Rant: why do all histories of the Romanian language published in English suck?
I happen to own three of them, Du Nay (1977), Niculescu (1981) and Sala (1998), and they're all invariably bad, being far more concerned with vocabulary than grammar while omitting the Latin/Slavic/etc. etymologies for almost all words mentioned. They have no excuse: Alexandru Rosetti's work in the 1960s was splendid and far superior. They could've just written summaries of Rosetti's books with some slight updates and call it a day, but nooo, they had to write horribly subpar handbooks instead... I honestly don't get it.