Which Romance language sounds more Slavic?

ravinescu   Sat Feb 13, 2010 1:31 pm GMT
===================================
Quote from: Dan
This theory that half of the Romanian lexic was sometime in history made of Slavic words is ludicrous. It is stupid from a linguistic stand-point (there is no language in this world that has a lexic split in half between two languages, each coming from a different family of languages), it is a nonsense historically as well.
===================================


Once again Dan, you are proving your complete ignorance and your unwillingness to read the messages from this discussion. You are speaking only to yourself, repeating over and over the same stupidities. Romanian of today has words of many origins: dacian, latin, slavic, french, italian, turkish, hungarian, german, english, greek, albanian, etc. Before the reromanization of the romanian vocabulary, the language had probably an almost equal proportion of words of latin and slavic origin, but there was no 50/50, because there were also many words of dacian, turkish, greek, hungarian, german, albanian origin. In the 19th century, the romanian cultural elites, seeing that the number of words of slavic origin surpassed the number of words of latin origin, introduced a huge amount of romance words (of french, italian or classical latin origin) in the romanian language, a process called reromanization. This made the group of words of romance origin the more numerous from the romanian vocabulary, but this was done artificially, not by the natural evolution of the language.


===================================
Quote from: Dan
75% of the Romanian words of Slavic origin are from Old Bulgarian or Medieval Bulgarian, then how come that Southern Romanian, the only one that came in direct contact with Bulgarian has no trace of Slavic accent (in contrast with the rest of the Romanian accents that do have to some degree a Slavic accent)?
===================================


There is no slavic generic accent, just like there is no romance or german generic accent. If you knew french, italian, spanish or portuguese, then you would have observed that the accent of these languages is very different, leaving alone the accent from different parts of the countries (France, Italy, Spain or Portugal), for example the southern french accent being different compared to the northern french accent. So it is normal that the bulgarian accent is different from the accent from other slavic languages (polish, serbian, russian, czech, ukrainian, etc.). And actually the romanian language spoken in the southern part of the country has a sound that somewhat resembles bulgarian, but of course this is just the accent, the languages are different. One may also say that it is bulgarian that resembles romanian, not the other way around. Anyway, there are sound similiarities between the two languages, a characteristic that probably goes back to the geto-dacians (ancestors of romanians) and thracians (ancestors of bulgarians). Geto-dacians spoke a language similar to thracian, and maybe they were thracian tribes, although recent theories say they were different from thracians. The romanian language (especially form Muntenia, southern Romania) and the bulgarian language seem to have a similar sound and that's just normal for two neigbouring peoples that have related ancestors.


===================================
Quote from: Dan
This proves very nicely that these Slavic words entered the Romanian lexic mostly through cultural exchange rather than through mixing populations (Romanians used in church and administration Old Bulgarian for almost 800 years!, this was bound to leave traces on the Romanian language).
===================================


No, "this proves very nicely" only one thing, that Dan is refusing to read history books and thinks the Antimoon audience is so gullible (credulous), that it will believe the theories of an anonymous internet poster that has not presented any single source in support of his repeated elucubrations. In order for a theory to be accepted, it must not be proven "nicely", but "scientifically".

Dan, wake up, this is the 21th century, nobody is so stupid as to believe anything that is posted on the internet. You have lost all credibility, but you continue to live in a world of your own historical and linguistic fantaisies, completely separated from the real world, where history and linguistics are scientific disciplines, not propaganda machines.


===================================
Quote from: Dan
The same is true for Romanian genealogy.
===================================


Well, I could not have hoped for a better quote than the one above. This sentence from Dan (meaning that what is true regarding the romanian language, is also true regarding the romanian genealogy) proves just what I was saying in my previous message. The romanian propagandists use the trick with the percentage of romance words transferred to the percentage of genetic heritage. In the 19th century the latinist propagandists devised a simple trick, as simple as one-two-three. At first they stuffed the romanian language with many words of french, italian and classical latin origin, so as to boost the percentage of romance words close to the value of 60-70%, surpassing the words of any other origin. The second step was the marginalization of the words of slavic origin, by not using them in the modern books or textbooks, using romance words instead, which had the effect to push many of these slavic origin words in the category of archaisms, so the percentage of slavic words used in the modern language would drop significantly. The third step, and the most important one, was the transfer of the percentage of words of latin origin to the genetic heritage of romanians, just like that, as if linguistics and genetics were related disciplines and what is true about the romanian language must also be true for the romanian people.

So, a language whose percentage of romance words was artificially increased in the 19th century was to prove the latinity of the romanian people, in exactly the same percentage as the percentage of romance words existing in romanian. This trick had also the benefit of continous "improvement", because in the 20th century more words of romance origin were added to romanian. So, little by little, one romance word at a time adding a new "latin gene", 80% romance words in the romanian language of the 20th century meant 80% latinity of the romanians. A true propagandistic trick, that could have achieved 90% "genetic latinity" or more for romanians in the 21st century, if the romanian population had not thrown latinity down the drain and embraced "americanity". As it is probably known, romanians of today are probably the most americanophile people from Europe. What went "wrong"? Well, the romanian population and political/cultural elites do not believe anymore that latinity can provide any advantage today, so many are switching sides to the anglo-saxon camp.


===================================
Quote from: Dan
Yes, Slavic genes are a contributor to the Romanian gene pool, but it is not that important (genetic studies put it at around 15%). There are 4 major populations that added the most to the Romanian gene mix: the Getodacians, the Romans, the Grecized Thracians and finally some Slavic populations. Heck, even Goths left their trace in Romania, there are plenty of Romanians with a Germanic look - Goths occupied for centuries the same space with Getae, and were even confused by many historians in the antiquity to Middle Ages.
===================================


I hope that nobody believes the lies of Dan about the genetic studies that prove the percentage of 15% slavic genes in romanians (notice that Dan of course does not offer a link to any study). There are no such studies, because there are no ethnic (slavic, romance, german, etc.) genes or genetic markers.

What's interesting in the quote above is a new theory of the romanian ethnogenesis, that mentions the "grecized thracians" as a major component of the romanian people. Nobody said this before, it is the sole invention of Dan. One may not even know what means "grecized", because such a word probably does not exist in english. Dan maybe meant to say "hellenized". It must be noticed that Dan makes a concession and puts the slavs as a major population that contributed to the romanian genetic mix. Sure, they are on the last place and their contribution is minimized by mentioning also the germanic goths. Actually this is another trick used by the romanian propagandists. The slavs are always put in a different category than dacians and romans, they are put in a category named "others", together with all the other migratory peoples. But anyway, the romanians with "germanic look" are actually with a "slavic look" (meaning blond hair with blue/green eyes) and they are most numerous in the regions that are close to slavs (especially northern Moldova).


===================================
Quote from: Dan
In other words the Daco-Roman theory is not false, just incomplete - if we add the Grecized Thracians to Getodacians (because they were related populations) this theory accounts for approximately 70% of the Romanian gene pool.
===================================


I have already provided quotes from modern history books about the current theory of romanian ethnogenesis, the one with the three important layers: substrate (geto-dacian), strate (roman) and adstrate/superstrate (slavic). As I already said, the roman colonists were mainly non-italian, being native people from the roman provinces of Thracia (present-day Bulgaria), Dalmatia (present-day Croatia), Pannonia (present-day Hungary), Illyricum (present-day Serbia, Bosnia and Montenegro), Asia Minor (present-day Turkey), etc. Some of the colonists were not even speaking latin, some of them spoke greek. However, they were not the majority, and this can be inferred from the inscriptions left by the colonists, only 10% being written in greek. And not all the colonists that spoke greek were from Thracia, some were from Greece or Asia Minor. Hellenized thracians were a minority of the roman colonists, so they cannot be taken separately from them. There was no migration of thracians (romanized or hellenized) to the north of the Danube except in the years when Dacia was a roman colony, and even then they were not at all the majority of the colonists.

Mark Twain once said that there are "lies, damned lies and statistics". Anyone can see that romanian propagandists have an obsession with statistics. But the romanian propagandists also use "damned statistics", fabricated statistics. They don't care about reading history and presenting significant arguments, all they care is to find a way to attain 80%, the "magical" percentage that "blows away" all the historical arguments against the "latinity" of the romanian people. Any fabrication is good for those like Dan in order to obtain the desired genetic percentage, that always must be close to the percentage of romance words in the romanian language. This value of 80% is to be hammerred repeatedly into the minds of non-romanians as a proof of the degree of "latinity" of romanians. And when they are not believed, the propagandists become suddenly emotional, they burst into tears and ask "Why do you hate us?", because for them anyone that does not believe their tricks and fantasies must surely hate them. But it's the other way around. The propagandists are the real haters, they are haters of the truth and they are haters of the romanian people, that was transformed into an intellectually lazy people, that refuses to read history books and rejects the opinions of the specialists in order to be a trumpet for the official propaganda.
ravinescu   Sat Feb 13, 2010 1:33 pm GMT
===================================
Quote from: Dude
But original guest seems to just have some other agenda in mind against Romanians other than exposing the "truth". Basically you're saying they have no identity and aren't entitled to be proud of anything and come from a ragtag group of steppe barbarians. Come on, everyone knows it's the Hungarians that were Turanic or whatever in origin. That part is just bull.
===================================


No, OriginalGuest doesn't have any agenda against the romanian people. He just wrote some personal conclusions about how the "official" identity of romanians has changed along the last two centuries. He does not say that the romanians have no identity, but that the "official" romanian identity is not the true one, because of the intervention of politics and religion in the matters of history. Only after 1990 the romanian historians have had true freedom in investigating the romanian history and could publish books without fear of censure by the state.

Your message is interesting because you use the notion of "pride". Unfortunately, romanians have been taught that the history is divided in two parts: historical facts that generate pride for romanians and historical facts that generate shame for romanians. Of course, the concepts of pride and shame are defined by the political/cultural authorities and sometimes have changed over time (for example, the dacians were in the "shame" category but were eventually put in the "proud" category). The "proud facts" should be emphasized and claimed loudly, whereas the "shameful facts" should be downplayed or even hidden from the public view. This is a pure propagandistic view, because propagandists always emphasize things that support the ideology of the current rulers and downplay or censor the things that are contrary to the current ideology.

History is the science that tries to uncover the truth about the past of a people or a country, regardless of the feelings that it generates in the present-day population. It should never be suggested that the romanian must be proud of their roman roots, but be ashamed of their slavic roots. However, this has happened from the 19th century onwards and it continues to happen today. Such a pride/shame approach is stupid and immature for any people in the 21th century. And it has caused only misfortunes for romanians, that were taught not to seek the historical truth about themselves, but to embrace and broadcast the official propaganda devised by the political and cultural "elites". A people that is taught to reject the objective study of history and to assume instead the subjective view that others have concocted for him 200 years ago, is a people that degenerates into a bunch of brainless zombies.

Now back to the "ragtag group of steppe barbarians" of turanic origin. First at all, it must be said that not only the magyars were of turkic (turanic) origin, but also the avars, bulgars, huns, pechenegs and cumans, all of which arrived at some time on the territory of present-day Romania. The territory on which there are now native speakers of romanian (countries of Romania and Republic of Moldova) is geographically connected with the steppe that stretches from Europe to Asia. The romanian territory is not at all geographically isolated, like the propagandists like to say. Because of the land connection between Europe and Asia, the migratory peoples that came from Asia into Europe arrived also on the territory occupied by the romanians. But it must be said that the turanic (turkic) peoples were not the first to arrive from the steppe. The first were a group of Iranic peoples (speakers of an iranian language), collectively called sarmatians. Those sarmatians lived also on the territory of present-day Romania. They helped the dacians in their wars with the romans and they are depicted alongside the dacians on Trajan's Column in Rome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians

#################################
őn privinţa cavaleriei, dacii se bazau Ón principal pe aliaţii lor, sarmaţii. Călăreţii sarmaţi purtau cămăşi de zale ce acopereau cal şi călăreţ. Aceşi catafracţi erau adversari redutabili şi mai tÓrziu astfel de luptători vor fi incluşi Ón armatele romane.

Philip Matyszak : Duşmanii Romei (editura ALL, 2008) - pagina 203

English translation:
As for the cavalry, the dacians relied on their allies, the sarmatians. The sarmatian riders had chainmail armor that covered both man and horse. These cataphracts were strong opponents and later they were included in the roman armies.

Philip Matyszak : The Ennemies of Rome (ALL publishing House, 2008) - page 203
###################################

After the dacians were defeated, the sarmatians continued to live next to the roman province of Dacia. A sarmatian tribe, the roxolani, lived in what is today Muntenia, the southern part of Romania. Another tribe, the iazyges, lived in Moldova (eastern part of Romania), and that's why the biggest city from Moldova has a name (Iaşi) that is derived from the name of the iazyges. The sarmatians had numerous clashes with the romans, even after they retreated from Dacia. With the arrival of the huns, the sarmatians were conquered and disbanded as independent tribes, being assimilated either by the european populations or by the huns. The huns retreated from Europe after the year 454 A.D., when they were defeated by the gepids, a germanic people.

Next in line to come from the steppe were the pechenegs, a migratory turkic (turanic) tribe related to the bulgars. They arrived after the romanian people was fully formed and organized in political entities ruled by knezes (princes) and voivodes (warlords). The pechenegs arrived around the year 900 A.D. and ruled a large portion of land in Asia and Europe that included also the territories of present-day Romania and Republic of Moldova.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pechenegs

Then in 1000 arrived the cumans, another turkic population from the steppe. They became the rulers, replacing the pechenegs. The cumans stayed for 200 years in the region of present-day Romania (Moldova and Muntenia to be more precise), until the attacks of the mongols on Central and Eastern Europe (1241), which forced the cumans to migrate and settle in Hungary, where they remained indefinitely, being assimilated later by the hungarian people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumans

It is assumed that Basarab I, the first ruler of Wallachia (southern part of today's Romania), was of cuman origin. This assumption is based only on his name, because there are no detailed historical records about the ethnic origin of Basarab I. Some of the romanian nobles (ruling class) of that time were of cuman origin, assumption also based on their recorded names. Basarab I united under his command the existing political entities (knezates and voivodates) situated between the Carpathian Mountains and the Danube, forming the romanian state of Wallachia, somewhere around the year 1300.


===================================
Quote from: Dude
And I agree that Romanians shouldn't look so much to ancient history or overemphasize an Italian connections for their achievements, but there are some modern Romanians that have done important things, like Coanda, Brancusi, Eminescu, and others. Every country should have a right to some kind of national identity, even if it is rather poor and not as developed by today's standards.
===================================


Yes, but it's much easier to take an already made identity and modify it a little, even if it's not suiting you that well. It's harder to make an identity from scratch, although it has the great benefit of suiting you perfectly. Unfortunately the laziness that anyone can see in romanians when they are not writing their language correctly (with diacritics), is also to be seen in many things, including in the building of a true national identity.
utilizator   Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:32 pm GMT
but english also borrowed a lot of words from french to enrich its vocabulary for more complex concepts that didn't exist around the time of the norman conquest. they borrowed even more later for scientific terms in the enlightenment. many countries, even slavic ones, have borrowed latin terms. can't really blame a country for doing so. probably makes it easier to communicate in a more standard form. the ones that were taken from french into romanian mostly have obvious english cognates, so you can usually tell which ones were borrowed in the last 200 years or were native.

oh and at least you admit that sarmatians were iranic. some fool earlier on this thread was saying they were slavs, although they might have been distantly related. is it true that sarmiszegetusa is based on their name?
mirko   Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:48 pm GMT
Ok Ravineís, we understand now...according to you Romanians are Slavic people and are speaking a Slavic language but even so you have to admit that they came earlier than you, Hungarians, in these places. If they were not of Romans Thracians descend and only Slavic, then they arrived in the Carpathian basin before you and your territorial pretensions are again senseless and totally unjustified! And please, give us abreak with your endless bulshit!
Ravinescu insulted even t   Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:12 pm GMT
Ravinescu said: "Before the Romanization of the Romanian vocabulary, the language had probably an almost equal proportion of words of Latin and Slavic origin, but there was no 50/50, because there were also many words of dacha, Turkish, Greek, Hungarian, German, Albanian origin. In the 19th century, the Romanian cultural elites, seeing that the number of words of Slavic origin surpassed the number of words of Latin origin, introduced a huge amount of romance words (of French, Italian or classical Latin origin) in the Romanian language"

Wrong amigo, before latinisation, Romanian has had more Latin words than it has now or after "Romanization". Hit the book and don't speculate...
The so called Latinisation borrowed Italian and French words which in fact have not been of Latin origin. This "Laicization" reduced the Roma/Latin element in Romanian vocabulary!

I relay donít understand how the Hungarians, known for their past as the men of the plains, could say that they occupied and eir lived in the mountains (Carpathian) /Transylvania hills before the Romanians immigrated from the south as per Reoslerís theory? It doesnít make any sense!
Romescu Chovucsuu   Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:47 pm GMT
Why don'ts yous Hungarians gos backs to Mongoliana and eat your dog meat in your yurts and sell yellow market DVD. You notting ivan speaking Europeans language!
Randy   Sat Feb 13, 2010 11:24 pm GMT
Yugra is considered to be the place of origin of the Hungarians (in Hungarian magyar őshaza). It is thought that the name Hungary is a variety of the name Yugra. The Hungarians also were known in several languages under the name of Ugri, and are still known under this name in Ukrainian. Hungary is also said to derive from On-Ogur, meaning Ten Tribes or Ten Arrows. The Hungarian language is also the closest linguistic relative of Khanty and Mansi. It is considered that Hungarians moved from Yugra to the west, first settling on the western side of the Urals, in the region known as Magna Hungaria. Then they moved further to the west, to the region of Levťdia (present-day east Ukraine), then to the region of EtelkŲz (present-day west Ukraine), finally reaching the Carpathian Basin in the 9th century

Being a profoundly nomad nation, thta explaines why they coinsider that the others (as Romanians for instance), are nomads as well, like them. That is I believe, the origin of the missinterpretation of Romanians origin and of ignoring the historical evidences.
ciakanu   Fri Feb 19, 2010 6:45 am GMT
Hi everyone,
i just want to add few things here about romanian language, many believe that we don't have any gothic words, (mostly those that want us out of Transilvania) which is false, and i give u few examples:OTZET=vinegar, SHTUCA=Pike, Stuka, TUNA= Thunder, TUNAR la ei era zeul THOR, VINT=Wind, Frumos very similar with a suevian chieftain Frumarius, other Rechiarius i know someone by the name Rechiaru, all the names, words finished in ILA, IC, IMIR, COSHTILA mountain top, SIBIU for them Sibjia, towns: GOTHADEA, BALOMIR etc, this is just coming by them not researching, and then another forgotten influence was celtic, there are more resemblances between romanian and keltic than between keltic and english.
Cities of CALAN, BRAN, names BRICIU, CIORAN, BOGDAN(which is not slavic)etc
Montenegrins were dalmatians latinized ilyrians and dacians, their kingdom was called ZETA and their kings lineage was DOCLEA, and BALSHA, their capital was called CETJINIE, in romanian CETINA(fir branch)
A IUBI = To Love, is coming originaly from german as well, LIEBE, in slavic LIUBI, Vilk in slavic=Wolf.
Reason Is My Religion   Fri Feb 19, 2010 2:53 pm GMT
Oţet=vinegar from Slavic=Ocĩtŭ
Ştiucă=pike from Bulgarian & Serbo-Croatian=ätuka
A Tuna=to thunder from Latin=Tonare
V‚nt=wind from Latin=Ventus
A Iubi=to love from Slavic=Ljubiti

see http://www.dexonline.ro
To Ravinescu   Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:38 pm GMT
If you base you anti-Romanians stories on the information from Wikipedia, why are you not indicating Wikipedia as source for Romanians history as well? That's because you are not sincere. The way you manipulate Wikipedia information shows how un-honest and mean towards these people you are.

If you use Wikipedia, let's continue with it and see what information would provide this, about Romanians this time. See this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanians
No, Reason is not   Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:00 pm GMT
your religion - because you don't understand anything around you!

Search the words you cited here on the online dictionary http://www.vocabular.ro which is based on Romanian printed dictionaries. You'll see that the Slavic origin of those words is always indicated.

Some of those words you cited are used in the conversational language, others in literature or poetry.

So rest assured, no one in Romania will try to replace the word "cartofi" (potatoes) because of its German origin or the word "castraveti" (cucumbers) because of its Bulgarian origin.

People just use the words of their language as they feel, no one cares about the origin of those words, why would they? And that's general valuable, for and in any language on this world!

"a iubi " though, might came from direct from 'Iubilare" and not detoured via Libliu! Latin was always closer than Slavic here.
Reason Is My Religion   Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:10 pm GMT
to anonymous poster:

I was replying to Ciakanu; I don't know what you're talking about in the rest of your post.
Anastadia   Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:08 pm GMT
Visit my website: http://www.romanianlearn.com
I add a new lesson every day.
ravinescu   Sun Feb 21, 2010 1:23 pm GMT
===================================
Quote from: utilizator
but english also borrowed a lot of words from french to enrich its vocabulary for more complex concepts that didn't exist around the time of the norman conquest. they borrowed even more later for scientific terms in the enlightenment. many countries, even slavic ones, have borrowed latin terms. can't really blame a country for doing so. probably makes it easier to communicate in a more standard form. the ones that were taken from french into romanian mostly have obvious english cognates, so you can usually tell which ones were borrowed in the last 200 years or were native.
====================================


The situation of english and romanian with regard to importing of words is not identical, although it resembles somewhat. English has close to 30% words of french origin, but they were not the result of a massive operation of stuffing with french words, as was the case of romanian in the 19th century. England was conquered in 1066 by the normans, who were a people of mixed viking-french origin, that spoke a variant of french. It is because of that that many words of french origin entered the english language. In contrast, the romanians were never conquered by a people that spoke french, so there is a big difference. Of course that english continued afterwards to borrow french words, probably until the 20th century, when the trend was reversed and the french began to borrow english words (including ones that were actually of french origin). But this was a normal evolution by which the english or french helped each other to have the most modern language possible. The situation for romanian seems similar, but it is not. In the 19th century the romanian language was filled up with french words intentionally and much beyond the normal necessity to modernize the language. The objective was to flush out the words of slavic origin and all the other words that were of non-latin origin. The strategy was extremely simple. The newly imported words of romance origin (french, italian, classical latin) were to create pairs with the already existing words of non-romance origin that designated the same concepts. Then, little by little, the word of non-romance origin from the pair was to be pushed aside, being labeled as an archaism, and not used anymore in the modern books or school textbooks. By this simple trick and the accompanying "latinization/modernization" propaganda, the population was taught not to use the old romanian words, but the newly imported words, which actually were in their language of origin as old or even older than the romanian ones they meant to replace. In some situations the population (especially the educated part) used the newly imported words by pure exhibitionism, in order to appear more modern and more latin.

Here are some pairs of words, the first being of slavic origin and the second of romance origin, imported in the 19th century. I also provide the english translation inside brackets [ ].

bălan | blond | [blond]

veac | secol | [century]

viclean | perfid | [treacherous]

viteaz | brav | [brave]

gol | nud | [naked]

grabă | celeritate | [haste]

potop | diluviu | [deluge]

grozav | teribil | [terrible]

nădejde | speranţă | [hope]

The trick has not been effective in 100% percent of cases, but it was reasonably effective and worked maybe in 30% percent of the situations, the result being that some romanian words of non-latin (mostly slavic) origin being replaced in the spoken and written language by words of romance origin (mostly french). Of the words presented above, only "blond", "secol", "teribil" and "speranţă" succeeded in becoming the primary used words in the present-day language. The others ("perfid", "brav", "nud", "celeritate", "diluviu") are also used, but less frequently than their slavic origin counterparts. It must be said that in romanian there is no advantage in using words of romance origin compared with words of non-romance origin, because they designate the same concept. And actually there is a disadvantage, in that the population is more used to the old romanian word than to the new imported word. Of course, with the passing of time, the population becomes habituated with the imported words, but nonetheless, some of these words keep a sense of "being foreign" (for example "perfid", "diluviu") compared to the old romanian words, which sound truly genuine.

What's even more interesting is the fact that nowadays the same trick (pairing) is used to add words of english origin to romanian, in order to replace some of the "old" words (even of latin or romance origin, no less!). This time it is not a strategy devised by the political and cultural elites, but by the media and the common population. And even more interesting is the fact that english words are imported with the original pronounciation and writing. In the 19th century the french words were adapted to the romanian writing ("chauffeur" became "şofer", "maillot" became "maieu", etc.), because romanian is mainly pronounced as it is written, which is not the case for french or english. However, from 1990 on, the words imported from english by the media or population are not adapted anymore to the romanian writing, so from here derives a lot of problems, because the majority of the population has no idea how to pronounce them correctly.

It is really ironic that the trick with the "modernization" by pairing romanian and imported words took a life of its own. Like a Frankenstein it is set to wreak havoc in the language, by creating an enclave of english words that don't respect the rules of the romanian language, because they are not written and pronounced like all the other romanian words. They also cause big problems for the romanian grammar, like in the following example. In romanian, the definite article is merged (fused) with the end of the word, it is not separated and put before the word, like in english ("the") or french ("le", "la"). So, in romanian, a word like "scut" [shield] is articulated like "scutul" [the shield], where "ul" is the definite article. The plural is made in the same way, and for the word "scut" [shield] the plural is "scuturi", where the suffix "uri" indicates the plural. The newly imported words from english are articulated by using a hyphen between the word and the article, in order to signal that they must be pronounced like in english. So, a word like "show" is articulated in romanian like "show-ul" and the plural is "show-uri". Notice the hyphen and the difference between "scuturi" (the normal situation) and "show-uri" (the special situation for english words). It is sheer stupidity to have two rules for the articulated/pluralized words, one for the existing romanian words and one for the newly imported english words. It only causes the complication of the writing. But that's not all, it also causes confusion, because some romanians are beginning to use the hyphen to articulate romanian words that they probably believe were imported recently from english, which is not the case. In conclusion, the "modernization" of the romanian vocabulary is out of control and now it harms more than helps the romanian language. And all this can be traced to the excessive "modernization" done in 19th century, who is back with a vengeance in the 21st century and threatens today all the romanian words, including the ones of latin origin. A very obvious example is the fact that the majority of romanians do not want to use the word "şoarece" (derived from the latin "sorex/soricis") for the computer device, but want to use "mouse" (written and prononunced like in english), because in their mind "şoarece" sounds old, whereas "mouse" sounds new. And they mock the french, because they use "souris" instead of "mouse", and in doing so they are seen as refusing to modernize their language like the romanians. It is linguistic exhibitionism at its best, a form of exhibitionism that was promoted heavily in Romania starting from the 19th century on and that today has reached its peak.


===================================
Quote from: utilizator
oh and at least you admit that sarmatians were iranic. some fool earlier on this thread was saying they were slavs, although they might have been distantly related. is it true that sarmiszegetusa is based on their name?
====================================


The etymology of the dacian capital, "Sarmizegetusa", is not clear at all. It is thought that the word is composed of two or three parts, but nobody can be sure how to separate them in order to guess the true meaning. So, if someone says it is "sarmi + zegetusa" or "sarmi + ze + getusa", he may be right or he may be wrong. Some said that the meaning of "Sarmizegetusa" is "castle on the rock", some say it is something else. Because the dacian language is almost completely unknown (only some names were recorded), nobody can at this time say what is the true meaning of "Sarmizegetusa".

As for the iranic origin of "Sarmizegetusa", this is an hypothesis that cannot be demonstrated today for lack of scientific evidence. The fortress Sarmizegetusa was built probably around the year 70 BC. It is not known if the sarmatians were present at that time in the vicinity of the dacians, some historians say they arrived later. However, this cannot rule an iranic influence on the dacians, because before the Sarmatians arrived, there was another people named "Agathyrsi" ("agatÓrşi" in romanian) that lived on the territory of today's Transylvania around the year 500 BC, before being assimilated by the thracians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agathyrsi

The Wikipedia article indicates a possible Scythian (iranic) or Thracian-Iranic origin for the agathyrsi. But the Dacian-Iranic link does not mean only Agathyrsi or Sarmatians. The Getae (that lived in today's southern Romania) are considered by many romanian historians to be Dacians by another name. However, other historians say they were not Dacians, but a distinct people that lived alongside the Dacians. It is strange that other peoples from antiquity had a name resembling that of the Getae, for example the Massagetae and the Tyragetae, which lived in the steppe (grassland) that stretches from Asia to Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massagetae

But of course, peoples with names that sound the same does not mean those peoples are related. There is maybe an iranic genetic contribution to the formation of the romanian people, because iranic peoples inhabited some of the present-day romanian territory for hundreds of years, but it is hard to assess how important is this contribution.
ravinescu   Sun Feb 21, 2010 1:24 pm GMT
===================================
Quote from: Anonymous user
Ok Ravineís, we understand now...according to you Romanians are Slavic people and are speaking a Slavic language but even so you have to admit that they came earlier than you, Hungarians, in these places. If they were not of Romans Thracians descend and only Slavic, then they arrived in the Carpathian basin before you and your territorial pretensions are again senseless and totally unjustified! And please, give us abreak with your endless bulshit!
====================================


Wow, I am not considered a "self-hating romanian" anymore, I am now a "romanian-hating" hungarian. Maybe tomorrow I will be a "panslavist russian", depending on the mood of the romanian propagandists. Anyone can see from this thread how the propagandists react when someone presents the truth about the romanian history. They don't have any rational arguments, so when their historical and linguistic fantasies are debunked, they begin the personal attacks. Of course, being labeled a "hungarian" is the biggest insult for a romanian, which implies that he is a traitor of his own people and wants to "sell" Transylvania to the hungarians. This is the result of two hundred years of official propaganda in Romania. When it comes to the romanian history, many romanians are transformed into rabid dogs and nothing more. They refuse to think with their brain and instead they think with their guts. Unfortunately, this casts a shadow on all the romanians, that appear as intellectually challenged people, incapable of reading and thinking, in order to draw their own conclusions about the historical events. I hope this will change soon, otherwise I don't see romanians gaining a reputation of open-minded people that live in the 21st century.


===================================
Quote from: Anonymous user
Wrong amigo, before latinisation, Romanian has had more Latin words than it has now or after "Romanization". Hit the book and don't speculate... The so called Latinisation borrowed Italian and French words which in fact have not been of Latin origin. This "Laicization" reduced the Roma/Latin element in Romanian vocabulary!
====================================


"Amice" [romanian for "amigo"], you are completely wrong. In the 19th century the romanian words of latin origin were not pushed out of the language or marginalized, like the words of slavic origin. Of course that some of the french words that were imported back then were not of latin origin, but this category was a minority, the vast majority of imported french words were of latin origin, that's why they were imported in the first place. The fact that some were of germanic origin was not considered to be a problem, because the declared goal was to expel or marginalize the words of slavic origin, and any french word that could replace a slavic word was deemed useful, regardless ot its origin.

But I do understand your point of view, anonymous romanian. You want to downplay the effects of the reromanization on the romanian vocabulary. But the audience is not composed of fools, as you think, so your pathetic attempt to turn the truth on its head is useless.


===================================
Quote from: Anonymous user
I relay donít understand how the Hungarians, known for their past as the men of the plains, could say that they occupied and eir lived in the mountains (Carpathian) /Transylvania hills before the Romanians immigrated from the south as per Reoslerís theory? It doesnít make any sense!
====================================


If someone lives on the plain that does not mean he cannot live on the mountain, if his existence depends on it. The Szekely from Romania are a living proof for that assumption. They live today close to the Carpathian Mountains, because they were used in the past by the magyars (hungarians) to guard the mountainous passes (gorges) from Transylvania. The Szekelys are related to the Magyars, so at the origin they were also a turkic people from the steppe. Now, after more than 1000 years of living near the mountains, they could probably adapt again to the steppe, if need be. The romanians can also adapt to different geographical conditions. After 1990 they emigrated in a lot of countries, from Canada, to South Africa, to Australia, etc., where the climate and vegetation is not identical with that of Romania.


===================================
Quote from: Anonymous user
Why don'ts yous Hungarians gos backs to Mongoliana and eat your dog meat in your yurts and sell yellow market DVD. You notting ivan speaking Europeans language!
====================================


Another fine example of a romanian "intellectual", ready to have a civilized debate with rational arguments. When will romanian trolls learn that they tarnish the image of all the people by reacting like brainless savages?


===================================
Quote from: Randy
Being a profoundly nomad nation, thta explaines why they coinsider that the others (as Romanians for instance), are nomads as well, like them. That is I believe, the origin of the missinterpretation of Romanians origin and of ignoring the historical evidences.
====================================


There is a big difference, however. The hungarian migration is well documented, but nobody succeeded in proving that the romanians migrated from the south of the Danube to their present location. There is some linguistic data that supports such a theory, but this is not compelling evidence at all, because other linguistic data does not support the theory. And what is more important, there is no historical or archaelogical proof of a migration of romanians from the south of the Danube to the north of the Danube river and their subsequent spread on all the territory between the rivers Danube, Dniester and Tisza. There are not even old romanian folk songs (ballads) or customs (habits) that speak about a mass migration.


===================================
Quote from: ciakanu
i just want to add few things here about romanian language, many believe that we don't have any gothic words, (mostly those that want us out of Transilvania) which is false, and i give u few examples:OTZET=vinegar, SHTUCA=Pike, Stuka, TUNA= Thunder, TUNAR la ei era zeul THOR, VINT=Wind, Frumos very similar with a suevian chieftain Frumarius, other Rechiarius i know someone by the name Rechiaru, all the names, words finished in ILA, IC, IMIR, COSHTILA mountain top, SIBIU for them Sibjia, towns: GOTHADEA, BALOMIR etc, this is just coming by them not researching, and then another forgotten influence was celtic, there are more resemblances between romanian and keltic than between keltic and english.
Cities of CALAN, BRAN, names BRICIU, CIORAN, BOGDAN(which is not slavic)etc
Montenegrins were dalmatians latinized ilyrians and dacians, their kingdom was called ZETA and their kings lineage was DOCLEA, and BALSHA, their capital was called CETJINIE, in romanian CETINA(fir branch)
A IUBI = To Love, is coming originaly from german as well, LIEBE, in slavic LIUBI, Vilk in slavic=Wolf.
==================================


If you want to participate in a discussion in a foreign language you must learn that language first. But you also need to learn how to write a meaningful message on a forum, because your style of writing is not correct at all and I doubt many will understand what you want to say. Also, you must quote reliable sources that support your opinions, otherwise the forum audience will not believe you. If they first understand your opinions, that is.

You are of course spreading misinformation, so your message is useless for the discussion. But how do you even think that the romanian name "Bogdan" is not slavic, is just beyond comprehension. "Bogdan" ("Bog + Dan") means in slavic "given by God". I will provide a quote from a history book, about some names inherited by the romanians from the slavs.

############################
őn sfÓrşit, de la slavi avem Ón rom‚neşte o bogată şi importantă antroponimie: Dan ("dăruitul"), Radu ("veselul"), PÓrvu ("cel dintÓi"), Dobre ("cel bun"), Ioan, Bogdan, Mircea, Vlad, Vlaicu.

Mihai Bărbulescu: Istoria Rom‚niei (editura Corint, 2007) - pag. 104

English translation:
Finally, from the slavs we have a rich and important anthroponymy [names of persons]: Dan ("the given"), Radu ("the happy"), PÓrvu ("the first"), Dobre ("the good"), Ioan, Bogdan, Mircea, Vlad, Vlaicu.

Mihai Bărbulescu: History of Romania (Corint PublishingHouse, 2007) - pag. 104
############################