Which Romance language sounds more Slavic?

iulian   Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:55 pm GMT
P.S. Ravinescu . Do you think that using an "escu" nickname you can pass as an all-knowing romanian historyan and linguist?! Do you even know what what te "escu" termination means and what it represents to romanians? . Do you even know the pride a romanian feels to be romanian and how badly you have insulted us?
The book in this link you gave http://tinyurl.com/romanians-romania is written by an AMERICAN "know better than the natives the past and history of those" like you. It's like me writting a book about cambodians which i know nothing about.
PLEASE DONT LISTEN TO RAVINESCU'S MORONIC IDEEAS he is probably just a nationalist romantic extremist of some kind (i'm not interested on his ethnicity or nationality). PEACE AND LOVE TO ALL ROMANCE SPEAKING PEOPLE !! :x
Alfonso Delchamps Dracula   Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:24 pm GMT
Who ever started this thread is a sad Wog Mongolatto-wanttobe. Why dont you Portuguese, French, Spanish and Italians be proud of your Hislatiness. By the way Portuguese sounds the most Slavic and Italians seem the most Slavic ethnically influenced. In the other direction Balkanzees are the most med influenced Slavs/Mongolattos.
dude   Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:03 pm GMT
yeah i have to agree with iulian. that ravinescu guy might be some brainwashed half russian moldovan who's got problems with his own identity so he has to try to emphasize a greater connection with slavs

the truth is probably somewhere in between these theories. but, whatever, it doesn't matter that much today anyway
Vlanco   Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:36 pm GMT
ravinescu   Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:47 pm GMT
Quote from: Unknown
No, the switch to latin was not a political move, for Romanians. You should understand that since Romanians have chosen the orthodox church for their religious orientation, they also adopted the Cyrillic alphabet and used it for the first time in the text writings. In order to write in Romanian, the only literate people (priests/pops), used Cyrillic letters because that was what they had access to. As was characteristic of the Middle Ages, the Church had a great influence on people's lives. Thus even basic words such as a iubi "to love", glas "voice", nevoie "need", and prieten "friend" are of Church Slavonic origin and that happens although Romanian in popular talking used its own words (Latin based), like 'voce = glas"; "necesitate = nevoie"; " amic = prieten" , " amor - iubire". By that time the church was represented by an educated elite and the way this elite spoke was taken as a model for illiterate people who attended the church; (the mass of normal uneducated people tried to learn and use the more elevated words heard in the church). That was the way amd the momentum how and when the most Slavonic words entered into the Romanian language. Names were also influenced by the use of Slavonic in Church and in administration.

I have encountered countless times this type of propaganda on the internet and in the real world. Even on this thread you rehash again and again some very old propaganda clichés, that have no scientific basis at all, but that you present as being the absolute truth. Things like the assertion that words like "a iubi" [to love], "prieten" [friend] or other words of slavic origin were introduced in the romanian language because slavonic was the language used in church and state for many centuries, are nothing more than baseless propaganda. No one, and I mean, no one that has some knowledge about the romanian language would say that. Just check any book that deals with the history of the language. Instead of that you prefer to say lies, because you cannot accept that the vast majority of the romanian words of slavic origin are not the result of a religious, administrative or cultural influence, but the result of the cohabitation between the romanic population and the slavs that settled for many centuries (before being assimilated) on the territory where the romanians of today live. Those slavs are the ancestors of romanians just like the colonists that stayed after the roman adminstration abandoned Dacia and the autochtonous population of dacian origin. Just remember, the romans never conquered or colonized Muntenia or Moldova, parts of today's Romania. And that is not to speak about the territory of present day Republic of Moldova, where again, no roman soldier or colonist ever set foot. However, on all these territories you encounter today romanian speaking population. And this is only because the slavs or other populations (free dacians, for example) accepted to be assimilated that you have now such a vast extent of the romanian language. It is completely normal that the romanian language has so many important words (like those for "love" or "friendship") of slavic origin. The population is not taught how to speak by the priests, otherwise "love" and "friendship" would be words of latin origin in the hungarian, polish or czech language.

I already explained the situation with the names of slavic origin. But you are too lazy to read or only want to spread propaganda. The names of the saints from the Orthodox Church are not slavic, but greek. This is why we have romanian names like: Ion, Vasile, Nicolae, Gheorghe, Ştefan, etc., all of them being of greek origin and being used since a long time ago, practically since the romanians began to be christianized. The romanian names of slavic origin (Bogdan, Răzvan, Dragoş, Vlad, Mircea, etc.) have nothing to do with the Orthodox Church, they are only the proof that a large part of the population was of slavic origin and choose slavic names for their children. With the passing of time these names were not anymore perceived as slavic and they are now considered genuine romanian names.

Quote from: Unknown
However now, many Slavic words are archaisms, and it is estimated that in modern Romanian 80% of the vocabulary is of Latin origin, the remainder representing Slavic, Greek, Hungarian, and Turkic borrowings as well as the Dacian substratum.

The tidbit quoted above is a true piece of romanian propaganda, and in fact it may be its cornerstone. It is also the oldest trick in the book of the romanian propagandists, having an age of almost 200 years. The mechanism that lies underneath this propaganda trick is very simple, and it implies transferring a characteristic of the language to the population, a transfer from linguistics to genetics. The propagandists want the audience to believe that if the vocabulary of the romanian language is N% of latin origin, the romanian people is also N% of latin origin. This trick was invented in the 19th century, after the romanian vocabulary was enriched with a huge number of french, latin and italian words, a process that is named reromanization by the linguists. Before the reromanization of the 19th century, romanian had probably like 30% words of latin origin. After the reromanization, this percent was boosted to almost 70%, so it was more than doubled, and the process continued in the 20th century. It's like the visual trick used to make people want to buy a product after seeing pictures of a person before and after using the product. What should be "bought" in this case? The "latinity" of the romanian people, of course. And this is also easy to understand from the fact that the propagandists usually say that romanian has 80% words of "latin" origin, but forget to mention that from this 80%, roughly half (40%) are words of french origin (which are not all of latin origin, some being of germanic or celtic origin). The true intention is not the emphasize the latin origin of the romanian vocabulary, but to emphasize the latin origin of the romanian people in the same percentage as the vocabulary, by implying subliminally that the audience must transfer the percent from one domain (linguistics) to another (genetics).

You would think that if the trick is so old and so obviously deceptive, it must not be used anymore. Not at all, it is extensively used today from the romanian ordinary person that posts propaganda on the internet to the romanian official that makes a propagandistic presentation at the European Comission in Brussels. The old trick with the percentage of "latin" words was once again used fairly recently to promote the "latinity" of the romanian people in order to gain some benefits from non-romanians. In 2006 Romania was not a member of the European Union, but was in the process to become one. And guess what does the romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs ("Ministerul Afacerilor Externe", MAE) in its lobyying efforts? Of course, emphasize the "latinity" of the romanian people, the trick that worked on romanians and non-romanians alike for so much time.

There is a Powerpoint presentation named "Romanian Contemporary Society" that was displayed in 2006 at the European Comission (the executive branch of the European Union) in Luxembourg. This presentation can be downloaded from the site of the romanian foreign affairs ministry (mae.ro) :


It can be viewed with Powerpoint (part of MS Office) or the similar program included in OpenOffice.

I will provide an alternative address for download, in case the file disappears from the original site :


And also a screenshot for those that do not have or do not want to install an office suite:


The presentation consists of slides about the history, language, ethnicity of romanians and also about some key moments concerning the romanian society (political rights, constitution, education, etc.). But what can be seen in that presentation regarding the romanian history? The incredible fact that the notable historical events end in 275 A.D., date of the roman retreat from Dacia. After that there is nothing interesting, the descendants of roman colonists and dacians lived happily ever after until their country needed to be accepted in the European Union. And of course, not a single mention of the slavs, although all the romanian history books mention them as the third important component that contributed in the formation of the romanian people.

Do the European Comission want to know about the history of romanians? Nothing more simple than that, there you go:

Slide 1:
Romanian territory inhabited by the Dacians
Defeated by the Roman Empire in 106
Part of Dacia (Oltenia, Banat and Transylvania) became a Roman province
For the next 165 years, considerable Roman colonization in the area
Vulgar Latin, language of the administration and commerce

The Roman administration and legions withdrew from Dacia between 271-275
The Romanians are the descendants of these people that remained in Dacia and assimilated the non-Romanized Dacians

And after the 165 years of roman rule ended by the retreat of 275 A.D. what happened? What, dont't you have understood that this is the only thing that you must know about romanians, that they are descendants from romans that assimilated the dacians, so that the romanian people of today is a "latin" people? Do you want me to tell you about the ensuing 1000 years of extreme turmoil that followed the roman retreat, with countless migratory populations invading the territory and ruling it? Of course not, so go and vote for the entry of Romania in the European Union and quit asking stupid questions!

What's even more interesting is the fact the the romanian language is considered more important than the history of romanians. And of course it is from a propagandistic point of view, because the vocabulary supports the romanian propaganda of "latinity", whereas the history does not. This is why in the presentation of the romanian foreign office ministry, the language is presented extensively in 9 slides and goes until the present time, but the history has only 2 slides and ends in 275 A.D. Talk about a more obvious double standard...

It becomes more an more interesting when analyzing the presentation of the language in those 9 slides. All the propagandistic clichés are there and you can compare them with those used by the propagandists that posted in this thread:

Geographical isolation: checked
Slavic influence was caused by the use of Old Church Slavonic: checked
Slavic words are mainly archaisms: checked
80% of romanian vocabulary is of latin origin: CHECKED

One question still boggles the mind. Where on earth does the romanian ministry of foreign affairs see the geographical isolation of Romania? All the migratory populations that roamed for 1000 years the territory where romanians live today, why they did not see the geographical isolation? Did they use airplanes and helicopters to land on the "latin" island? Of course not, they breached the geographical isolation only by marching on their two feet or riding their horses... Oh, yes, I see now, it's in fact the very old propaganda cliché of the "latin island in a slavic sea", a ridiculous assertion that does not take Hungary into account, which is not at all a slavic country and ruled Transylvania until 1918, so it occupied a good portion of the "latin" island. Not to mention the slavs that participated in great numbers to the formation of the romanian people and were probably parachuted from the skies on the island beginning with the 5-6th century A.D.

Quote from: Unknown
Once the level of education of Romanians increased , a lot of writers and poets appeared and begun to put on paper their thoughts and verses. Within these occasion they face some limitations in expression while using the Slavonic alphabet. Unfortunately, this alphabet didn't reproduce perfectly the sounds of Romanian words therefore for the best representation of those sounds, the switch to Latin became a must. I don't agree with OriginalGuest's opinion. It was exactly the opposite; the Cyrillic alphabet didn't reflect properly the sounds of the language, nor the culture of Romanians and that led to its replacement.

What a bunch of blatant lies... The cyrillic alphabet was used for romanian for at least 400 years, whereas the latin alphabet is used only from 1860 on, that makes 150 years until now. The first recorded writing in romanian is from the year 1521, but it is safe to assume that romanian was used in writing well before that. Romanian as a literary language grew alongside the cyrillic alphabet. There were no limitations posed by the cyrillic alphabet, which already had the letters for the sounds Ă Ī Ş Ţ, whereas the latin alphabet did not have them, so they were invented in the 19th century. Which alphabet had in the 19th century (and before) more limitations regarding the writing in romanian, the cyrillic one or the latin one ? The sounds Ă Ī Ş Ţ are central to romanian phonetics, there is no romanian language without them. It took no less than 100 years (1800 - 1900) for the romanian cultural elites to devise a latin alphabet suitable for writing in romanian at the same level of understanding and expressiveness provided by the writing in the cyrillic alphabet. In the 20th century the cyrillic alphabet was used in the Republic of Moldova until 1990. Did this hamper the writing of literature in the Republic of Moldova? Of course not, romanian language can be written with the cyrillic alphabet just like it can be written with the latin alphabet.
ravinescu   Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:50 pm GMT
Quote from: Unknown
I believe, that you ravin don't understand what I was saying nor what propaganda is. On the other hand, from what I noticed in your posts here, ( in just a few of them what I partially read), is that you are extremely obsessed with the Romanian language and its problematic. I don't intend, nor want to insult anybody but you enter in the same category with some other fellows who "know better than the "aboriginals" the past and history of those. By having said that, it is difficult to understand "your courage" in taking such positions and making such baseless statements if I have to exclude the potential lack of knowledge and instruction, as the reason for that.

Oh, yes, I do understand that you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking. You should have read all my messages posted in this thread to learn the truth about the romanian language and people. I already said that I am from Bucureşti (Bucharest), the capital of Romānia (Romania). I am speaking from the inside, not from the outside.

Quote from: Unknown
Get deeper in studies and try to understand what makes the people articulate words in different ways. If Germanic, Slavic and Hungarian nations hadn't have "penetrating" the "Roman" world, a Portuguese person could understand a Romanian from the other end of Roman empire, without any effort or any need of translation.

Oh no, a panlatinist! Grow up, nobody cares today about the roman empire, it is dead from so long ago. The french, spaniards and portuguese had their own territorial empires, and none was presented as a continuation of the roman empire. Only the romanians have this obsession with the panlatinism, because romanians never had an empire to present as theirs, and they have an inferiority complex regarding the occidental cultures/civilizations. Frenchmen, spaniards, portuguese, even italians do not care about panlatinism, they have their own rich cultures and civilizations, that are not inferior in any way to the latin culture and civilization. They probably see the germanic "penetration" as a blessing, not a curse, because that served to differentiate them as a people. The autochtonous populations from France, Spain and Portugal were liberated from under the roman military boot and accompanying fiscality and they developed as mature peoples that started their own conquest of the world. That is responsible for the fact that french, spanish and portuguese, not latin, are spoken today by hundreds of millions of persons all across the globe.

Quote from: Unknown
I just came from New Zealand recently and learned about the extremely high poverty who determined the first British people to leave Britain and to settle in a completely unknown and so far away land; they were Irish, Scots, English but no Walsh although, their living conditions back home were as bad as well. Studying Walsh language, you might find an answer for these questions...if you are interested in understanding language formation and peoples culture, tradition and ways of living.

While you're at it, why don't you also visit Romania? You could see the reality firsthand, you could see what is true or not about romanians and their language. Are you afraid that your preconceptions cannot resist the test of reality?

I see that you are the one obsessed with languages and because of that you tend to overemhpasize their importance in the culture of peoples. As for myself I see the languages as a mean of communication, but they do not define what a people is and they are not the most important field of scientific study when investigating the origin of peoples. Even the linguists warn about confusing the language and the ethnic origin. It is true also for romanians, where unfortunately the language continues to be used as a propaganda tool.

Look at what is said in the last published book on the history of the romanian language:

Ideea originii latine a limbii romāne şi a originii romane a poporului romān a devenit o certitudine de nezdruncinat īn veacurile al XVIII-lea şi al XIX-lea, cīnd atīt īnvăţaţi străini, Lorenzo Hervas y Panduro, cīt şi romāni (Clain, Şincai şi Maior), au scris cu competenţă despre această chestiune, dovedind īn mod ştiinţific latinitatea limbii noastre. Cum īnsă şi īn acea vreme se făcea confuzie īntre originea limbii şi originea poporului, subīnţelegīndu-se că un popor nu-şi poate părăsi limba sa, cercetătorii credeau că latinitatea limbii romāne īnseamnă şi romanitatea poporului romān. Mai tīrziu, īn epoca de ascensiune a burgheziei romāne, ideea de latinitate a limbii romāne şi cea de romanitate a poporului romān a jucat un mare rol īn viaţa politică şi culturală, deşi ultima nu era argumentată ştiinţific, cum vom vedea mai jos.

Īnvăţaţi din străinătate, ca J. Thunmann, care īn această chestiune puteau fi mai circumspecţi decīt membrii Şcolii Ardelene, au văzut deja din veacul al XVIII-lea, că trebuie să se distingă īntre originea poporului şi originea limbii; căci limbile trec adesea de la un popor la altul şi un popor īşi poate avea originea īn alt popor decīt acela din a cărui limbă derivă limba lui. Această disociere va pătrunde şi īn cultura romānă prin Al. Russo şi B.P. Hasdeu. Cu toate acestea, ideea latinităţii poporului romān n-a fost părăsită nici de unii cercetători din secolul nostru,, ca Ov. Densusianu. Avem a face, desigur, cu ultimele manifestări ale ideilor latiniste din veacul trecut. Putem vorbi şi de o mentalitate romantică, căci ideea de latinitate, ca şi cea de germanism sau slavism, a căpătat vigoare īn epoca romantică.

G. Ivănescu: Istoria Limbii Romāne (editura Junimea, 2000) - pag. 23-24

Translation in english:
The idea of latin origin of the romanian language and of roman origin of the romanian people became a unshakeable certitude in the 18th and 19th centuries, when foreign scholars like Lorenzo Hervas y Panduro and also romanian ones (Clain, Şincai and Maior) wrote skillfully about this topic and proved scientifically the latinity of our language. But in those times there was a confusion between the origin of the language and the origin of the people by implying that a people cannot abandon its language, so the scholars believed that the latinity of the romanian language meant also the romanity [latinity] of the romanian people. Later on, in the age of [societal] affirmation of the romanian bourgeoisie, the idea of latinity of the romanian language and people played a big part in the political and cultural life, although the latter [the latinity of the people] was not proven scientifically, as it is discussed below.

Foreigh scholars, like J. Thunmann, who on this issue could be more cautious than the members of the Transylvanian School, saw already in the 18th century that one must distinguish between the origin of the people and the origin of the language; that's because languages frequently pass from one people to another, so that a people can have its origin in a different people than the one from which it inherits the language. This concept of dissociation [between origin of language and origin of people] will also be introduced in the romanian culture by the works of Al. Russo and B.P. Hasdeu. However, the idea of the latinity of the romanian people was not abandoned by the romanian scholars not even in the 20th century, an example being Ov. Densusianu. We are seeing of course the latest manifestations of the latinist ideas from the19th century. We can also speak in this situation of a romantic mentality, because the idea of latinity, like those of germanicity or slavicity, appeared in the romantic period.

G. Ivănescu: Istoria Limbii Romāne (Junimea Publishing House, 2000) - pag. 23-24

Transylvanian School (TS) = latinist movement from the 19th century
Inochentie Micu Clain, Gheorghe Şincai, Petru Maior = members of the Transylvanian School
Alecu Russo = romanian writer from the 19th century, that decried the excessive latinization of the language promoted by the Transylvanian School. His ideas were proven right, and the latino-italo-romanian language envisioned by the TS was abandoned.
Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu = romanian writer and linguist from the 19th century.
Ovid Densusianu = romanian linguist from the first half of the 20th century, that published in 1901 a history of the romanian language written in french.

Quote from: Unknown
We say we are "Latin" because our language is romance. We've always felt genetically related to peoples in South-East Europe (like, Serbia) but culturally connected to Latin Europe at least as of the 19th century. Our great-grandparents did well to work on our Latin side - which people in their right mind would choose to be buddies with Moscow, if given a reasonable choice? We'll still be "Latin" regardless what our genes turn out to be.

The language spoken by a people is not the main factor in establishing its identity. Take for example the americans from the USA, they speak english, but they do not present themselves as "english", even though they are genetically and culturally related to the english people. But actually they are a different people, they have their own specific identity.

The identity should not be a factor when deciding political alliances. Those that decide the alliances of a country should always take into account the benefits that a people could gain by joining an alliance, not ethnical kinship. But the problem is more deep. The romanians want to be perceived as a mature people, that is sincere about its origins, or as a cameleonic people, that is deceitful about its origins ?

Quote from: Reason is my Religion
Ravinescu, you may be the most intelligent poster on this thread. You say the facts and back them up with sources. Keep it up!

Thanks. I am doing what anyone should do when participating in a meaningful discussion, present arguments and back them up with quotes from reputable sources.

Quote from: Dude
After reading through these posts, I must say I've learned some interesting theories about Romania's background, and there does seem to be considerable Slavic influence in the language and history, but I still somehow doubt that Romania is entirely of Slavic background.

No one said that. The slavic genetic and linguistic contribution is important, but it is not the only one that must be taken into account when speaking about romanians.

Quote from: Dude
But either way, it is interesting to read about alternative theories to the widely accepted, government-endorsed version.

These are not theories, these are the facts, and you can read them in the history books available in romanian bookshops. They are even present in the textbooks used in schools. The problem is the fact that some people or governement officials are using very old propaganda in an age where information about romanian history is readily available on the internet. The propaganda possibly worked before the internet, because at that time a non-romanian could not have easy access to materials about romanian history. But now it is counter-productive and depicts an image of romanians as liars or ignorants about their own history and language.
ravinescu   Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:54 pm GMT
Quote from: Iulian
I speak to you as a romanian who knows his history well and i want to debate some key problems raised by Ravinescu. Firs i must say that i speak 4 of the six main romance languages - romanian, french ,italian and spanish.
THE PROBLEM OF THE ALPHABET: Cyrilic alphabet in Romania was used (from the 16th century until 1860s) as someone said earlier for various religios and political reasons (before that the greek alphabet was used in church and official documents because of the great the influence of the Byzantine Empire and the greeks in the area).

Your statement that greek alphabet was used in the church and state before the cyrillic alphabet is completely untrue and blows away your "knowledge" of history. Although some of the first hierarchs (bishops) of the romanian orthodox church were of greek origin, the language used by the romanian church and state was always the slavonic language. Not to say that romanian hierarchs, priests or political rulers did not know greek or latin or other languages, but the official language of the church and state used in the documents was slavonic until it was replaced with romanian. So before the latin alphabet, only the cyrillic alphabet was used in the documents related to the day-to-day activity of the church or state. Of course there were also documents written in other languages, even in latin, but they were exclusively used when signing political treaties with other countries, they were not used internally.

Quote from: Iulian
The statement that the cyrilic alphabet might be used better to express romanian sounds it's false. I know the cyrilic alphabet and the corect prononciantion of the letters and i must say that it can't express all romanian sounds and some cyrilic letters and sounds don't even make sense in romanian.

I have already answered above to this recurrent propagandistic lie. But again, just think about a real-world example. The serbian language is written today in cyrillic and latin alphabet, both writings are accepted and present in Serbia, so it doesn't matter which alphabet is used. Do you really think that romanian has so strange sounds as not to be written with cyrillic letters? Polish, czech, slovak, slovene language can be written with the latin alphabet and surely these are slavic languages, not romance ones. Don't you see that the alphabet is not so much important when writing an european language? You can use either cyrillic or latin, of course with some adaptations. The letters are just signs, and a new sign can always be invented for a specific sound. The english sounds can be written in cyrillic, think only about the schwa, or the groups SH or TZ, that have specific letters in the cyrillic alphabet, but not in the latin alphabet.

Quote from: Iulian
Diacritics state the influence that slavs, greeks,turks and hungarians had on the language (which is normal considering that Romania is surrounded by slav countries and a mutual exchange of culture happened) and their existance is neccessary to the language as a part of its IDENTITY (although the language its fully intelligible without them ...

There is not at this time a generally accepted theory on the origin of the sounds designated by the romanian diacritics. However, not a single linguist would say that they are the result of greek, turkish or hungarian influence, because it would be completely false. Based on the accepted theories, the sounds Ă Ī Ş Ţ can only be of dacian, vulgar latin or slavic origin.

For the thousandth time, romanian language is NOT intelligible without diacritics, that's why they were invented in the first place. This has been discussed extensively on the romanian forums, just read them and stop spreading misinformation:


Quote from: Iulian
If we wish we can drop the use of diacritics by using costructions like Sh (Ș); Ts(Ț); Ha(Ă) which is allways preceded by a consonant ; and Ī needs no change as it can be used an accent rule for it).

What you suggest is not practical at all and would be a step backward. Why replace one letter (Ş) with two (SH)? Only because many romanians are lazy and do not want to enable the romanian keyboard mapping included in the operating system?

Quote from: Iulian
GENETIC HERITAGE: If you have seen romanians they look a little different from their neighbours. romanians like many other european ethnic groups are a "cocktail" of ancient native populations (dacians/getae/thracians in the romanian case; the gauls in France; the ancient germanic tribes in north europe etc.) plus the roman colonists (which came after 106 AD in vast numbers in Dacia) plus the migratory people who spread through Europe (goths, visigoths, cumans, huns) plus the slavs who settled in east Europe and Balkans begining with the 5th (6th) century AD This "cocktail" theory is viable for many of Europe 's nations (like french , italians, iberians, even the slav nations etc) but the quantity of the "ingredients" vary. There is no "pure" ethnic group that dates to "Adam and Eve" that's supremacist b**shit.

Wow, some common sense, at last. You are not irremediably lost.

Quote from: Iulian
ROMANIAN LATIN HERITAGE. This can't be denied or debated if you have the curiosity to study just a little latin and romanian. The resemblance is striking even from the begining in every possible way. I studied latin for 1 year and it's extremely easy to learn it if you know romanian and "vice versa".

I have been waiting for this one piece of propaganda. And here it is, precise like a comet that appears from the dephts of the propagandistic mind. It never fails to appear in any discussion about the romanian language.

No, latin is not extremely easy to learn for romanians. It helps that romanian and latin are related, but not very much. The syntax is clearly different in latin and romanian. There are words that have a similarity in romanian and latin, but that's all, they are written differently and one must learn how to write them in latin. And the grammar is not the same, although there are some ressemblances between latin and romanian grammar. So for a romanian to learn latin there is no easy way, he must learn it like any other foreign language. A romanian cannot understand much from a book written in latin, he should learn latin seriously to be able to read or write in that language. The same is true for french, spanish, portugese, even italian people.

Any romanian schoolchildren had classes of latin at about 13-14 years of age, usually 1-2 hours per week for a year, just before entering high school. Needless to say that no one knew latin after that year and quickly forgot what was taught. No romanian schoolchildren was ever interested in learning a dead language. At 13-14 years almost nobody knows what profession he/she would have later, and latin is useful only for historians and linguists, so almost no one learned latin seriously in school. In 2009 the romanian Ministry of Education finally accepted the reality that schoolchildren are not interested in learning latin, so this scholarly discipline was deemed optional, not mandatory like before.

Quote from: Iulian
Ravinescu . Do you think that using an "escu" nickname you can pass as an all-knowing romanian historyan and linguist?! Do you even know what what te "escu" termination means and what it represents to romanians? Do you even know the pride a romanian feels to be romanian and how badly you have insulted us?

I say it again, maybe you will eventually get it. I am from Bucureşti, Romānia, if you know what I mean. I intervened here because I do not like the fact that romanians are making fools of themselves by using old 19th propaganda in the 21th century, when the internet is at anyone fingers. This propaganda can be easily debunked with a simple search on Google that provides materials about romanian history and language. And it can also be debunked by visiting Romania, which I invite anyone interested in romanian and romanians to do.

As for the "pride" of being romanian in today's world, this is only propaganda that has nothing to do with the reality. Do you want me to post here the address of the Softpedia forum thread where romanians speak about their "pride" to be romanians? I don't think so, because the Antimoon audience would be really shocked at how the romanians "insult" themsleves. But is there any proof better than the number of romanians that have left the country from 1990 on? No one really knows the exact number, but it is somewhat between 2-4 millions. They don't want to come back and more important, they don't want to be perceived as romanians in their countries of adoption. All this talk about pride to be a romanian is absent even in Romania.

Quote from: Iulian
The book in this link you gave http://tinyurl.com/romanians-romania is written by an AMERICAN "know better than the natives the past and history of those" like you. It's like me writting a book about cambodians which i know nothing about.

The book written by George W. White is not only about romanians, but also about other peoples from Eastern Europe (hungarians, serbs, etc.). And the author really had read a lot, in order to understand the situation of those peoples. You can tell it by the fact that the book is full of references to materials written by renowned local historians (C.C. Giurescu in the case of romanians). So it's not like the author decided to write something from hearsay, he used the scientific method in order to write a very insightful book.

Quote from: Dude
yeah i have to agree with iulian. that ravinescu guy might be some brainwashed half russian moldovan who's got problems with his own identity so he has to try to emphasize a greater connection with slavs

Yeah, sure, the "brainwashed half-russians" citizens of the Republic of Moldova are always responsible for presenting a less than shiny image of the romanian history. This is so ridiculous, it's like all the history books available in the romanian bookshops never existed. And surely they do not exist for a dude that prefers to buy something for his belly, not for his brain.

In all the present-day history books the slavs are presented as an essential ethnic component that participated in the formation of the romanian people and greatly influenced the romanian language. This is also present in the school textbooks, anyone that has been in school should know it. I gave numerous quotations from renowned historians on the subject in this thread, but here is one more from a book written by a well-known contemporary romanian historian:

Prezenţa lor [a slavilor] īn fosta Dacie a fost mai īndelungată decīt a altor migratori, iar relaţiile lor cu autohtonii mult mai strīnse. O dovadă o constituie cuvintele de origine slavă "plug", "plăti", "primi", "iubi", "prieten", "drag", care dezvăluie atīt conlucrarea cīt şi contactele umane strīnse. Īn formarea poporului romān, ei [slavii] au īndeplinit o funcţie de desăvīrşire sau īncheiere. Etnogeneza romānilor apare astfel ca avīnd trei componente fundamentale: substratul geto-dac; stratul roman; adstratul slav.

Florin Constantiniu: O istorie sinceră a poporului romān (Editura Univers Enciclopedic, 2008) - pag. 58

English translation:
The presence of the slavs on the territory of former Dacia was more long in duration compared with that of other migratory peoples, and their relations with the autochtonous population were much more tight. A proof for that are the romanian words of slavic origin "plug" [plough], "plăti" (pay), "primi" (receive), "iubi" (love), "prieten" (friend), "drag" (dear), which reveal not only the cooperation, but also the the tight human contacts. In the formation of the romanian people, the slavs have done the function of completion or finalization. The ethnogenesis of romanians appear as having three fundamental components: geto-dacic substrate; roman strate; slavic adstrate.

Florin Constantiniu: A sincere history of the romanian people (Publishing House: Ed. Univers Enciclopedic, 2008) - pag. 58

A final word for the propagandists. The internet is present almost everywhere and yout tired and old propaganda is of no value, it even harms the image of the romanian people. Remember also the romanian saying, "minciuna are picioare scurte" [the lie has short legs]. It's like in the song, one can say that "internet killed the propaganda star".
$$   Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:57 pm GMT
Ravinescov de la Mancha
Esti cea mai idioata persoana de pe acest forum.
Oricum pot scrie orice despre tine fiindca capul tau sec nu intelege scrierea fara diacritice. Vezi cum le pui, poate-ti iese ca te laud!

"Thanks. I am doing what anyone should do when participating in a meaningful discussion, present arguments and back them up with quotes from reputable sources."

Ha ha, isi ridea de tine iar tu esti prea prost ca sa pricepi! Incuiatule!
John   Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:57 pm GMT
dude   Fri Jan 29, 2010 9:46 pm GMT
Alright, so even if maybe the "Latinity" wasn't the biggest part of Vlach identity for a lot of their history, I do remember reading that Italian travelers or missionaries in the Renaissance era found people in the area that referred to themselves as Romans in some way or another, so they at least had that concept before the 19th century romantic movement. And also, how would it explain Aromanians and Istro Romanians, who have somewhat similar languages and names for themselves. They were Romanized populations south of the Danube that instead of incorporating Slavic words into their language took in mostly Greek due to their location.
iulian   Fri Jan 29, 2010 9:49 pm GMT
Ravinescu - i have nothing more to say to you. If the fact that you are romanian and from București is true, than you are a self-hating romanian. I feel only pity for you and sadness; you have no trace of patriotism left if you never felt PROUD TO BE ROMANIAN AND LATIN; you are a confused sad person who doesn't know WHO he is.

I can asure you that to the majority of real romanians our national anthem still brings tears of joy when heard. I can only pray and hope that you come to your senses one day althought i think you are lost.

Please STOP posting on this forum or any forum my friend cause i can't call you anymore my brother, go where ever you feel accepted. My heart cries when i read your posts. Be what you want to be , be slav if you wish but don't impose your opinions on others, keep them for yourself.

I'm a student at the University in Ploiesti where there are many Moldavian students and they call romanians (because they are romanian too) "Our brothers across the Prut river".

I traveled across Europe a few times and i met people of many nations (bulgarians, italians, spanish, french, germans, hungarians, british, greeks etc) and where ever i went i said with pride that i'm romanian. I'm proud of this nation who fought it's way through history against all odds and gave so much to the world.
iulian   Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:22 pm GMT
As we all know history is written by those who have the power. For the entire time of the middle ages romanian states where under the sovereignity of the neighbouring empires .

So, how you can't tell a tree "don't be a tree" they coundn't tell romanians "don't be romanian" , this doesn't mean that they didn't tried but without success; as it happened in Transylvania where although romanians represented the majority of the population the romanians were not recognised officialy as an ethnic group or a nationality. For hundreds of years they where treated as second-class citizens without any political rights, but the latin heritage was written on their colective memory.

The politics of the 19th century Europe just gave the romanians the oportunity to establish officialy worlwide their TRUE identity.
To Ravinescu   Sat Jan 30, 2010 2:49 am GMT
The way you act on this forum makes me believe that you have a problem, boy! I've noticed you on other "blogs" as well and you just cannot get rid of your obssesions about Romanians and Romanian; I'm sorry but I ahve to say that I"ve never seen something like this. Take a break man, you are about to lose your mind; these are not normal reactions to fill up dozen of pages with Roesler's theories; we are here to discuss at a unacademic level about languges and languages perceptions and nothing more for God sake!

An you romaninas, let him alone, give him a break!
Reason Is My Religion   Sat Jan 30, 2010 3:16 am GMT
As far as I've read, Ravinescu is a Romanian that smells the bullshit in romanian nationalism and propaganda. He backs up his well thought-out statements with sources. As far as I've read, people against Ravinescu seem to just shout what seems like talking-points that they've been taught as school. Ravinescu is making far more sense here then any other poster here.
Reason of my religion   Sat Jan 30, 2010 5:03 am GMT
and ravinescu is one and the same person...obiviosley, we deal here with somebody with some problems...