"". There were very few web results for ""pe tot ce vreti"" (about 5), and one of them was from the Zdob shi Zdub website (a Moldovan band). There were no results in Moldova for ""pe cit vreti""/""pe cat vreti"". So that may or may not be valid. I personally would say ""pe tot ce vretsi"". But I don't know if it's real.

 I suppose this is part of an expression, such as ""jur pe tot ce vrei"" or ""pun pariu pe tot ce vrei"". Anyway, both sound common enough in Romanian and sounds pretty subjective choosing one for Romanian and one for Moldovan.  

Now, neither of those expressions is ""made up"". He takes both from M. Bruchis' work, ""one step back, two steps forward"" which is also quite critical of the notion of an independent Moldovan language.

 But can this author prove they exist? Probably not, since no google hits are found.  

 Michael Bruchis, you mean? I'm sure he can. He's an expert, too. He wrote an entire book on the subject. Just because no Google hits exist doesn't mean an expression isn't real  do you find any Google results for cit vreti%22+site%3A.md or cat vreti%22+site%3A.md? Or even tot ce vreti%22+site%3A.md? No, you don't. But that doesn't mean that nobody says those things in Moldova. How many results do you find for ""instrumente gramaticale""? 37, and none of them are at .md websites. You can find the word ""cuvintelnic"" on Google, but does that mean it's really the Moldovan word for ""dictionar""? No, Moldovan ppl only use that word when we're joking. (dexonline.ro finds 0 results too). Just because a term occurs or doesn't occur on Google, doesn't mean it is or isn't real.  

""sovetul"" is not a misspelling. Rather, it's a Soviet-era spelling  ""soviet"" was spelt as ""sovet"". Some Moldovans still spell it that way although it's usually considered incorrect; however he is quoting the phrase from Bruchis, who published his work a bit earlier when the spelling was still accepted.  

I agree with your opinion. Such an ignorant person like ""expert Dyer"" can't be called expert. talk & contribs

"