Which Romance language sounds more Slavic?

Franco   Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:06 am GMT
Sorry Celina for my mistake.

Spain GDP is 31, 480 $ (22, 486 € )

Romania GDP is 9, 000 $

Even Mexico has higher GDP than Romania.
ravinescu   Sat Feb 27, 2010 10:34 am GMT
Quote from: Anonymous romanian
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!

I was saying it all along, the romanian history is very interesting and full of twists. Only the latinist propagandists from the 19th century and their ressurected ghosts of today want to make it dull and linear, in order to suit their exhibitionistic purposes.

But anyway, the interview from the previous message features Neagu Djuvara, a well-known contemporary romanian historian. He lived in exile during all the communist period and returned in 1990. Since then he has published history books, some of them bestsellers, and has appeared many times on TV.

I was sure that the reference to romanians as descending from "arabs" would generate ironic comments. But remember, it was not me who said it, but Neagu Djuvara. Of course he is exaggerating, but this is because he wants the romanians to think rationally and see themselves as descendants from a mix of populations that settled on the territory, not from italian romans and romanized dacians like the propagandists wanted the romanians to believe. The propaganda machine from the last 200 years had so "good" results in brainwashing the romanians, that today's romanian historians have a hard time to reverse the effects of the indoctrination.

Back to the "arabs". Neagu Djuvara is not lying, the romanians show physical traits that suggests genetic diversity. The majority of romanians have white skin, brown hair and brown eyes, but there are also enough romanians with black, blond and even red hair. The color of the eyes shows also diversity, in some regions many romanians having predominantly blue or green eyes. The color of the skin also varies, being more tanned in some parts of the country, and in others being extremely light.

This genetic diversity was at first caused by the romans, that brought colonists from all over their empire. Then, after the romans retreated, the territory became for 1000 years home for many migratory populations that settled for shorter or longer periods of time, before leaving or being assimilated. Romanians were always a genetic mix, this is what Neagu Djuvara wants the 21st century romanians to understand. The oversimplification with the people being the result of a mix of italian romans and dacians is not true, it is a propagandistic idea that is completely outdated. The conception of Neagu Djuvara can be summarized as below:

Neagu Djuvara: Timp de o mie şi ceva de ani nu vă daţi seama ce amestec de populaţii au fost pe pămīntul acesta!

Neagu Djuvara: 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.

English translation:
Neagu Djuvara: You don't even imagine what mixing of populations was on the [romanian] territory for more than a thousand years!

Neagu Djuvara: 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.

The biography of Neagu Djuvara can be read on Wikipedia:

Quote from: Joshua P
Decebalus committed suicide when it was apparent capture was inevitable. [...] 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)"

You must learn to provide quotes from reliable sources, not from an article that you find on an internet forum specialized in antique coins.


A reliable source is any material written by a reputable historian. The article from which you provide the quote is written by someone who does not provide credentials for him as also is not providing any bibliographical references. Who is Daniel Best, from which university has he graduated and what books has he written? And when you take text from an internet article, Joshua P, why do you not put a link to that article? Is it that hard to do such a simple thing, to give credit to a site?

Quote from: Joshua P
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.

You mean "rich country", not "reach" country, right? Well, Dacia was not so rich as it was once thought. The dacian state had a treasure which was hidden under a river (the dacians had diverted the course of a river near their capital, in order to bury their treasures there). The romans found out about the buried treasure and about other goods hidden in some caves, then took all back to Rome. After that they brought dalmatian miners to work in the gold mines opened in the mountains of Dacia. But it was not so much gold to be digged with the technical means from that time, otherwise the romans would not have abandoned the province after 170 years.

The following article from the romanian newspaper "Evenimentul Zilei"disputes some common myths about the richness of Dacia:

The dacian gold, from legends to poachers (shortened URL)

And Dacia was not settled by arabs, but by colonists brought from all over the roman empire, and that included semitic populations from what is today the Middle East, because romans had conquered those lands long before conquering Dacia. Middle East was conquered in 65 BC, and Dacia in 106 AD, so there 171 years between the two roman conquests. Once again a romanian (Joshua P) shows his absolute lack of knowledge about the history of the roman empire, which is unfortunately a common situation for romanians, accustomed to boast about being descendants of the romans, but unwilling to read books about the Roman Empire, which shows just how much they are eating their own dogfood.

(shortened URL to a Wikipedia article about the roman provinces)
ravinescu   Sat Feb 27, 2010 10:35 am GMT
Quote from: Joshua P
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?

Wow, never hoped to see this phrase here, but it seems I am lucky to have more brainwashed romanians readers than I thought. The propagandists from the early 19th century launched the theory that not only romanians were the descendants of italian romans, but they were descendants of noble roman families emigrated to Dacia. It was such a big lie that it was abandoned afterwards, but it was kept alive by the propagandists, who of course never cared about how believable are the lies they are spreading. So in their discourses, Roman Dacia becomes a heaven on earth, a mythical place, an El Dorado full of riches. The truth is Dacia was none of that. First of all, roman Dacia had a climate much colder than that of the Italian Peninsula, having harsh and snowy winters. It is hard to think that the italian romans would have abandoned their beloved warm mediterranean climate to settle in a region where the temperature was much lower. Of course some italians probably came to Dacia, but they were mostly poor people who were promised lands in the new province.

Secondly, and most importantly, Dacia was from the beginning a troubled region, with the dire outlook of constant attacks from the barbarian populations that surrounded it, and not to forget the free dacian populations who were left outside the new province. Because of the sarmatian attacks, the emperor Hadrian (successor of Trajan) abandoned some of the territories conquered in Dacia, mainly what is today Muntenia (2/3 of southern Romania, east of the river Olt). This attacks were not an isolated incident, they were followed by attacks of the free dacians, goths, etc. They continued for all the time that Dacia was a roman province and eventually forced the romans to retreat from the province after the year 270 AD. Dacia was a province situated on a very unsafe frontier, so not many italians would have wanted to quit their safe peninsula in order to risk their lives.

Thirdly, Dacia had nowhere near a civilization that would rival the civilization present in Rome. Dacia was a province that had few towns and roads, so the romans were those that initiated a massive building of the infrastructure necessary for a modern society. Surely there were not many italians who wanted to build a roman province from the ground up, when they already had a country or the possibility to emigrate to established roman provinces, like Gaul and Spain, where the quality of life was at a level near to that existing in the Italian Peninsula. Aside of that, Trajan needed a quick colonization, so as the dacians could not regroup their forces and reconquer their lost territory. Trajan could not force the italians to go to Dacia, because they were roman citizens, and also because at that time Italy had a deficit of population due in part to the previous colonizations. So he brought people from the roman provinces of Thracia, Pannonia, Dalmatia, Asia Minor etc. One "advantage" was that these provinces had autochtonous populations who at that time were not composed of roman citizens, so the imperial army could round them up and march them wherever they wanted, for example in Dacia. The romans had the habit of moving entire populations, an example being a total of 150.000 geto-dacians who were moved by force in 6 AD and 60 AD from the north to the south of the Danube (this was 40-100 years before the romans conquered Dacia!).

But do the romanian propagandists know all of these historical facts? Of course they don't and they continue to live in a world of fairy tales. For them Dacia was a "better place" than Italy, when in fact it was a much worst place to live. This demonstates ignorance or the will to deceive the audience. So, in conclusion, emigrating from Italy to Dacia in 106 AD was not at all like emigrating from England to Canada in 2010. The difference between Italy and Dacia was enormous and even after 170 years of roman occupation there was no comparison between the italian cities and the dacian cities. It must be said that the cities built by the romans in Dacia were not big and this can be seen from the ruins that are left today. Those ruins cannot compare with the roman ruins from Italy, or from France and Spain, not even with the ruins existing in Africa or those that can be found in countries that are today south of the river Danube. I will provide below a link to an article about the bad state of the roman ruins in Romania. It has photos from the biggest roman town in Dacia, the capital of the province, Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (built at a distance of 40 km from the ancient dacian capital), who at its peak had a population of 30 000 inhabitants, in a time when Rome had 1 000 000 inhabitants.

(shortened URL to a newspaper article in romanian)

More photos from Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa:
(shortened URL to a search page generated with Google Images)

Quote from: Joshua P
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. [...] 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.

A new level of lowness in the debate was attained with this text from the message of Joshua P. Let me explain. After 1990 millions of romanians left the country and settled down in Western Europe, mainly in Italy, Spain and France. A minority of these romanians who emigrated were felons (offenders), or became like that in their countries of adoption. Their evil deeds were much publicized by the foreign press, so romanians gained a reputation of being wrongdoers (mainly thieves, but also rapists, like was the case in Italy). Of course this is an exaggeration, but anyone knows that the tabloid press (printed or audio-video) lives and thrives from exaggerating things. Now, of course Joshua P knows about this bad reputation of the romanians. And what he does here, in plain sight of an international audience? He steals content from a site and presents it like being written by him. So Joshua P is a content thief and this unfortunately reinforces the opinion that romanians are thieves. And what has he stolen? An article about the dacian wars. Where was this article, on an important history site? No, on a gaming site who features an expansion (mod) named "Rome at War" for the game "Age of Empires". Was the article written by a renowned historian? No, the article was posted by someone who signs as "Webmaster". Of course the article has no bibliographical references.

This is the address where is located the article palgiarized (stolen) by Joshua P:


Does anyone think this article has any credibility as to be quoted in a serious debate? I think no.
ravinescu   Sat Feb 27, 2010 10:36 am GMT
Quote from: Joshua P
There was no Sirica Legion or something of this kind who has been used by Trajanus against Dacians. They were legions mad of Romans:

The legions in the time of Trajan were not composed ("made") mainly of romans (italians), the opposite is true, italians were a minority in the army of that time. You make a fool of yourself and give the impression that romanians hate to read books about history, but they want to be perceived as knowledgeable persons by stealing articles from gaming sites. I say it again, the romanian propagandists do not know the history of the Roman Empire, they are just spreading propaganda without having the slightest idea about what they are talking. They want to be perceived as "latins" without giving a damn about the history and civilization of the Roman Empire.

Īn secolul 2 e.n. transformarea īncepută la nivelul personalului armatei īn epoca lui Caesar sau Augustus a fost īncheiată. Insuficienţa recruţilor din Italia era atīt de acută īncīt numai cohortele pretoriene erau aprovizionate din această sursă. Legiunile şi trupele auxiliare erau alcătuite aproape īn majoritate din provinciali. Taberele permanente īncurajau recrutarea la nivel local, care a devenit un fapt obişnuit īn epoca lui Hadrian, inclusiv īnrolarea fiilor legionarilor care locuiau īn jurul taberelor ("ex castris"). Armata a ajuns astfel să fie alcătuită īn marea ei majoritate din provinciali, iar bariera dintre legionari şi trupele auxiliare s-a diminuat treptat, dar armata nu se "barbarizase" īncă. De la Hadrian pīnă la Severi provinciile apusene păreau să fi furnizat majoritatea legionarilor, zona Rin-Dunăre fiind pe locul doi, iar provinciile [răsăritene (orientale)] pe locul trei. (*)

(*) Procentul de italici [din armata romană] comparat cu cel al provincialilor a fost de 65% īn epoca lui Augustus, 48,7% īn epoca lui Claudius şi Nero, 21,4% īn epoca lui Vespasian şi Traian şi de numai 0,9% din timpul lui Hadrian pīnă īn anul 200 e.n. Vezi G. Forni, "Il reclutamento delle legioni da Augusto a Diocleziano" (1953), 157ff.

M. Cary, H.H. Scullard : Istoria Romei (editura ALL, 2008) - paginile 513, 514, 762

English translation:
In the 2nd century AD, the transformation started at the level of the army personnel in the time of Caesar or Augustus was finished. The lack of recruits (draftees) from Italy was so serious that only the praetorian cohorts [guards of the emperor] were supplied form this source [recruits of italian origin]. The legions and the auxilliary troops were composed almost in majority from provincials [recruits originating from the non-italian provinces of the empire]. The permanently [established] military camps favored the recruitment at the local level , which became a common situation in the time of Hadrian, including the recruitment of the sons of legionnaires which lived around the camps ("ex castris"). The army became composed in vast majority from provincials [non-italians], and the barrier between the legionnaires and the auxilliary troops [always composed of non-italians] decreased gradually, but the army was not yet "barbarized". From Hadrian to the Severans, the western provinces [Gaul, Spain, etc.] seemed to supply the majority of the legionnaires, the Danube-Rhine region being in the second place, and the [eastern (oriental)] provinces on the third place. (*)

(*) The percentage of italians [in the roman army] compared with that of the provincials was of 65% in the time of Augustus, 48.7% in the time of Claudius and Nero, 21.4% in the time of Vespasian and Traian and of only 0.9% from the time of Hadrian until the year 200 AD. See G. Forni, "Il reclutamento delle legioni da Augusto a Diocleziano" (1953), 157ff.

M. Cary, H.H. Scullard : The History of Rome (ALL Publishing House, 2008) - pages 513, 514, 762

Quote from: Joshua P
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.

Read again the quote given by me previously. Hadrian ruled from 117-138 AD and Marcus Aurelius ruled from 161 to 180 AD. From the data provided by the italian historian Giovanni Forni and cited in the book written by the american historians M. Cary and H.H. Scullard, only 0.9 % of the roman legions were composed of italians in the time period from 117-200 AD. The italians had lost interest in fighting and dying for the empire, so the legionnaires were recruited mainly from the imperial provinces, not from the Italian Peninsula.
ravinescu   Sat Feb 27, 2010 10:37 am GMT
Quote from: Joshua P
I suppose that fits as the Romanian Language is a Romance Language and mention is made that Trajan colonized the area with Romans...

Again, the same obsession with "fitting into place" that is characteristic for the romanian propagandists (remember the "fits nicely" used by Dan who posted previously). All their propaganda is like a giant puzzle and their assumptions must "fit in place", regardless if they are true or not from a historical point of view. The giant puzzle represents the formation of the romanians from italian romans, so all the things said by the propagandists must fit "nicely" into this scenario. They are like artists that create a tapestry with a fanciful theme tailored from their fantasies, not like historians that try to discover the truth about the past using scientific methods. That's why they must not be taken seriously, they are "artists", or more precisely con artists.

Nobody says that romanian is not a romance language, but the fact that it is like that, does not imply an italian origin for the romanians. The colonists brought by the romans were mostly latinophones (speakers of latin), but they were not for the most part from the Italian Peninsula. And the army veterans that settled in Dacia after finishing their military service were also mostly non-italians, because the roman army of that time was majoritarily non-italian. But let's see what the historians are saying:

Socotiţi după regiunile sau provinciile din care au venit, cei mai mulţi colonişti se arată a fi -- şi faptul e natural -- din īmprejurimile Daciei. Un număr īnsemnat au venit din Illyricum, adică din partea de apus a Peninsulei Balcanice, din cele două Moesii, provinciile de pe malul drept al Dunării, şi din Tracia. Īn regiunea Munţilor Apuseni, līngă Alburnus Major (azi Roşia), era un sat īntreg de dalmaţi, din neamul pirustilor, pricepuţi īn extragerea metalelor; satului i se spunea Vicus Pirustarum. Inscripţiile arată īn acea regiune auriferă nume caracteristice de dalmaţi [...]. Trebuie să adăugăm că numărul coloniştilor de origine tracă şi ilirică era sporit şi prin soldaţii de aceeaşi origine, cu garnizoana īn Dacia şi care, după terminarea serviciului militar se stabileau aici. Au fost astfel īn Dacia, colonişti care aparţinuseră triburilor de "traci săgetători", de "traci cetăţeni romani", de "bessi", de "iliri", de "dalmaţi".

Īntīlnim īnsă şi colonişti veniţi mai de departe. Unii sīnt din Asia Mică, din diferitele oraşe şi provincii ale ei. Tavianii, care-şi fac un colegiu īn Dacia, sīnt din oraşul Tavia, īn provincia Galatia. Alţii vin din Bithinia, alţii din Caria, alţii din Paflagonia, unii tocmai din Coelesiria. Ei aduceau cu dīnşii şi zeii respectivi, cum era de pildă Glycon, zeul adorat īn oraşul Abonotheisos din Paflagonia, sau Jupiter, căruia īi adăugau īnsă şi numele oraşului de origine, numindu-se deci "Jupiter Optimus Maximus Heliopolitanus", adică cel adorat īn Heliopolis, "Jupiter Optimus Maximus Prusenus", adorat īn Prusa, "Jupiter Erisenus", deci din Erisa, etc.

Au venit colonişti şi din Galia. O inscripţie aminteşte pe un decurion sau, cum am zice azi, un consilier municipal cu numele Ibliomarus, care era de fel din oraşul Augusta Treverorum, din provincia Belgica a Galiei. De aceeaşi origine celtică trebuie să fi fost şi mulţi dintre soldaţii aparţinīnd corpurilor de trupă galice, spaniole sau britanice care, după isprăvirea serviciului militar, s-au aşezat īn Dacia. S-au găsit la noi o serie de diplome militare aparţinīnd unor asemenea soldaţi, ceea ce īnseamnă că li se dăduse pămīnt aici şi că se stabiliseră pe el, īmpreună cu familiile lor. De la aceşti colonişti -- civili şi militari -- de origine celtă provin inscripţiile care pomenesc zei adoraţi īn locurile de unde plecaseră. Astfel sīnt zeii Jupiter Bussumarus, Jupiter Bussurigius, Jupiter Sucellus şi zeiţele Epona, Campestres, Quadriviae, Nantosvelta.

Pīnă şi din Siria şi din Africa a venit lume īn Dacia. O inscripţie aminteşte de doi neguţători, Aurelius Alexander şi Flavius, sirieni, care fac o dedicaţie lui "Jupiter Optimus Maximus Dolichenus", aşadar cel din Doliche, oraş īn provincia Commagene din Siria. O altă inscripţie ne arată că exista īn Dacia şi cultul lui Sol Hierobulos, adică al soarelui sfīnt, cel adorat īn Palmyra. El va fi fost adus de soldaţii corpului de trupă din această localitate, care-şi avea reşedinţa tocmai la noi. Tot īn Dacia fuseseră trimise şi alte trupe din acelaşi răsărit īndepărtat, cum erau cohortele de commageni, adică din provincia amintită mai sus a Siriei, sau cohortele de iturei, din vecinătatea Palestinei.

Dar din Italia n-au venit colonişti? Se pare că prea puţini. Pe vremea lui Traian, Italia nu mai avea -- se vede -- un excedent puternic de populaţie pe care să-l trimită peste hotare. De aceea, se pare că īmpăratul fixase ca normă să nu se īntrebuinţeze īn scopuri de colonizare populaţia Italiei. Īn sensul acesta trebuie să interpretăm pasajul din Historia Augusta, un izvor istoric roman, īn care ni se spune că Antoninus Pius a purtat de grijă Spaniei, colonizīnd-o cu oameni din Italia, "īmpotriva preceptelor lui Traian" (<<contra Traianis praecepta>>).

Din Italia au venit, mai ales īn primele timpuri, funcţionari: administratori, perceptori, vameşi şi alţii de felul acesta; cu vremea, mai ales după edictul lui Caracalla din 212, care dădea drept de cetăţenie romană tuturor locuitorilor imperiului, şi ei au fost recrutaţi, īn mare parte dintre localnici. De altfel trebuie să adăugăm: faptul că nu erau din Italia coloniştii nu mai prezenta, īn vremea aceea mare importanţă. Roma era acum īn culmea splendorii şi puterii sale: imperiul cuprindea tot bazinul Mediteranei, care putea fi considerată cu drept cuvīnt ca o nmare "romană", <<mare nostrum>> cum spuneau, cu legitimă mīndrie, cetăţenii. Romanizarea făcuse progrese uriaşe: provincii īntregi vorbeau latineşte şi -- ceea ce e şi mai important -- provincialii "se simţeau" romani. Era un ideal pentru fiecare dintre ei să poată ajunge a spune: <<civis romanus sum>> "sīnt cetăţean roman". Să nu uităm că īnsuşi conducătorul imperiului din vremea aceea, Traian, nu era din Italia. Aşadar, că n-au venit colonişti din īnsăşi inima imperiului nu trebuie să-i īntristeze pe aceia care ne-ar dori cīt mai romani; procesul de romanizare credem că n-a suferit, dimpotrivă, se poate ca el să fi cīştigat, deoarece, pe de o parte prolificitatea italioţilor scăzuse, iar pe de alta, e cunoscut zelul pe care īl desfăşoară cei de curīnd primiţi īntr-o mare naţiune sau o religie superioară. Nu există propagandişti mai bun ca neofiţii.


Este sigur că avem īn vinele noastre o parte apreciabilă de sīnge de-al coloniştilor aduşi de imperiu īn Dacia. Nu zicem sīnge "roman", fiindcă, dacă e să luăm cuvintele īn īnţelesul lor propriu, romani adevăraţi, adică locuitori ai Italiei, au fost după cum am văzut prea puţini. Au venit īn schimb traci, iliri, panoni, răsăriteni, vorbind limba latină, ceea ce e cu totul altceva din punctul de vedere al rasei. Au mai venit de asemenea, dar īntr-o măsură mult mai mică, greci, precum şi locuitori de alt neam, dar vorbind limba greacă. Toţi aceşti colonişti la un loc n-au īntrecut īnsă ca număr, pe autohtoni, pe daci.

C.C. Giurescu : Istoria Romānilor (editura ALL, 2008) - paginile 108-110 şi 156
ravinescu   Sat Feb 27, 2010 10:39 am GMT
English translation:
Considered after the regions or provinces from which they arrived, most of the colonists seem to have been coming -- and this is normal -- from the regions surrounding Dacia. An important number came from Illyricum (the western part of the Balkanic Peninsula), from Moesia Superior and Inferior (provinces on the right bank of the Danube), and from Thracia. In the region of the Apuseni Mountains, near Alburnus Major (now named Roşia), was an entire village of dalmatians, from the tribe pirustae, skilled in the extraction of metals; the name of the village was Vicus Pirustarum. The inscriptions from that gold mining region show names that were representative for dalmatians [...]. We must add that the number of colonists of thracian and illyrian origin was also increased by the soldiers of the same origin, which had their garrison in Dacia and which, after finishing the military service, settled here. Thereby in Dacia, there were colonists that belonged to the tribes of "thracian archers", "thracians roman citizens", "bessi", "illyrians", "dalmatians".

We discover also colonists that arrived from far away. Some were from Asia Minor [present-day Turkey], from its various cities and provinces. The tavians, which made for themselves a collegium [association] in Dacia, were from the town Tavium, province of Galatia. Others came from Bithynia, others from Caria, others from Paphlagonia, others from as far as Coele-Syria [southern Syria]. They brought with them their revered gods, as was for example Glycon, the god worshipped in the town Abonotheisos from Paphlagonia, or Jupiter, to which they added also the name of the town of origin, being thus named "Jupiter Optimus Maximus Heliopolitanus", meaning the one worshipped in Heliopolis, "Jupiter Optimus Maximus Prusenus", worshipped in Prusa, "Jupiter Erisenus", worshipped in Erisa, etc.

Colonists came also from Gaul (Gallia). An inscription mentions a decurion, or like we say today, a town counselor with the name of Ibliomarus, which originated from Augusta Treverorum, in the Belgica province of Gaul. Of the same celtic origin were probably many of the soldiers that were part of the gaulic, spanish or british army corps, which, after finishing their military service, settled in Dacia. A series of military diplomas were found that belonged to these soldeirs, which means they received land here and they settled on it, alongside their families. From these colonists -- civilians and soldiers -- of celtic origin derive the inscriptions that make reference to the revered gods from their places of origin. Such were the gods Jupiter Bussumarus, Jupiter Bussurigius, Jupiter Sucellus and the godesses Epona, Campestres, Quadriviae, Nantosvelta.

Even people from Syria and Africa came in Dacia. An inscription mentions two merchants, Aurelius Alexander and Flavius, syrians, which make a dedication to "Jupiter Optimus Maximus Dolichenus", a god revered in Doliche, town from the Commagene province of Syria. Another inscription shows us that in Dacia existed also the cult (veneration) of Sol Hierobulos, meaning the saint sun, which was worshipped in Palmyra [central Syria]. He probably was brought along by the soldiers of the army corp (troop squad) originated from that town, which were garrisoned in Dacia. Also in Dacia were sent other troops from the same Far East, like the cohorts of commageni, originating from the Commagene province of Syria, or the cohorts of ituraeorum, from the vicinity of Palestine.

But there were no colonists from Italy? It seems that too few. In the time of Trajan, Italy had not anymore -- clearly -- a strong surplus of population that could be sent abroad. This is probably why the emperor decided as a rule not to use the population of Italy for colonization purposes. With this connotation we must explain the passage from Historia Augusta, a roman history source, in which we are told that Antoninus Pius [roman emperor from 138-161 AD] took care of Spain, colonizing it with people from Italy, "against the precepts (rules) of Trajan" (<<contra Traianis praecepta>>).

From Italy arrived, especially in the earlier period, functionaries: administrators, assessors (tax officers), customs officers and others of the same type. With the passing of time, especially after the edict (proclamation) of Caracalla din 212, which gave the right of roman citizenship to all the inhabitants of the empire, even they [the functionaries] were recruited mostly from the local population. Anyway, we must add this: the fact that the colonists were not from Italy, was not a situation of great importance at that time. Rome was at its peak of splendor and power: the empire encompassed all the mediterranean basin, which could have been considered rightly as a "roman" sea, <<mare nostrum>> like the citizens said with legitimate pride. The romanization made great progress: entire provinces spoke latin and -- which is even more important -- the provincials "felt" romans. It was an ideal for any of them to could say: <<civis romanus sum>> "I am a roman citizen". Let's not forget that even the emperor of that time, Trajan, was not from Italy. So, the fact that [in Dacia] did not arrive colonists from the heart of the empire must not sadden those that wanted us to be as much roman as possible; the romanization process we believe has not suffered, on the contrary, maybe he took advantage from the situation, because, on one part the prolificity of the italians had decreased, and on the other part, it is well known the zealousness (devotion) developed by those that are recently admitted into a great nation or superior religion. There are no better propagandists than the neophytes (recent converts).


It is sure that we have in our veins a sizable part of blood from the colonists brought by the empire in Dacia. We do not say "roman" blood, because, if we should take the words at face value, true romans, meaning inhabitants of Italy, were too few, as we already saw. Instead of that, [in Dacia] arrived thracians, illyrians, pannonians, orientals, that spoke latin, which is a different thing from a racial point of view. Also arrived, but in a much lesser number, greeks and members of other peoples that spoke greek. However, all these colonists, taken together, did not exceed in number the autochtonous population, the dacians.

C.C. Giurescu : History of Romanians (ALL Publishing House, 2008) - pages 108-110 and 156
ravinescu   Sat Feb 27, 2010 10:40 am GMT
Quote from: Student
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.

These are interpretations subject to personal experience and hearing acuity, which differ from person to person. That's why nobody should be annoyed if his language seems to sound like language X or Y in the ears of a foreigner. I listened to portuguese when looking at movies that are shown on romanian TV stations. So I was under the impression that portuguese sounded somewhat like russian, but this is half true, it is brazilian portuguese that sounds for me somewhat like russian, because the movies presented on romanian television are all brazilian telenovelas. I listened to RTP (radio from Portugal) the other day and it sounded not like russian, but more like bulgarian. European portuguese seems more harsh than brazilian portuguese, which is more melodious. But again, this is how european and brazilian portuguese sounds in MY ears, for another person they may sound differently. It must be said that I do not know any of these language (european or brazilian portuguese, russian, bulgarian), so it is all about sound and my personal experience in interpreting those sounds. There is nothing to be annoyed with. I am not annoyed if someone says that romanian sounds like language X or Y, it is something normal, it's his interpretation, based on his auditory experience.

But for many romanians, the association of romanian language with slavic languages is something of a blasphemy, which degrade (debase) the romanian language, a member of the "superior" romance family of languages. This is why they react so violently when someone says that romanian sounds slavic. The "superiority" of the romance languages compared with slavic languages is something that is inoculated in romanians from an early age. Schoolchildren are taught about the situation of Romania being like a "latin island in a slavic sea", which subliminally implies "a civilized island in a barbarian sea" or a "superior language island situated in an inferior language sea". Of course, this is a remnant of the 19th century latinist propaganda, but the "island" parable is present in most history books written by romanians and probably in all the history textbooks used in school.

And then there is another thing, even more important in order to understand why the romanians are so sensitive when their language is associated with slavic languages. The romanian identity was destroyed in the 19th century by the latinists, which did not want a true romanian identity, they wanted a LATIN identity for the romanians. This is why they modified the language, this is why they replaced the cyrillic alphabet with the latin alphabet, this is why they imported so many romance words. But this would not have been so bad if they stopped at the level of the language. However, they also tried to modify the romanian history, making things up. We can see today that some of their fantasies continue to be present in the minds of some romanians, mainly because the latinist propaganda was prevalent in schools and media, even in the 20th century, even under the communists. But as I said, there is nothing latin in the romanian people and civilization, all the latinity is to be seen in the romanian language (with a little help from the reromanization of the 19th century). So, the romanian identity as 'latin people" is based on a single thing, the language. It is understandable why many romanians react angrily when someone says that romanian sounds slavic. They perceive this as an attack on their "latinity", on their identity as romanians, even though it is not intended like that. It must be said that the majority of romanians are unaware of the link between romanian and the slavic languages, because in school nothing like this is taught at the classes of romanian language. On the contrary, the link between romanian and latin is greatly overemphasized ("romanian is the closest language to latin", etc.), of course without mentioning the process of reromanization from the 19th century.

However, the "latinity" of romanians took a great hit when english (a germanic language) replaced french (a romance language) as the most used language on the international stage. If you say to a romanian that his language sounds like english he would be very pleased, because english is considered nowadays in Romania THE superior language by excellence, surpassing any of the romance languages and of course latin. There are romanians that even say that no other language is necessary except for english, not even romanian. The majority of romanians use software in english, those that use software in romanian being a minority. Is this happening also in other european countries that have romance languages, like France, Italy, Spain, Portugal? Of course not, in those countries the majority of the population uses software in the official language, not in a foreign one. So much for the "latinity" of romanians... Which is more harmful for the perception of the romanian language, the fact that it is considered to have a slavic sound, or the fact that many romanians prefer english to romanian when using a computer? Unfortunately, romanian has become in Romania a second-class language in the field of computers, and this is not because there are no good translations available, but because many romanians love so much english that they are willing to be perceived as "anglo-saxons" and not "latins". The "latinity" of romanians is disintegrating today as we speak, and it took nothing more than the fall of communism and the advent of the personal computers to do it.

Back to the slavic sound of romanian. The quote below is taken from a page present on the site of the linguistics department of the Brigham Young University from Utah, USA.

Another way in which the Slavs influenced the language of the Dacians of that time was pronunciation. Remembering that the Slavs had adopted the Latin spoken in that region, it is apparent that they would speak this second language with a quite heavy accent. The Romanian of today is pronounced somewhat differently than all of the other languages in its family. An example of pronunciation change that Niculescu gives is the yodization or palatalization of initial /e/ in the personal pronouns. Initial /e/ in most words is pronounced the same as in all Romance languages, but in the personal pronouns the sound has been palatalized, causing it to have an initial /y/ sound. So the word el (he) is pronounced /yel/ (49). Almost all of the linguists and historians who have studied this topic "uphold the idea that the Balkan and Slavic elements contributed to rounding off the individuality of Romanian as a Romance language" (Niculescu 48).

Melodie Hanners : The History of the Romanian Language

Quote from: engineer
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.

It is hard to believe that no one told you that you seem to speak a slavic language. This is very a common situation, as you can see from a simple search on the internet. And it is also something normal, because romanian was always in contact with slavic languages, but was isolated from the western romance languages. Not to speak about the big number of slavs that participated in the formation of the romanian people, slavs that brought with them not only words, but also slavic sounds in romanian.

(shorthened URL of a search for "romanian sounds slavic")

Those that want to learn more about the sound of romanian can read the book "Phonology of Romanian", also available as a preview on Google Books:

ravinescu   Sat Feb 27, 2010 10:43 am GMT
Quote from: engineer
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??

There are two types of latinist propaganda in Romania. There is one that can be found in schools, media and on the internet, and this is the type of propaganda full of linguistic and historical fantasies. But there is also another type of propaganda, that can be found in universities and specialized books and this is a much more subtle type. There is a pro-latin bias in the history and linguistics books written by romanian specialists (linguists and historians), but generally it is subtle, not the "in your face" approach that is used by the internet trolls. Of course that the romanian linguists of the 21th century cannot appear as brainless propagandists in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of their non-romanian colleagues. So, DEX (the dictionary published by the Romanian Academy) presents the established etymologies of the romanian words. Let's not forget that DEX is used also by the foreign linguists specialized in romance languages, so the romanian linguists must be as accurate as possible, otherwise the non-romanian linguists will mock them for being unprofessional. This is why I recommended reading books written by romanian and non-romanian specialists, they contain useful and scientifically proven information, in contrast with the misinformation spread by the internet propagandists.

Quote from: engineer
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.

Your personal attack is ridiculous. I have no idea of what nonsense you are talking, because you do not offer any example of it, which is typical for a troll that cannot participate in an intellectual debate. All my assertions are backed up by quotes from books published by renowned authors, be they historians or linguists, romanians or non-romanians. But you, "engineer", you are not happy with attacking me personally, you attack also the audience, by considering that the Antimoon audience has "a poor level of general knowledge". I have no idea why do you say this, because the only ones that seems to have "a poor level of general knowledge" are you and the other romanian propagandists, who avoid reading books. I have not seen a single quote from a book that is used by the romanian propagandists in support of their allegations, all that they say is based on 200 years old propaganda.

Quote from: engineer
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!

Rest assured that the specialists already know the truth about the romanian history and language. Aside from that, I don't know any "historical or scientific" forum where there is a discussion about the origin of romanians or about the romanian language. An internet search does not bring any interesting discussion thread about these topics, other than some threads from the Softpedia forum to which I have already participated and of course, the current discussion from the Antimoon forum.

Quote from: engineer
Do you know Ravinescu when the mankind runs into his crises? When he lost the love for his brother ("semen" in Romanian).

I surely do know when the romanian propagandists "run into their crises". That's every time that their ridiculous assumptions are debunked with arguments based on scientifically proven facts and quotes from books written by renowned specialists.

Well, at least the audience got a good laugh from your "love of semen" reference. Probably you don't know what is the meaning of "semen" in english, otherwise you had used the romanian word "seamăn", which is the primary variant, "semen" being the secondary accepted variant. But I can understand why some romanians have indeed a "love of semen", they seem to "swallow" any propaganda that comes their way.

And for your information, "brother" does not translate as "seamăn/semen" in romanian, it translates as "frate". It is "fellow" that translates as "seamăn/semen". This shows your true knowledge of romanian, which is far from "perfect"...
ravinescu   Sat Feb 27, 2010 10:44 am GMT
Quote from: engineer
I feel sorry for you, you are so venomous and unhappy!

You should be sorry for yourself, because you show your ignorance so that anyone can see it.

But anyway, your "indignation" shows exactly what you are, a troll that tries to use emotions instead of arguments. And not only that, you actually try to project onto others your own feelings! I will explain that.

In "engineer's" view, a person that presents the historical truth about romanians is "venomous and unhappy", and a person that spreads propaganda is "sweet and happy", because only a "sweet and happy" person could believe in the rosy image that arises from the 19th century theory about the origin of romanians. But in fact, the things are completely the opposite. It is the propagandist who is "venomous and unhappy". A propagandists is a person that spreads the venom of disinformation and it does that because it is unhappy with the historical truth. He wants to "inject" his victims with the propagandistic "venom" that will paralyze their rational thought, in order to make them believe something that is not true, making the propagandist "happy" in the process, because he wil add another victim to his roster of brainwashed persons.

Quote from: Anonymous romanian
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.

That's because in the Middle Ages (before 1300 AD) there was no state (in the modern sense) on the territory of present-day Romania. The slavs and the proto-romanians were organized together in little principalities, little feudal administrative districts ruled by "voivodes" and "knezes" [voivozi şi cnezi], both titles being words of slavic origin. For example you have the principalities ("cnezate" - in romanian) of: Litovoi, Glad, Gelu, Menumorut, Seneslav, Ioan, Farcaş. At a later time, those little principalities have been coalesced (united) and thus were formed the three big principalities with romanian population, named "voivodeships" ["voivodate" in romanian] : Wallachia [Ţara Romānească], Transylvania [Transilvania], Moldavia [Moldova].

Quote from: Anonymous romanian
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

History does not work with the concepts of "cool" and "uncool", but with the concepts of "true" and "untrue". And all those that want to learn history must do the same.
Louis   Sat Feb 27, 2010 1:01 pm GMT
A bunch of idiots!

Ravinesu, you are sick! Franco, you are stupid! That is all I can say about you! I realy feel sorry for you guys....

Ravinesu, what is your point, I realy don't understand! You and your spanish friend are just two frustrated idiots; is in my opinion the only message you have transmited so far...
Ovid   Sun Feb 28, 2010 7:13 pm GMT
Looking at that dictionary, I realize that Slavic has of course had a significant impact on Romanian, but that still doesn't prove Romanian was predominantly Slavic in culture or language. I don’t care if it’s 90% Slavic words (which is far from the case, even before the “purge”), it still has the primarily Latin-derived core that comprises the most often used words in day-to-day conversation, such as basic grammar (pronouns- eu, tu, el/ea, noi, voi, ei/ele, and “articles”), possessive adjectives (meu, tău, lui/său, nostru, vostru, lor) conjugation, basic questions (who- cine, what- ce, where- unde, when- cānd, how- cum), numbers (unu, doi, trei, etc, all except for hundred- sută and everything after a million), days of the week (duminică, luni, marţi, etc, all except Saturday- sāmbătă), basic adjectives (good/well- bun/bine, bad- rău, happy- fericit, sad- trist, big- mare, small- mic, new- nou, old- vechi, young- tānăr/june, hot- cald, cold- frig/rece, handsome- frumos, hungry- foame, thirsty- sete, etc), familial and relationship terms (except for the obvious friend- prieten, love- iubire, wife- nevastă and a few others that everyone points out), body parts and functions (head- cap, eye- ochi, tooth- dinte, nose- nas, ear- ureche, beard- barbă, hand- mānă, arm- braţ, foot- picior, heart- inimă, blood- sānge, voice- voce, etc), colors (green- verde, white- alb, yellow- galben, black- negru, red- roşu, blue- albastru, etc), some agricultural related words (mill- moară, grass- iarbă, hay- fān, straw- paie, sickle- seceră, wheel- roată, axe- secure), time (timp, hour- oră, week- săptămāna, year- an, yesterday- ieri, tomorrow-māine, day- zi, night- noapte, evening- seară, spring- primăvară, winter- iarnă), animals (dog- cāine, horse- cal, pig/sow- porc/scroafă, bear-urs, fox- vulpe, cow- vacă, bull- taur, wolf- lup, bird- pasăre, eagle- vultur/aceră, fish- peşte), basic elements of nature/topographical features (water- apă, fire- foc, air- aer, wind- vānt, sun- soare, moon- lună, star- stea, sky- cer, cloud- nor, light- lumină, shadow- umbră, stone- piatră, gold- aur, iron- fier, rain- ploaie, forest- pădure, mountain- munte, sea- mare, river- rāu, lake- lac, field- cāmp, street- cale, tree- arbore), household and everyday objects (house- casă, table- masă, window- fereastră, ladder- scară, book- carte, ring- inel, needle- ac, key- cheie, game- joc), foods and eating except for several vegetables (meat- carne, milk- lapte, bread- pāine, salt- sare, lunch- prānz, dinner- cină, onion- ceapă, beans- fasole, apple- măr, wine- vin), basic taste descriptors (gust, sweet- dulce, bitter- amar, sour- acru), some words dealing with religion or life (God- Dumnezeu, Christian- creştin, Easter- paşte, priest- preot, angel- īnger, soul- suflet, sin- păcat, peace- pace, life- viaţă, death- moarte, birth- naştere), authority (king/queen- rege/regină, emperor- īmpărat, judge- judecător/jude) and many other domains, as well as the majority of basic verbs that were naturally inherited and have cognates in other Romance languages (have- avea, do- face, see- vedea, give- da, can- putea, eat- mānca, sleep- dormi, listen- asculta, help- ajuta, sing- cānta, say- zice, etc, and among many others we even have more obscure ones like cough- tuşi, sneeze- strănuta, and milk- mulge, like Italian tossire, starnutire, and mungere- what more do you want!). Even some curse words like the equivalent of the “f” word in English, which I won’t write here, have been preserved and ingrained after all these years. All these words are only a small example of the total natural Latin vocabulary. It is this important core that determines the character of a language, and it’s hard to express many things without at least some Latin-based words (not counting the reintroduced French ones). English is in a somewhat similar situation, and Persians also borrowed or were forced upon tons of Arabic words but their language still retains the Farsi core and is classified as an Indo-European language as opposed to Semitic.
Some say that words involving families and relationships include mostly non-Latin words, but here are a few examples:
Om- from homo (man)
Femeie (woman)- from familia (family)
Frate- from frater (brother)
Soră- from soror (sister)
Părinte- from parens (parent)
Fiu- from filius (son)
Soţ (husband)- from socius (ally)
Muiere- from mulier (woman/wife)
Unchi- from avunculus (uncle)
Mătuşă- from amita (aunt), though it changed a lot
Nepot- from nepos (nephew)
Socru- from socer/socrus (father-in-law)
Ginere- from gener (son-in-law)
Noră- from nurus (daughter-in-law)
Cumnat (brother-in-law)- from cognatus (relative)- interestingly, the words that formed this in Latin were cum and natus
Vecin- from vicinus (neighbor)
Oaspete- from hospes (guest)- although musafir from Turkish is probably used more today
Domn (mister)- from dominus (master)
Nume- from nomen (name)
Tată and mamă (father and mother) for some reason most likely came from tata and mamma, which was a more childish way of saying them in Latin, and this may have been influenced by Slavic.
Another interesting thing that I have heard is that Romanian seems to have developed from (or at least maintained due to its geographic isolation), an older form of Vulgar Latin from the time of the conquest of Dacia and before the withdrawal, preserving the u sound that v used to stand for in words like nouă (from Lt. novem- nine), nou (from Lt. novus- new), ou (from Lt. ovus- egg), viu (from Lt. vivus- alive), and greu (from Lt. gravis- heavy) for example. I’m not sure if this is really true or not though. But there is also īnţelege (to understand, from intellegere), vāna (to hunt, from venare), īncepe (to begin, from incipere), atinge (to touch, ultimately from tangere- Italians still use this sometimes) and şti (to know, from scire); from what I understand, these and a few others were largely lost in most of the other languages. And some of the Latin derived vocabulary is pretty close to the original word, even more than Italian in a few cases, like taur (vs toro), aur (vs oro), urs (vs orso), foc (vs fuoco) aer (vs aria), vulpe (vs volpe), fasole (vs fagiole), fruct (vs frutto), dulce (vs dolce), ficat (vs fegato), umăr (vs spalla) and umbră (vs ombra). However, this has led some Romanians to make the claim that it comes from or is closest to Classical Latin, which can’t be true, as all Romance languages came from some variant of Vulgar or colloquial Latin, especially in remote corners of the empire. The reason why many other Romance language speakers have trouble understanding Romanian, aside from the Slavic words of course, is that even many of the Latin derived words come from more obscure or altered words that aren’t found in the other languages, or their meanings or forms have changed somewhat, leading to false cognates- for example zbura (to fly- from exvolare), pămānt- (ground/earth- from pavimentum), spăla (to wash- from experlavare), ţară (country/land- from terra), lume (world- from lumen), inimă (heart- from anima), suflet (soul- from suflare), foarte (very- from fortis), and bătrān (old person- from veteranus). This shows that the Latin spoken in Dacia was probably not the most correct.
And yes, I realize that a lot of Slavic words were thrown out or reduced to archaisms, but isn’t gāndi an exception? I’ve heard that cugeta (from cogitare) was used more in older times. And păsa- to care/concern, akin to pensare- to think, has taken on a somewhat different meaning over the ages, as have many other Romanian and Romance words.
Anyway, I wonder how many of the new French imports were actually present in Roman Dacia in some form or another, since that’s the main argument the reformists probably tried to use (resurrection). Gardă probably wasn’t , since it was of Germanic origin. To my surprise, several of the names of the months were apparently taken from Slavic (themselves of course originally from Latin) but Relatinized. One thing I’ve wondered about was if the names for countries like England- Anglia, Spain- Spania, and Switzerland- Elveţia are authentic or also imported relatively recently to match with Latin. I’m thinking it’s doubtful, since for a lot of their history Romanians weren’t very familiar with these places.
About people tending to try to make links to words that have a superficial similarity to Latin, I have to agree that I have seen that too. Like iubi and iubilare, vorbă and verbalis, omorī and mori- die, citi and cite. I’ve even heard that da (yes) might have come originally from ita, meaning thus, or a way of affirming something in Latin, but due to the influence of the surrounding Slavic countries conformed and took on the form of da to more easily communicate with them. This sounds a little far-fetched and is probably not true, but who knows, seeing as it’s one of the most common words in a language, you would think it wouldn’t have a foreign origin. I’m sure you’re going to respond to this by saying that Slavs weren’t really “foreign” but became an essential part of the Romanian ethnos. Whatever, we can’t really go back in time to the Dark Ages and prove this definitively.
Not actually being raised in Romania for the most part and not being taught the supposedly propagandistic education, I can see that ravinescu has some logical points (looking through older literature such as poetry from Eminescu, I do see a lot of older words not in use today, many probably not of Latin origin) and won’t flip out like some people, but at the same time, I just can’t agree with everything he says. Anyway, I think a couple of overly nationalistic Romanians ruined the reputation for the rest of us by making crazy, unfounded, or overly exaggerated claims, like that Latin actually came from Romania instead of vice versa or that it was the oldest civilization in Europe, thus destroying any credibility we have for rational arguments about other things.
Oh, and I thought the use of ī instead of ā was just communist era orthography used for a certain agenda due to Russian influence at the time. They should have kept it for rīu and rīde though. But who knows what it was meant to look like before the mid 19th century as Cyrillic was used then. I mean cīine just looks ridiculous, come on.
Radovan   Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:13 am GMT
1. First of all, you Franco and Ravenescu need to know that Slavic people are very proud and they fought and still fight till the last drop of blood for their identity and existence. To say that the ones who in the ancient time predominantly (or hundreds of thousands of them, or whatever) have lived on the actual Romanian territories have abandoned their mother tongue and have chosen to speak a Latin language, it is not only absurd; it is effectively insulting. That is upsetting me, as a Serbian very much!

2. Secondly, who is that "famous" historian Djuvara, what you ravenescu permanently cited? There are a lot of other better known historians than this one who contradicts Djuvara at any time and not only in words...What big and important works has this historian done?

3. You speak about a nation melting pot in the former Dacia; show me a country today whose past was not a melting pot of at least 3-4 nations; I suggest Franco to take Spain to begin with...and finsih up with Hungary and Austria.

4. Blond, dark hairy, red hairy, brown hairy is today more or less in every nation, verey easy to find. Go to Germany and you will be amazed by how many brunet people you will see; in Austria, Switzerland even more.

5. You asked yourself why Romanians have used in the far past the Slavonic alphabet but never questioned why for example Germany and other Germanic nations have given up the Gothic alphabet and switched to Latin one? Unlike the Germans, the Romanians adopted the alphabet of their forefathers when they became more literate and improved their laic culture. You should know that the alphabet is not automatically giving the nature and character of a language.

6. This was supposed to be a linguistic forum and not a place where you and some other trolls like you... very disrespectful and impolite individuals are filling this forum with your interminable dejects.

Radovan P.
nicolae   Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:07 am GMT
it is true that you see a few false cognates between romanian and other romance languages. another obvious example i can think of is cāştiga, meaning to win or earn, when it came from castigare in latin, which meant to punish, chastise, or correct, and this is the meaning it has in the other languages. there's even a word in english, to castigate, with this meaning. it's strange how it developed an almost opposite meaning in romanian, unless you consider being punished ultimately a good thing lol
we also have īnvinge coming from latin vincere, the word for win, but that means more like to beat or triumph over

it is pretty funny how some of the curse words have been preserved too. like the word for ass is cur, like spanish culo, portuguese cu, french cul, italian culo, all coming from culus. and as it has the typical romanian sound change from l to r, it is definitely an inherited and not a neologism. besides why would people want to reintroduce vulgar terms into vocabulary anyway lol

i looked it up in that dictionary and another religious term is boteza, to baptise from batizare, so i doubt the early romanians were pagans until tey came under bulgarian church influence like someone was saying earlier in this thread.
A castiga   Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:35 pm GMT
The meaning changed in Romanian right from the beginning of the nation formation - in proto-romanian period.

The Romans went over the Dacians for PUNISHING them. After those two big confrontations, the Roman did succeed to reach their goal and to "punish" the Dacians. That was possible by winning the wars.

Punishing associated with a WINN made the daco-Romanians descendents to associate the two words and give them just one single meaning to both: "to win" wars, money, materials, lotto etc.

In a way, that is a small prove that the Romanians who first used this word in their ordinary vocabulary are indeed the followers of the Daco-Romans.

The Serbs, for example, have this word borrowed from Latin as well, but they preserved the original sens: "to punish", isn't it Radovan?
Outsider   Sat Mar 06, 2010 4:17 am GMT
How would a Romanian pronounce the final English -ing?

A Russian and a Pole pronounce it as -ink instead of -ing.
A Portuguese also pronounces it as -ink, like what a Russian/Pole would pronounce it.

My references:


This link is about Brain Training ("Brain Trainink") ad in Portuguese...


This is a Pole playing Satan speaking English. His dialogue is "Chris is jumpink!"


In this Russian accent (by 3:30 in this clip), the final word is "doink(doing)" and this guy is actually a Russian who went to the United States.