Which Romance language sounds more Slavic?

ravinescu   Sun Feb 21, 2010 1:26 pm GMT
===================================
Quote from: Reason Is My Religion
Oţet=vinegar from Slavic=Ocĩtŭ
Ştiucă=pike from Bulgarian & Serbo-Croatian=Štuka
A Tuna=to thunder from Latin=Tonare
Vānt=wind from Latin=Ventus
A Iubi=to love from Slavic=Ljubiti
==================================


This is what should be done by anyone who wants to dispute the misinformations spread by propagandists. Quotes from reliable sources are very effective in order to counter any type of propaganda. Maybe the propagandists will learn that since the advent of the internet they cannot spread propaganda with such impunity as they did in the past, because the internet is full of reliable sources that are mostly free and readily available with only a mouse click.

If anyone wants to know the etymology of a romanian word, he/she can use the site http://dexonline.ro. It uses the definitions from DEX ("Dicţionarul Explicativ al Limbii Romāne"), but also from other dictionaries (etymological dictionary, dictionary of synonyms, dictionary of neologisms, dictionary of archaisms and regionalisms, etc.).

All the words have the etymology mentioned briefly at the end of the definition (the romanian word "din" means in english "from"). If "cf." is used instead of "din", that means a similar word exists in another language, but it is not proven that the romanian word derives from the foreign one, or the contrary is true.

The etymologies presented in DEX use the following abbreviations:

Alb. = albanian
Bg. = bulgarian
Ceh. = czech
Ebr. = old hebrew
Eng. = english
Eng. am. = american english
Et. nec. = unknown etymology (many of these words derive probably from the dacian language, but this cannot be proved without a doubt in the absence of writings in dacian)
Fr. = french
Germ. = german
Gr. = greek (old greek)
It. = italian
Jap. = japanese
Lat. = latin
Lat. med. = medieval latin
Lat. pop. = popular (vulgar) latin
Magh. = magyar (hungarian)
M. gr. = middle greek
Ngr. = neogreek (new greek)
Pol. = polish
Port. = portuguese
Rom. = romanian
Rus. = russian
Săs. = saxon (in romanian "saşi" = germanic population that lived in Transylvania)
Scr. = serbo-croatian
Sl. = slavic (the common slavic language before dividing into the slavic languages of today) => not to be confused with slavonic ("old church slavonic", language based on bulgarian)
Slov. = slovene
Sp. = spanish
Tăt. = tatar
Tc. = turkish
Ţig. = gypsy (in romanian "ţigănească")
Ucr. = ukrainian

Addresses of some romanian dictionary sites:

http://dexonline.ro/

http://www.dex-online.ro/
(mirror of the dexonline.ro site)

http://www.dexx.ro/
(a site that also has many dictionaries; it uses the normal romanian writing, with Ī and "sīnt", not the latinized version with Ā and "sunt")


===================================
Quote from: Anonymous romanian
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.
==================================


Interesting. Presenting the truth is now an "anti-romanian story". Has the romanian people become a people that rejects the truth, a people composed mostly of propagandists? I think not, but two centuries of brainwashing have taken their toll and it seems hard to ovecome the habit of not reading history books and relying only on the official propaganda taught in school.

As for the Wikipedia articles, there is no manipulation from my part, I only quoted some parts from them. The Antimoon audience is free to search Wikipedia in english, french, german, spanish, russian, etc. for any informations about Romania. I understand that I am the subject of some personal attacks, but it is stupid to accuse me of manipulation because I quoted some Wikipedia articles about the history of Romania and not all of the articles from this category. Come on, romanians have the perfect expression for this type of attitude: "a da mură-n gură". That means literally "to fed someone blackberries straight into the mouth", so he does not need to make any effort. This is used mainly to blame a person who is lazy from an intellectual point of view, and I am sure the Antimoon audience (except the romanian propagandists) is not.


===================================
Quote from: Anonymous romanian
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!
==================================


Sure, sure, you're very convincing... But then why the romanian propagandists brag all the time about the 80% percent of romance origin words in romanian and try to minimize the importance of words of slavic origin, saying they are mostly archaisms? Because they care about the words of latin and romance origin and they don't care about the words of slavic origin, that's why. If you went to school in Romania you were surely taught about such and such word who is so close to the latin one from which it originated. No such thing is said about the romanian words of slavic origin, because beginning with the 19th century they are discriminated against, as if they were not romanian words equal with those of latin or romance origin. Second-class words, this is how the words of slavic origin are perceived by the official propaganda.


===================================
Quote from: Anonymous romanian
"a iubi " though, might came from direct from 'Iubilare" and not detoured via Libliu! Latin was always closer than Slavic here.
==================================


Just what I said. You are proving me right. In the 19th century was also started the fashion to deny the slavic origin of some romanian words, inventing for them a latin origin, based on completely ridiculous assumptions that had nothing to do with linguistics. It seems that this wacky habit has not stopped, although the phantasmagoric etymologies were ridiculed even in the 19th century by the professional linguists, who mocked the propagandists for their complete lack of knowledge about the languages related to romanian.

As for latin being more closer to romanian, what can I say? It was closer for at most 170 years, from 106 AD until 275 AD. Subsequently the slavic languages were much closer to the romanian language, from the 5-6th century until the 19th century. So, you do the math. And there were no latins that lived alongside the romanic population remaining in Dacia after the romans departed, but there were plenty of slavs.


===================================
Quote from: Reason Is My Religion
I was replying to Ciakanu; I don't know what you're talking about in the rest of your post.
==================================

He has nothing interesting to say, only plain old propaganda, just ignore him. But he took advantage of the situation to do a little drive-by spamming, putting a link to his site, which is an ad-ridden clone of the dexonline.ro site. The database of dexonline.ro is licensed under the GPL, so it can be used on any site for free, that's why many are using it in order to gain some money from text ads.
ravinescu   Sun Feb 21, 2010 1:29 pm GMT
#####################################
Neagu Djuvara : Este un blocaj intelectual. Romānul nu e īn stare să accepte că īntemeietorul lui nu e o corcitură īntre Traian şi Decebal. Este o tīmpenie!

Eugen Istodor: Cum sa fie o tīmpenie? Am trăit o viaţă cu o tīmpenie īn cap?

Neagu Djuvara: Da! Vă rog să vă lecuiţi. Timp de o mie şi ceva de ani nu vă daţi seama ce amestec de populaţii au fost pe pămīntul acesta! Cine sīnt romānii ăştia? Īn afară de o mică parte dintre legionari şi dintre săracii din sudul Italiei, restul, majoritatea coloniştilor nu erau romani. Uitaţi-vă la tipul fizic, asta a descoperit-o un Lahovary. El a comparat grupele sangvine din cataloagele de recrutare a civililor. Īn 1930 se ştia. Dacă iei cele două-trei judeţe de secuime, sīnt integral cu grupa B. Grupă răspīndită īn Asia. Turanici. Sudul Transilvaniei, Oltenia, o bucăţică din Muntenia.

Eugen Istodor: Vă rog, nu-mi distrugeţi īncă un mit! Vă puteţi face că aţi uitat. Cine īl mai citeşte pe Lahovary?

Neagu Djuvara: Dom'le, nu pot să nu spun adevărul! Deci, īn acele zone [Sudul Transilvaniei, Oltenia, o bucăţică din Muntenia] avem grupa A, din zona mediteraneană. Cine au fost īnsă coloniştii? Īn afară de romani, minoritari, am avut mulţi arabi, Legiunea Syrica.

Eugen Istodor: Sīntem arabi!

Neagu Djuvara: Da. Eu īmi aduc aminte de ţăranii mei de la ţară. Bunicul meu adusese ţărani la muncă din zone curat romāneşti. Dom'le, să vezi nişte oameni care seamănă cu arabii, [vorbind] curat romāneşte!

Eugen Istodor: Scandalos!

Neagu Djuvara: Coboară din Syrica! Deci, din partea romanilor sīntem foarte amestecaţi. Acum şi dintre daci.

Eugen Istodor: Nu, vă rog!

Neagu Djuvara: Cu dacii e problemă cīţi au mai rămas! Nu prea ştim cum arătau, destul de deschişi la culoare, precum albanezii. Sluşanschi, cel mai bun indoeuropenist al nostru, e de părere că limba dacă nu are legatură cu cea tracă.

Eugen Istodor: Cum, domnule Djuvara, chiar vreţi să-mi doborīţi miturile?

Neagu Djuvara: Astea sīnt manii, dragul meu, nişte improvizaţii istorice, nu te pot lăsa aşa! E dovedit că limba tracă e altceva decīt cea dacă. Daca e legată, da, de albaneză, dar nu cum au crezut tot felul de minţi inventive că au fost dacii līngă albanezi la un anumit moment. Nu e adevărat! Cuvintele romāneşti şi cele albaneze sīnt moştenite din dacomeziană, rădacina comună.

Eugen Istodor: Acum chiar ne īnjuraţi de mamă şi de tată!

Neagu Djuvara: Hahaha, dacă o interpretaţi aşa! Să ştiţi de la mine ceva: sīntem un mare amestec de populaţii, ne-a unit o limbă şi e fantastic cum am putut să asimilăm atītea. Asta e puterea romānului, puterea de asimilare.

Eugen Istodor: Adaptarea.

Neagu Djuvara: Da, limba romānă e un fel de "melting pot". Aici, un alt lucru pe care l-am tot ascuns... amestecul cu slavii. Giurescu, bătrīnul, el a venit cu ideea că slavii aveau acelaşi rol, precum germanicii īn Franţa.

Eugen Istodor: Nu īncepeţi cu asta!

Neagu Djuvara: Dom'le, regatul Franţei a fost făcut de germanici, iar cel al Spaniei, de vizigoţi!

Eugen Istodor: Al nostru, de daci şi romani.

Neagu Djuvara: Nu! Dintr-un amestec dintre slavi şi [proto]romāni. Slavii s-au instalat īn colonii uriaşe, dovadă toponimele, Ialomiţa, Neajlov, Bistriţa, Dīmboviţa. Interesant īnsă, asta mi-a spus-o Poghirc, că aceste colonii erau īnconjurate de fluvii cu nume străvechi dacice: Dunărea, Oltul, Mureş, Criş. Astea sīnt dovezi de continuitate. Slavii au pătruns destul de mult. Satele noastre erau sub un jude, denumire latină; venirea slavilor a adus cneazul. Cele două denumiri funcţionau paralel īn anumite zone. "Cneazul" era de origine slavă. Cnejii erau nişte seniori, se impuneau ca autoritate, iar juzii doar administrau. Juzii, deci, nu au avut vocaţie de a uni toata ţara! Şi acum, ca originalitate din partea mea, eu cred că nici slavii nu au avut puterea de a crea state. Şi care e dovada: nici un stat slav, nici unul!, nu s-a născut cu aristocraţie slavă. Slavii nu au venit cu īntreaga armată, nu, ci ca ţărani, neorganizaţi, dovadă că numele lor privind şefii, "ban", "jupan", sīnt de origine avară. Cneaz chiar e germanic. La sud de Dunăre, numai protobulgarii au făcut stat, or, ei erau de origine turcă. Ei au venit foarte bine organizaţi, foarte luptători, i-au bătut pe bizantini şi i-au obligat să le dea o bucată de pămīnt. Ruşii au fost făcuţi de varegi, de nordici războinici. Numele de "rus" Oleg, Igor sīnt nordice. Ţara noastră făcută de cumani se numea Cumania, dar faptul că ei au plecat/venit a făcut ca ei să fie romanizaţi.

Eugen Istodor: Cui ajută zăpăceala asta?

Neagu Djuvara: Să ştim cine sīntem. Să nu ne mai īnchipuim nişte basme! Şi basme care nu sīnt crezute de străini. De ce nu sīntem cunoscuţi īn lume? Fiindcă am minţit!

Eugen Istodor: Şi ne-am minţit pe noi!

Neagu Djuvara: Şi ne-am minţit şi, ce-i mai rău, am crezut minciuna. Eu consider că fac o revoluţie cu această carte!

Eugen Istodor: Dar cum e să te minţi şi să şi crezi?

Neagu Djuvara: E un blocaj psihologic. Oamenii inteligenţi īşi fac autocenzură. [Ei] nu merg mai departe, că nu place poporului. Ghinionul nostru a fost că am intrat īn concertul european cu mare īntīrziere din cauza ocupaţiei turceşti. Abia īn veacul 19 intram in Europa. Atunci a fost un moment īn care fiecare a vrut să se arate mai sus decīt era.

http://tinyurl.com/djuvara-history-romanians

(URL scurtat către articolul original)

############################################


############################################
English translation:

Neagu Djuvara : It's like an intellectual barrier, [something that hinders the free thought]. The romanian cannot accept that his ancestor is not a crossbreed between Trajan and Decebalus. It's a stupidity!

Eugen Istodor: How can it be a stupidity? We lived a whole life with a stupidity stuck inside our heads?

Neagu Djuvara: Yes! And I ask you to heal yourself. You don't even imagine what mixing of populations was on the [romanian] territory for more than a thousand years! Who are these romanians? Except for a little part of the [roman army] legionnaires and some poor people from southern Italy, the rest, the majority of the colonists were not romans. Just look at the physical type [of romanians], this was discovered by Lahovary. He compared the blood types taken from the catalogues that contained data about the civilian would-be draftees [blood type was catalogued for transfusion purposes in case of a war]. Even in 1930 the things were already known. In the two or three counties inhabited by the Szekely [hungarian population living in Romania], almost all the population has blood of type B. This is a blood type specific to Asia, because they [the Szekely] are of turanic (turkic) origin. Now about the regions of Southern Transylvania, Oltenia [southwestern Romania] and a part of Muntenia [southeastern Romania].

Eugen Istodor: Please, don't destroy another myth! You can just pretend that you forgot all of this. Who reads Lahovary today?

Neagu Djuvara: I cannot hide the truth! So, in those regions [Southern Transylvania, Oltenia, a part of Muntenia] we have the blood type A, [which originates] from the mediterranean region. Who were the colonists? Except for the romans (who were a minority), we had a lot of arabs, the Syrica Legion.

Eugen Istodor: We are arabs!

Neagu Djuvara: Yes. I remember the peasants from my estate at the countryside. My grandfather brought some peasants to work on the estate, peasants who were from pure romanian areas. Just imagine that, I saw some [romanian] people who looked like arabs and spoke a pure romanian language!

Eugen Istodor: Outrageous!

Neagu Djuvara: They are descendants from the Syrica [legion]! So, as long as the romans are concerned, we are very mixed [genetically]. Now about the dacians.

Eugen Istodor: No, please!

Neagu Djuvara: Concerning the dacians, there is a problem to know how many of them were left [after the roman conquest of Dacia]! We don't know precisely how they looked like, probably with a very light skin, like the albanians. Sluşanschi, the biggest romanian specialist in indoeuropean matters, says that the dacian language is not related to the thracian language.

Eugen Istodor: How is that, mister Djuvara, do you really want to destroy all the [historical] myths?

Neagu Djuvara: These are just fads (fantaisies), my dear, historical improvizations (makeshifts), I cannot let you live like that! It is proved that the thracian language was different from the dacian language. The dacian language is related, yes, with the albanian language, but not because of geographical proximity of the dacians and albanians, like some "ingenious" minds believed in the past. It's not true! The romanian and albanian words that resemble each other are inherited from the dacomoesian language, their common linguistic root.

Eugen Istodor: Now you are really cursing our mother and father!

Neagu Djuvara: Hahaha [laughing], if you take it like that! Learn this from me: we are a big mix of populations, we were united by the language and it is fantastic (unbelievable) how we succeded in assimilating so many [peoples]. This is the power of the romanian, the power of assimilation.

Eugen Istodor: The adaptation.

Neagu Djuvara: Yes, the romanian language is a kind of "melting pot". And now, another thing that was always hidden... the mixing with the slavs. C.C. Giurescu proposed the idea that the slavs had [in Romania] the same role as the germans [franks] in France.

Eugen Istodor: Don't even start with that!

Neagu Djuvara: The kingdom of France was created by the germans, and the kingdom of Spain by the visigothes [a german tribe]!

Eugen Istodor: Ours, by dacians and romans.

Neagu Djuvara: No! From a mix of slavs and [proto]romanians*. Slavs settled in huge colonies, a proof being the toponyms: Ialomiţa, Neajlov, Bistriţa, Dīmboviţa [all are names of romanian rivers]. What's even more interesting, and that was told me by Poghirc [romanian linguist], these colonies were surrounded by rivers with ancient dacian names: Dunărea, Oltul, Mureş, Criş. These are proofs of continuity. The slavs penetrated deep enough in the romanian territory. Our villages were under the command of a "jude" [judge - in english], a title of latin origin [jux]; the arrival of the slavs brought the "cneaz" [knez, prince - in english]. The two titles functioned side by side in some geographical areas. The knezes were lords, they had [political] authority, and the judges were administrators. So, the judges did not have the vocation to unify all the country! And now, as my personal opinion, I think neither the slavs had the power to create states. And there's the proof: not a single slavic state, not a single one!, was born with a slavic aristocracy. The slavs did not arrive [on the romanian territory] as an army, no, but as peasants, unorganized, proof being the fact that the titles used for their chiefs ("ban", "jupan"), are of avar origin. Even "cneaz" is of german origin. South of the Danube, only the protobulgars had a state, but they were of turkic origin. They [the bulgars] arrived well organized, as fighters, they defeated the byzantines and forced them to give a piece of land. The russians were made by the varangians, by northern fighters [vikings]. The "russian" names Oleg, Igor are northern. Our country made by the cumans had the name Cumania, but the fact that they [the cumans] were a nomadic people eventually had the effect of them being romanized [assimilated by the romanians].

Eugen Istodor: But who benefits from this perplexity (mess)?

Neagu Djuvara: We ourselves, in order to know who we are. Let's not believe in fairy tales anymore! Those tales are not believed by the foreigners [non-romanians]. Why we are not well known in the world? Because we lied [about our history]!

Eugen Istodor: And we lied also to ourselves!

Neagu Djuvara: Yes, we lied to ourselves and what's worse, we believed the lie. I think I will make a revolution with this book ["Thocomerius - a romanian voivode of cuman origin"] !

Eugen Istodor: But how is it to lie and then believe the lie?

Neagu Djuvara: It's like a psychological block (barrier). The individuals who are intelligent autocensure themselves. They don't go too far [with their thoughts about history], believing that the people would not like it. Our bad luck was that we arrived on the european stage with a big delay, because of the turkish occupation [Romania gained independence from the turkish Ottoman Empire in 1877]. Only in the 19th century we joined Europe [as an independent country]. At that time was a moment when any [country] wanted to appear more noble/elevated than it was in fact, [hence the ensuing propaganda about the history of Romania].

http://tinyurl.com/djuvara-history-romanians

(shortened URL of the original article)

==================================
The text between brackets [ ] is witten by me, Ravinescu, in order to add some explanatory words or notes.
*The protoromanians are the people resulted from the mixing of roman colonists with the autochtonous population of Dacia (dacians). The romanians as a people are considered to result from the mixing between protoromanians and slavs.
==================================
########################################
Caitlyn   Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:07 pm GMT
Well, um,
in response to the original poster,
you might have heard of Romanian?
It's very similar to Italian, yet it's quite Slavic too.
It uses the common Romance 'tu' for the pronoun 'you'.
to ravinescu   Sun Feb 21, 2010 5:49 pm GMT
that's something new, ravinescu! I didn't know that Romanians are not slavs anymore, nor romans, nor Trachians or Hungarinas, but Arabs. That's interesting; very, very interesting!
Joshua P   Mon Feb 22, 2010 1:30 am GMT
"Decebalus committed suicide when it was apparent capture was inevitable. The great kingdom of Dacia was gone. In its place was a new Roman province. Three of the eleven Roman Legions that took part in the massive invasion were left behind as a garrison, ROMAN settlers were brought in and Roman cities founded. The new Roman Dacia proved to be a mixed blessing however. The province was fabulously rich, but strategically very vulnerable. It is probably that Trajan intended to annex the areas around Dacia as well, but Trajan left Dacia in late 106, and turned his attention to the East, where the Parthian Empire was encroaching on the eastern Roman provinces. (By Daniel Best)"

To think only that such a reach country as Dacia was, was settled by Arabs, or whatever other nationalities what Ravines suggests that might have been... you must be out of your mind. The Roman citizen of middle class (ad not only) would never give up the possibility to move in a better place to live. Since Dacia became a Roman province the Romans moved in there as I would move from England to Canada, isn't it?
In 99 AD Trajan marched into Rome on foot (a sign of humility) and decided as his first military action as Emperor to invade Dacia, primarily to end the humiliating subsidy to Decebalus that Domitian set up. First however Trajan spent some time building a huge wall in Britain to keep the pesky Celtic tribes at bay. In 101 AD Trajan was finally ready to invade Dacia and set out with 150,000 soldiers. Trajan starts off his invasion with the building of bridges across the Danube River. Decebalus begins his defense by fleeing in front of the Romans and burning all land behind. Decebalus hoped that when the rations of the Roman Army ran out they would turn back. Trajan had managed to figure out Decebalus’ strategy and marched slowly and deliberately building roads and fortifications as he went. Decebalus and Trajan meet in battle for the first time at Taepae (this is the same place that Decebalus raised to fame in Domitian’s campaign in 88-89 AD) before the famous “Iron Gates”. The Romans had much causality in this battle and so did the Dacians, in the end this battle of Taepae ended in a draw. Decebalus decided to turn to the south and raid Roman settlements, in the middle of winter. With a huge army 140,000 along with 20,000 allied soldiers Decebalus raided or destroyed Roman settlements in Lower Moesia and all along the coast of the Pontus Euxinus (modern Black Sea). Trajan, upon hearing this marches south to confront the Dacians and their allies, eventually pushing them back after a long campaign. In the spring of 102 AD Trajan returns to Dacia and pursues the Dacians with new vigor. Trajan travels a different route through Dacia this time following the Aluta (modern Oltu) River. The rate that the Romans are advancing worries Decebalus and he sends two emissaries to Trajan, the first is right out rejected the second is admitted an audience with Trajan’s Praetorian prefect, but the negotiations go nowhere. Trajan soon crosses through the Carpathian Mountains and reaches the plains on the other side. The Army is then spilt into two parts with one part securing the foothills and the rest marching on the Dacian capital of Sarmizegetusa. Decebalus surrenders soon after the Romans capture his sister. The peace treaty was soon signed and consisted of: submitting to Rome, surrender of captured siege engines, return of Roman deserters, and become a client king. Though the stain and shame of Domitian’s defeat is erased from Roman memory and Trajan is bestowed the title of Dacius (Conqueror of Dacia) the Kingdom of Dacia was still intact.

There was no Sirica Legion or something of this kind who has been used by Trajanus against Dacians. They were legions mad of Romans: read here:

"In 105 AD Decebalus began to prepare to go to war again to defeat the Romans and take back lost territory. The war began when Decebalus launched attacks on the Iazyges (Sarmatian allies of Rome) and captured or burned nearly all Roman forts in Dacia. Trajan began to make preparations to crush the Dacian revolt but an assassination attempt on his life stopped him. Trajan marched to Drobreata and spent nearly all of 105 AD repulsing the Dacian attempts to dislodge him. In 106 AD Trajan begins the counterattack against the Dacians conquering each part of the country piece by piece making slow but steady progress. Eventually Trajan reaches the plain outside Sarmisegetuza. Trajan committed his most veteran legions to the assault among them are: 2nd Legion “Adriutix”, 4th Legion “Flavia Felix”, and a vexillatio (detachment) from 6th Legion “Ferrata”. The first few assaults on Sarmisegetuza where repulsed by the Dacian defenders, but the Romans soon cut off the water supply to Sarmisegetuza. The Romans then used flaming rocks in their catapults and soon set the city on fire, killing Venzia the old high priest of Dacia. Decebalus and most of the Dacian Army managed to escape the city, however the entire Dacian treasury is lost to the Romans when they find the treasury in a cave near the river Sargetia. Decebalus and the Dacian Army made its last stand at Porolissum (modern Moigrad). After his defeat at Porolissum Decebalus flees and the Roman cavalry pursues him. Preferring death to capture Decebalus kills himself along with his officers. Trajan now summarily annexes Dacia into the Roman Empire and begins to send Roman colonists into the country, establishing a permanent Roman presence in the region.


On the other hand, sixty years after Trajan’s conquest of Dacia, the Emperor Marcus Aurelius drew up plans to consolidate Dacia and Germania, both under constant threat by Barbarians. To do that, he thought about more and more loyal legionnaires from Rome.

I suppose that fits as the Romanian Language is a Romance Language and mention is made that Trajan colonized the area with Romans...

Anyway, I am waiting for the day when Ravinescu will come up with a new revelation telling us how he eventually discovered that Romanians are nothing but humans!
Student   Mon Feb 22, 2010 1:32 am GMT
I am familiar with Slavic languages very well, took Spanish for 4 years and going on more and so forth. I also speak Romanian fluently as my parents are Romanian.

Over 90% of the time I am speaking Romanian I have been asked if I am speaking a slavic tongue. I had a Puerto Rican man ask me if I am Polish because his boss was Polish and heard the sh sound throughout. The sh sound is prevalent in usage. I was on the phone and a bunch of Asians kept saying Ruski, Ruski. This happens over and over. The other times I have been asked if I am speaking Greek, Italian and French, several times as well. I do not see the Greek resemblance at all, for Spanish sounds like Greek from a distance-that's key-.

Portuguese on the other hand does not sound like a slavic tongue, at all. It sounds like a Spanish mix, for sure. In fact, it's bizarre how someone can claim that just by going by the sound of the language. I have never heard anyone think that ta Portuguese speaker is speaking a Slavic tongue when Portuguese is being spoken, ever. I have had speakers of Portuguese from Brazil and Africa who always got told if they were speaking some type of Spanish.

If you pronounce the words like skinny, love, friend, spirit, Brasov (and many other cities in Romania), cheese-which is Dacian in origin, brīnduşă, brad, etc. you get the Eastern European feeling in Romanian. Let alone the sh sound found continuously when speaking.
engineer   Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:12 am GMT
Working for more than 20 years in Germany, England, Australia, New Zealand, USA and now Canada, I say that Never, but never in my experience has happened to me to be confused with a Slavic speaking person and I am speaking Romanian fluently since I was born. I studied and I worked a lot of years in Romania as well. Reading what this poor student afrom bove just wrote, made me believe that the language he speaks doesn't have much to do with Romanian. He speaks fluently Romanian "as his parents" are Romanians. No sir, you speak fluently Romanian only if you really did learn this language as I did - namely, perfect!


Another individual, ravinescu, said:

"If anyone wants to know the etymology of a Romanian word, he/she can use the site http://dexonline.ro. It uses the definitions from DEX ("Dicţionarul Explicative al Limbii Romāne"), but also from other dictionaries (etymological dictionary, dictionary of synonyms, dictionary of neologisms, dictionary of archaisms and regionalisms, etc"

Mister ravinescu, if Romanians had tried to hide the Slavic origins of some Romanian words, why would they recognize this in by you indicated DEX (Romanian explicative dictionary)? Isn't it a non sense to say that we try to hide the words of Slavic origin as long as this dictionary what you recommend it as a reliable source for words checking is a ROMANIAN WORDS EXPLICATIVE DICTIONARY written by ROMANIANS??

You are the one who is making here a propaganda, but against Romanians and against their language. To be so insistent in you nonsense on a forum like this, (with such a poor level of general knowledge) is clear an ANTI-ROMANIAN PROPAGANDA. Why are you not bringing your arguments on real historians and scientifically forums? I am telling you why: because you know that you cannot bring anything sustainable but just bullshit and you are afraid of showing your ridiculous face in front of those specialists!

Do you know Ravinescu when the mankind runs into his crises? When he lost the love for his brother ("semen" in Romanian). I feel sorry for you, you are so venomous and unhappy!
Student   Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:20 am GMT
I am not a "poor student" "engineer." I speak Romanian very well. I do not think you are being honest when you say "never." And if you speak Romanian "perfectly," which I doubt you do seeing how you were not born there, you have no right to talk. Romanians in Romania can tell that I have an accent, but they do not say that I speak an "uneducated" or "poor Romanian" as is the trend today.

And I have also seen a post comparing Romanians to having similar genetics to Spaniards, French, etc. That is biologically false seeing how from a genetics point of view, we are very, very different.

I can not apologize if you are delusional and place thyself on a grander scale then me, but going by actual experiences rather than cultural pride I do not believe you.
.   Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:46 am GMT
no no no impossible. i refuse to believe what this ravinescu is saying. argh, he's got an answer for everything, no matter what someone says

looking at maps of europe in the middle ages to today, i don't see any slavic state having existed on the territory of modern romania. i see huns, goths, avars, cumans/petchenegs, hungarians (uralic like finns, not turkic), and ottomans at some point occupying it. and yes there was a second bulgarian empire that ruled over part of wallachia for a while, but it was mixed vlach-bulgarian and ruled by two vlach brothers supposedly. and bulgars are probably the least slavic of the slavic peoples ethnically, since even some of them like to say they were from central asia originally. the slavs simply surrounded the country and introduced some words, possibly through intermarriage but also through the church and necessity of use

but anyway, i have heard of the palestinian legion that came to settle down but its impact must have been minimal because that just wouldn't be cool if it was otherwise

oh and i don't know what variant of romanian this guy was speaking but i rarely ever heard one get confused with a slavic language. however my american friend once told me to stop speaking "fake spanish" on the phone while speaking in romanian to some relatives lol. admittedly, the accent of a romanian in english does have an eastern european sound to it, and my dad was asked if he was russian by some rednecks, but it's not as strong as say putin's accent
HISTORYT   Thu Feb 25, 2010 7:51 pm GMT
It s so clear that ignorance is so prevalent amongst some of you narrow minded so called historians, that is a picture o gypsies,gypsies have nothing to do with romanians, romanians were unlucky to have a stupid dictator before 1989 that allowed gypsies to breed like rats, and now they re paying the price by having to deal with this migratory crows
Regina   Thu Feb 25, 2010 8:45 pm GMT
Don't complain. In Spain we have to deal with the Romanian gypsies and non gypsies. I'm not sure which ones are the worst. Also I've noticed that both groups socialise with each other a lot in Spain, so there must not be many differences.
rege   Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:28 pm GMT
ha, those so called "arabs" you mentioned must have been just gypsies that tried adapting to a normal romanian way of life.

and the only really slavic sounding words are drojdie, mlasnita, vrabie, zbura, vreme, morkov, sfecla, slava, and razboi
Dan   Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:22 pm GMT
@Regina,

I don't know about that. Gypsies left Romania 10 years ago for Spain and Italy - they surely felt welcomed there compared to Romania. It's hard to distinguish a Gypsy from a Spaniard anyway, so it was kinda natural.

You should look on the bright side, it's going to be much easier to make Spaniards out of Gypsies than out of any other Muslim you have around there.
Franco   Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:27 pm GMT
I, like many other Spaniards, don't want any kind of immigrants in Spain.No matter if they are Romanians (whether gypsy or not, that is irrelevant), Muslims, South Americans or Blacks. They belong to poor and uncivilised countries, so they don't have anything to teach us.
Dan   Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:35 pm GMT
With all my sympathy to your plea Franco, I have to say that Spain is still the backwoods of Europe.