How does this explain away the possibility that part of those toponyms of Slavic origin were actually toponyms of Romanian origin derived from Slavic? As I understand, this toponyms study doesn't make the Slavic origin <-> Romanian origin derived from Slavic distinction.
Question 1.
Unfortunately, I am no toponymist. But to my understanding, the name of the city has a lot of grammatical rules in it that dictate what language has been the origin. here is the page from the source:
here author outlines suffixes like -ești, -eni, and others to be Romanian in origin, with a meaning attached to them
Suffixes like -ov, -ovo, -in, -ivtsi, -ovtsi or in Romanian -ăuți (sorry if I spelt them incorrectly) are Slavic in origin
Also, cities that included the name rus in it presumed to have Slavic populations.
The majority of cities the author used, have changed their name throughout the timeframe (based on multiple documents).
Autor used those suffixes when the toponym goes from class 2 to class 3 as a marker of the language those toponyms are assigned to.
So we have a city that went from "village where the house of Pitik is" to "Peticeni" which was constructed using a Romanian suffix -eni between 1414 and 1528, a period of 114 years, which means this city has a Romanian name.
More examples here:
This is how the distinction between Slavic origin <-> Romanian origin was made. No need for Romanian origin derived from Slavic distinction as I see it. Again I am no toponymist to determine what should be researched.
Other toponymic research, which I also use, marks roots containing -oro-, -olo-, to be East Slavic and -ra-, -la- to be South Slavic,
Also, a common feature of Slavic is G -> H
Additionally, the second issue, how do we know that a village, city or fort with a slavic name is still inhabited by slavs in 1337? because people can inhabit localities with names which hold no meaning for them.
Question 2.
As I have outlined in the post you have responded to, let me simplify:
We have two maps. One is dated the 14th century. The second is dated by the 15th century.
As we can see, the number of villages has increased a lot.
Let's focus on Northern Bukovina. White dots mean Slavic, and black dots Romanian.
A lot of villages in the 14th century had Slavic names.
A lot more villages in the 15th century had Slavic names. Like two times more.
All new villages between the 14th and 15th centuries have Slavic toponyms.
This means the population that founded those villages used Slavic rules to make the name of the village.
This means the population that founded those villages spoke Slavic
This means the population between the 14th and 15th centuries were Slavic
Not fully, but a sizeable majority, that solely dictated the forms of toponyms.
This challenges your claim that Romanians migrated here in the 10th century and started living in the cities, they did not know the names of.
If your claim is true, why have those Romanians continued to name the villages with Slavic words even in the 15th century?
EDIT:
But that's precisely it, and why I said the Vlachs weren't warrior-like. The Normans conquered the English.
A closer similar example would be Lithuanians ruling over Slavs. But the Lithuanians were already a strong military power, it is how they managed to form the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and rule over slavs. The Vlachs in 1337 on the other hand, were the furthest thing away from a military power. And the circumstantial evidence we have like mentions of the voivodships, codrii and tari, seem to be exclusively of Vlachs. The Lithuanians were stronger than the Slavs so they could rule over them, the Vlachs were not stronger than the Slavs so why would they rule over them? Doesn't make any sense why the Ruthenians would allow a Vlach military and administrative control unless they were a minority.
With the Rurik example, same thing, they conquered them.
Oh lord, those pure Vlachs that have never been warriors, never have touched anyone nor conquer.
1. Vlachs weren't warrior-like, but "However, Basarab's forces, composed largely
of Vlach warriors, ambushed and decisively defeated the Hungarian army at the
Battle of Posada (1330)."
2. Vlachs weren't warrior-like, but "The chronicle mentions the Bulgars and
the Vlachs in a broader
context of conflicts in the Balkans and southeastern Europe."
3. Vlachs weren't warrior-like, but "In 1019, the Pechenegs
and the warriors called "Blokumenn" in Scandinavian documents (likely the Bolokhoveni or Romanians) fought in the Battle of the Alta River (near the Dnieper River) on the side of Sviatopolk I of Kiev against Yaroslav the Wise."
4. Vlachs weren't warrior-like, but "In 1040, Casimir, Duke of Poland, formed an alliance with Yaroslav the Wise, Duke of Kiev, and received 1,000 foot soldiers to reclaim his lost territories in Poland. On this occasion,
an army composed of Ruthenians, Prussians, Dacians, and
Getae (possibly Romanians) is mentioned.
5. Vlachs weren't warrior-like, but "In 1068,
the Vlachs/Romanians and the Pechenegs led by Osul
took part in a raiding campaign in Transylvania and Hungary, which ended with the Battle of Chiraleș in Transylvania, where they were defeated. The events are recorded in a Russian chronicle."
6. Vlachs weren't warrior-like, but "In 1070,
the Vlachs/Romanians, along with the Pechenegs and Ruthenians,
were involved in an expedition by King Bolesław of Krakow. The campaign is commented on by the Polish chronicler Długosz."
All of that is your quotes! You just contradict all your previous statements.
I feel like you have already passed the nationalism stage.
No culture/race is a culture of peaceful angels, and please don't make claims and judgements based on it.
Any people could have conquered any other people. Or diplomatically ruled.
Being warrior-like does not matter at all!
Vlach are not unique and exceptional to not do exactly the same things, that happened with other cultures.
"The Vlachs were not stronger than the Slavs so why would they rule over them?" - speculation. Anything could have happened. We simply have no data.
"With the Rurik example, the same thing, they conquered them."
According to Russian sources Rurik was invited to reign.
According to the story placed under the year 862 in the “Primary Chronicle” and in the undated part of the First Novgorod Chronicle, Rurik was invited to reign (calling the Varangians) by the Chud, Slovene, Krivichi, Meri, and also, possibly, Vesi tribes.
Согласно рассказу, помещённому под 862 годом в «Повести временных лет» и в недатированной части Новгородской первой летописи, Рюрик был приглашён на княжение (призвание варягов) племенами чуди, словен, кривичей, мери, а также, возможно, веси.
.png){kind=avatar}
