Which Romance language sounds more Slavic?

~|~   Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:16 am GMT
=================================================
Quote from: Ravinescu
You probably didn't read my previous messages, which are on the pages 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25 of the current discussion.
=================================================

ROFLMAO
iullian   Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:28 pm GMT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Ravinescu
"Who could add more weight to propaganda if not the national poet? If anyone has a doubt about Eminescu being used for latinist propaganda..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ravinescu you retarded lifeless freak now you mock Eminescu our national poet? you piss with your lies on a genius; he would turn in his grave if he knew what lies you spread about him, a man of inestimable value.

If I could ever find you I would stick your ass on a stake just like Vlad the impaler would do to the kinds of you.
Outsider   Sat Mar 13, 2010 4:07 pm GMT
Russian News:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1XjuAoxJv4&feature=related

Polish News:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe6ALtvGYRU&feature=related

Lithuanian News:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q23YQ3aMoSI&feature=related

Portuguese News:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6Uip7Z_3w8&feature=related

Albanian News:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNaccAw8ykY&feature=related

Moldavian News:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz3dYbtHrXw&feature=related

Click the links and listen to their sounds. Native speakers of the language, concentrate on the sound distributions instead of the meanings.
ravinescu   Sun Mar 14, 2010 5:50 pm GMT
=============================
Quote from: Galerius
Ok, I realize you didn’t deny that it was a Romance language, but the reason I wrote that long list of basic words in the other post was because I’m tired of some people here who have a very limited knowledge about the history of Romanian saying, “you just had a few Latin words and then added 99% of your modern Latin vocabulary from French”. By “few”, they make it sound like we had maybe 20 or 30 obscure Latin words that are barely used and we used that as a pretext for Relatinizing our language.
=============================


This is an understandable reaction from the part of non-romanians. They've had enough of the romanian propaganda with the slogans like "romanian is the romance language closest to latin" and "romanian is 80% latin". These are outright lies, because romanian is not the romance language closest to latin (there are other discussions, including on this forum, where this lie is debunked). And the percentage of 80% words of latin origin in romanian is also a lie, more than half of that percentage being composed of words derived from french (not all of latin origin), which were introduced in romanian in the 19th and 20th centuries. When the non-romanians find out about the reromanization of the vocabulary and the modification of the orthography to make it look more latin (the letter Ā used in the middle of words instead of Ī, and the latin word "sunt" used instead of the romanian word "sīnt"), of course they tend to not trust the romanians in anything they say about their language. This is a reaction to the lies spread by the propagandists, which have completely destroyed the credibility of romanians in matters relating to the national history and language.


==============================
Quote from: Galerius
They, trying to imagine the seemingly incompatible concept of a Romance language in eastern Europe, just heard of the academics doing the relatinization in the 1850s and by extrapolation think that the entire language was done this way, thus making it completely artificial, which is of course false. Instead of researching a little more, they have an agenda and just cherry pick the argument that this is the case because it is more convenient for them, and don’t look further into it. I don’t profess to have the greatest knowledge of this matter either, seeing as you’ve schooled me in regards to the orthography.
==============================


You have not understood precisely what caused the reaction of distrust voiced by the non-romanians. The "incompatible concept" is not about the existence of a romance language in eastern Europe, it is about the existence of a romance language in eastern Europe that is the closest to classical latin. To believe that assumption is absolutely impossible for any rational mind. This is why the romanian propagandists have invented the story about the "latin island". The only possibility for an eastern european language to be "closest to latin" would be isolation on an island in the middle of the sea. But Romania is not an island, it is a land which is connected directly with the surrounding lands. When you factor in the ecuation the fact that Romania was for more than 1000 years home for various migratory peoples arrived from Europe and Asia, part of them choosing to stay and not leave, it is really unbelievable that the romanian language could be "the romance language closest to latin". And even if no autochtonous or migratory peoples contributed to the formation of the romanian people and language, even if the roman colonists were the only ancestors of romanians, this extreme closeness to latin cannot be accepted, because the roman colonists were not italians for the majority, they were mostly from Thracia, Moesia, Dalmatia, Pannonia, Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, etc. So the roman colonists did not spoke classical latin, but vulgar latin, and not even the same vulgar latin, but different dialects, influenced by the autochtonous language from their region of origin (thracian, illyrian, greek, aramaic, etc.).

And think also about the fact that for a language to remain the same for hundreds of years, you must have a writing for it and you must have many primary schools, in order to teach that language to most of the children. The romanian language was not written until late (probably 14th or 15th century AD) and there were no primary schools for the romanian general population until the 19th century. Add to this that latin was never the state language in Romania, like it was in some other countries, including some eastern european ones. In all this time passed from its inception, the romanian language has lost many of its latin characteristics, which is absolutely normal, because it is a living language, that adapts to the population that speaks it. And because the romanian population was from the beginning a very mixed one, the language, although derived from vulgar latin, has been modified with the passing of time and today it is very hard for a romanian to understand a latin text.

The non-romanians do not have any agenda, because nobody, except the romanians, believes that the origin of a people and its language are important anymore. No, it doesn't matter whether a people is of latin, slavic, germanic, etc. origin, all that matters is what that people is doing, what it has created or produced, what is its contribution to the advancement of the world civilization.

The only agenda is that of the romanian propagandists, who continue to spread lies as if those lies were credible and hard to check, when in fact they are hardly believable and are teared to pieces easily by the articles available on the internet and in the history/linguistics books.


==============================
Quote from: Galerius
To figure out what Romanian words would have looked like in the early Middle Ages, maybe one can look at some Aromanian equivalents of Romanian words of Slavic or non-Latin origin. For example cat (Ro. pisică) is cćtushe, probably from cattus, friend (Ro. prieten) is ospit or sots, from hospes and socius (meaning guest and ally in Latin), to find is afla (Ro. găsi, with a cognate meaning find out), and snow is neao (most commonly zapadă in Ro. but nea or omăt are also used). Interestingly, their word for to speak (Ro. vorbi), is zbura, which means to fly in Romanian. Cuvānt (word) in Romanian is from conventus, which sounds like it means “with wind”, but is actually from convenio.
==============================


Aromanian is by no means a poster child for language latinity, because it was heavily influenced by greek and (to a lesser degree) by albanian, so the final result is a language (actually a group of languages) that is more distant to latin than romanian. Last but not least, there was no reromanization of aromanian, because they never had a country of their own (they live in Greece, Macedonia and Albania), so the only latinist propaganda came from Romania, by way of the romanian schools opened in the regions with aromanians. But the history (and origin) of aromanians is even more complicated than that of romanians.

###################################
It is hypothesized that the Vlachs originated from the Roman colonisation of the Balkans and are the descendants of Latinised native peoples and Roman legionaries who had settled in the Balkans. The fact that the Roman colonisation of Epirus and Macedonia began earlier and lasted longer than that of Dacia would suggest that the Aromanian Vlachs may have preceded the Romanians in Balkan history.

There are many theories regarding the origins of the Aromanians. In Greece, they are believed to be descended from a local Greek population that was Latinised immediately following the Roman conquest of Greece, or later, during the first centuries of the Byzantine Empire when Latin continued to be the official language. On the contrary, in other neighboring countries they are considered to be the descendants of Thracian peoples who moved into the mountains of the southern Balkans after the Avar and Slavic invasions. Some Byzantine chroniclers have described them as descending from Thracian tribes;one of them being the Bessi.

In total, the main theories regarding the origins of Aromanians describe them as descendants of the Romanized Thracians or Roman colonists and soldiers, who would receive agricultural lands as payments for their services, or Latin Greeks (Greco-Romans).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromanians
####################################

The feelings of the aromanians living in Greece are not at all pro-romanian. Some of them (if not the vast majority) consider themselves greeks, not some long lost brothers of the romanians. Again, this is understandable, because the language is not the defining factor of a people's identity. The aromanians do not see themselves as a latin island in a greek sea, they're more mature in this respect than the romanians affected by two centuries of latinist propaganda.

####################################
Romanian interference in the first half of the 20th century eventually led to antagonism between Aromanians with a Hellenic national consciousness (pejoratively known in Romania as grecomans) who rejected what they perceived as Romanian propaganda, and those who espoused a Latin identity as promoted in the Romanian schools. According to the Romanian nationalist point of view the "grecomans" and the Greek militia (known as "andarti") "terrorized" the Pindus region between 1903–1912 leading to a diplomatic crisis with Romania in 1911 (see Adina Berciu, Maria Petre: 2004). The Greek point of view maintains that the newly incorporated Romanian state was seeking to divert attention from more serious territorial disputes with Russia and Bulgaria by using Greek Vlachs as leverage. It is noteworthy that Romanian nationalists touring the Greek Vlach villages were invariably struck by the locals' lack of interest in the Romanian cause.

By 1948, the new Soviet-imposed communist regime of Romania had closed all Romanian-run schools outside Romania and since the closure, there has been no formal education in Aromanian and speakers have been encouraged to learn and use the Greek language. This has been a process encouraged by the community itself and is not an explicit State policy. The decline and isolation of the Romanian orientated groups was not helped by the fact that they openly collaborated with the Axis powers of Italy and Germany during the occupation of Greece in WWII. Notably the vast majority of Vlachs fought in the Greek resistance and a number of their villages were destroyed by the Germans.

The issue of Aromanian-language education is a sensitive one, partly because of the resurgence in Romanian interest on the subject. Romanian nationalism maintains that Greek propaganda is still very strong in the area, inferring that Greeks define Aromanians as a sort of "Latinized Greeks". The fact remains that it is the majority of Greek Vlachs themselves that oppose the Romanian propaganda (those that espouse it having emigrated in the early 20thC), as they have done for the past 200 years. The Greek Vlachs oppose the introduction of the language into the education system as EU and leading Greek political figures have suggested, viewing it as an artificial distinction between them and other Greeks. For example, the former education minister, George Papandreou, received a negative response from Aromanian mayors and associations to his proposal for a trial Aromanian language education programme. The Panhellenic Federation of Cultural Associations of Vlachs (Πανελλήνια Ομοσπονδία Πολιτιστικών Συλλόγων Βλάχων) expressed strong opposition to EU's recommendation in 1997 that the tuition of Aromanian be supported so as to avoid its extinction.[3]. On a visit to Metsovo, Epirus in 1998, Greek President Konstantinos Stephanopoulos called on Vlachs to speak and teach their language, but its decline continues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromanian_language
###################################
ravinescu   Sun Mar 14, 2010 5:51 pm GMT
==============================
Quote from: Galerius
Also since these other non Daco-Romanian languages tend to have considerably less Slavic influence, and since it’s generally agreed that they split apart around 1000 AD or so (Istro-Romanian probably later), the Slavic influence on Daco-Romanian must have come relatively late and probably wasn’t that ingrained early in their history (6th-7th centuries like some say). This kind of ties in to the migration vs. continuity debate, often brought up by Hungarians, about whether the Romanians were originally a population south of the Danube within the empire, like the Aromanians, that migrated north around the 11-12th century into the former province of Dacia, which presumably had been largely abandoned by the retreating Romans and its remaining population assimilated by invading peoples, or whether they were always there in continuity.
==============================


You may be surprised, but there are also romanians that support the migration theory. They say that the romanian people migrated from the south of the Danube river (Pannonia and Dalmatia) to Transylvania, then to the other romanian territories. You can find them easily by reading the Softpedia forum thread about the origin of romanians.

http://forum.softpedia.com/index.php?showtopic=593236&view=getnewpost


==============================
Quote from: Galerius
The first Byzantine mention of Vlachs was around the 9th century or so, and some hints of a language even before (torna, torna, fratre).
==============================


There is no way that "torna, torna, fratre" is a hint of a romanian language. It is false theory, which is not even taken into account in the modern history or linguistics books. To me it seems like a real-world demonstration of the old romanian saying: "a face din ţīnţar armăsar" [to make a stallion from a mosquito], meaning to blow something out of proportion, which of course results in untrue assumptions. You can read a detailed analysis of this sentence in the book written by a romanian linguist, from which I have taken the conclusion quoted below:

#######################################
Cu tot respectul pentru strădania unor cercetători romāni de a considera fraza "torna, torna, fratre" ca primul text romānesc, şi īn acelaşi timp romanic, este īnsă clar că această frază, rostită īn secolul al VI-lea īn Munţii Haemus [ Munţii Balcani], era īn latina orientală şi nu īn romānă.

Constantin Frāncu: Geneza limbii romāne şi etnogeneza romānilor (editura Demiurg, 1999)

English translation:
With all due respect to the efforts of some romanian researchers that considered the phrase "torna, torna, fratre" as the first romanian text, and at the same time [the first] romance [text], it is clear that this phrase, said in the 6th century AD in the Haemus Mountains [Balkan Mountains], was in oriental latin [vulgar latin spoken in the eastern part of the roman empire] and not in romanian.

Constantin Frāncu: The genesis of the romanian language and the ethnogenesis of romanians (Demiurg Publishing House, 1999)
######################################


==============================
Quote from: Galerius
There are also a few words dealing with Christianity and religion from Latin in Romanian, such as biserică (church), from basilica, and this is perplexing as it didn’t become tolerated until 313 under Constantine and not official until 385 under Theodosius, both dates which were after the Roman legion’s withdrawal in 272.
==============================

This is not perplexing, it is normal. Christianity was (and continues to be) a proselytizing religion. The christians that lived in the Roman Empire south of the Danube knew of course that north of the Danube river lived a population that was descending from the roman colonists brought by Trajan. The ties (mainly trade) between the latinophone population south and north of the Danube were not cut after the roman administration, army and part of the population was evacuated from Dacia. So it is something normal that latinophone christians from the Roman Empire went north of the Danube to try the christianize the population that lived there. And that's why in romanian there is the word "biserică" (from the latin "basilica") to designate a church. The word was brought by the early christian missionaries, that did their job to proselytize christianity to all the known populations, regardless if they were part of the empire or not.


==============================
Quote from: Galerius
Despite this, interestingly there is evidence of Christian inscriptions in Latin in Dacia the 4th-6th centuries.
==============================


There is no evidence of latin christian inscriptions in Dacia in the 4th-6th centuries or later. The latin inscriptions in Dacia stopped being written in 250 AD. There are signs on pottery and other objects that some say are of christian origin, but this is not sure, there is no consensus on that matter. There is also an object with the inscription "Ego Zenovius votum posui", but there is no proof that it was produced or used locally. It could have been brought by migratory peoples after one of their plundering raids south of the Danube, an hypothesis that is somewhat supported by the fact that it was found in a forest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biertan_Donarium
ravinescu   Sun Mar 14, 2010 5:52 pm GMT
==============================
Quote from: Galerius
The idea of Romanian Latinity or connection to ancient Rome in some way actually started quite before the 19th century, and even came partly from outside the country. I read in a book (actually written by a Hungarian historian who managed to stay quite objective) that Italian humanists in the 1400s like Flavio Biondo, Bracciolini, and Antonio Bonfini, who actually worked with Matthias Corvinus, the half-Romanian king of Hungary, on writing a history of Hungary, remarked on their travels throughout Eastern Europe the similarities of Romanian and Italian, with some even going as far as saying that Romanian was a type of flawed or “half”-Italian. They also noted that the people called themselves some derivation of Romanus. Poles also referred to Italians as Wlochs, similar to Vlachs, an old name for Romanians. However, these are foreign judgments and interpretations, so it is hard to know what they really considered themselves at the time. Though I heard even in the late Middle Ages, there were old legends and stories about a distant origin “de la Rīm”, if not actual awareness among most of the population.
===============================

No, there were no old legends about a roman origin. Nobody mentions them because they do not exist. As I already said, after 1000 years of successive migratory waves, who could expect collective reminiscence about a remote period of 170 years of roman rule in Dacia? The roman civilization in Dacia was destroyed shortly after the romans left and the ruins were continously used thereafter (even in medieval times) in order to gather stones and other materials to use for new buildings. One must also take into account that the roman province of Dacia encompassed roughly 1/4 of the present-day territory where there are speakers of romanian. What memories about the romans could have had the inhabitants of Wallachia or Moldavia, when on these territories there was no roman presence and no colonization?

The link between romans and romanians in the popular conscience was established in modern times, after the romanian nobility began to study abroad, especially in countries where latin was the official language of the state and church. They learned latin or greek, so they could read the works of ancient or more modern historians. But unfortunately with knowledge arrived also the propaganda and the first propagandistic statements about the origin of romanians can be read in the works of the early romanian chroniclers. Also, these early chroniclers were also the first that tried to latinize the romanian language by using a syntax more close to latin and by importing words of latin origin. Of course the impact of this early latinization of the language was nowhere near the one from the 19th century reromanization.

The expression "de la Rīm ne tragem" [we descend from Rome] is from the work of Grigore Ureche (1590 - 1647), considered the first moldavian chronicler. He established a direct link between romans and romanians on the basis of similarities of language alone (he compared latin "panis" with romanian "pīine", latin "caro" with romanian "carne", etc.).

http://tinyurl.com/grigore-ureche
(shortened URL to the chronicle of Grigore Ureche) - in romanian

The second moldavian chronicler was Miron Costin (1633 - 1691), who wrote a more lengthy discourse about the origin of romanians. He presented the wars between romans and dacians, the conquest and colonization of Dacia. Miron Costin was not an historian and unfortunately he was the first romanian propagandist, because he made some greatly exaggerated claims about the roman rule in Dacia. For example he said that the romans colonized all the territory between the rivers Danube and Dniester, which meant the regions of Wallachia and Moldavia (including the present-day Republic of Moldova). This was not the case, the roman colonization was only in the regions of Oltenia, Banat and Ardeal, but Miron Costin wanted to present the moldavians as direct descendants from the romans, so that's why he used completely untrue statements. He also asserted that the roman colonists in Dacia were from Italy, which is also untrue, the vast majority of them being non-italian. And what's most revealing is the fact that he traced behavioral parallels between the moldavians and the italians, saying that anyone who has ever been to Italy could instantly see that italians and moldavians are the same people. But of course Miron Costin never visited Italy and he based his assumptions on some supposed resemblance between the lifestyle of moldavians and italians... The romanian propagandists of today are using propaganda that was actually invented by Miron Costin in the 17th century.

http://tinyurl.com/miron-costin
(shortened URL to a writing by Miron Costin about the origin of romanians) - in romanian

Both Grigore Ureche and Miron Costin lived a big part of their early life in Poland, where their families were exiled. Miron Costin returned in Moldavia after living his first 20 years in Poland, where he had studied at a jesuite college. In Poland the official language of state and church was latin, so both Ureche and Costin learned latin and read the history books available in the polish libraries. Some of their sources were the works of Cassius Dio, Antonio Bonfini, Alexandro Guagnini, Laurentius Toppeltinus, Martin Cromer, Matej Strykowski, Paul Piasecki, Martin Paszkowski.

A third chronicler that wrote about the origin of romanians was Constantin Cantacuzino (1650 - 1716), who was the most knowledegeable from all the romanian chroniclers, because he studied in Edirne (Hadrianopolis), Istanbul (Constaninople) and Padova. He knew italian, latin and of course greek (he was half-greek, from his paternal lineage). Knowing both latin and greek allowed him to read much more than the previous chroniclers and to use more diverse sources for his writings. This is why his work is close to the modern historical works. Constantin Cantacuzino is the first romanian to say that the roman colonists were brought in Dacia from all over the Roman Empire, just like the historians of the Antiquity said and like the inscriptions found on the territory of the roman province of Dacia proved. He mentions the ethnic cleansing of the dacians by the romans, but he says not all the dacians were killed or exiled. He is also the first to say that romanians are not direct and exclusive descendants of romans, because they actually are of mixed genetic origin, just like the other peoples.

###############################
Aşa deci Traian supuind şi desăvīrşit domolind toată Dachia, şi socotind ca să o tocmească īntr-acelaşi chip, de la care să nu mai aibă alte turburări, nici să le mai vie alte griji, au poruncit du prenprejurele biruinţelor sale de au adus romani lăcuitori de i-au aşezat aici, şi şi dintr-a sa oaste au lăsat cīţi au trebuit de a-i lăsa, ca să se aşaze aici, rămīind lăcuitori acestor ţări, carii şi pănă astăzi să trag, cum vom arăta, dintr-aceia.
-----------------------------------------
Īnsă nu că doară den dachi nici unul n-au mai rămas, cīt pustiindu-se de tot, şi nemairămīnīnd nimeni cine a lăcui acéste pămīnturi, au pus Traian şi au aşezat romani, ci numai a lor crăie să nu mai fie, nici capete dintr-īnşii poruncitori să nu rămīie, nici al lor nume de stăpīnire să nu să auză, ci numai de romanu. Iar şi den ei alţii au mai rămas, că iată şi Lichinie de neam dac să trage [...]. Acest dar Lichinie, cum zisem, au fost de fel dacu, săvai că foarte puţini rămăsése (zic istoriile) de atīta ămar de ai, ce īntr-īnşii grele oşti şi nespusă mulţime de vrăjmaşi au stătut şi au bălăcit, pre carii cu sabia şi cu foc i-au stins. Şi īncă den cīţi şi rămăsése, cum s-au zis, doar cu viiaţa numai ce era, că alt tot supt nemilostivii ostaşi să mistuise şi să topise.

Aşadară Traian au aşezat lăcuitori romani īn Dachia, cum toţi istoricii adeverează şi aiave şi pănă astăzi īn Ardeal, īn multe locuri, să văd īn pietri scrise, epigramata şi altele īn numele lui, cum şi la Cliuj, zice Gulielmu şi Ioann Blau, īn Noul Atlas, că deasupra unii porţi ceastă epigrama a lu Traian să vede scrisă (īnsă latinéşte):
"Traiano pro salute imperatoris Antonini et M. Aurelii Cesario milites consistentes manipio posuerunt."
-----------------------------------------
Iară noi īntr-alt chip de ai noştri şi de toţi cīţi sīnt rumāni, ţinem şi crédem, adeverindu-le den mai aleşii şi mai adeveriţii bătrīni istorici şi de alţii mai īncoace, că valahii, cum le zic ei, iară noi, rumānii, sīntem adevăraţi romani şi aleşi romani īn credinţă şi īn bărbăţie, den carii Ulpie Traian i-au aşezat aici īn urma lui Decheval, dupre ce de tot l-au supus şi l-au pierdut; şi apoi şi alalt tot şireagul īmpăraţilor aşa i-au ţinut şi i-au lăsat aşezaţi aici şi dintracelor rămăşiţă să trag pănă astăzi rumīnii aceştea.

Īnsă rumānii īnţeleg nu numai ceştea de aici, ce şi den Ardeal, carii īncă şi mai neaoşi sīnt, şi moldovenii, şi toţi cīţi şi īntr-altă parte să află şi au această limbă, măcară fie şi cevaşi mai osebită īn nişte cuvinte den amestecarea altor limbi, cum s-au zis mai sus, iară tot unii sīnt. Ce dară pe aceştea, cum zic, tot romani īi ţinem, că toţi aceştia dintr-o fīntīnă au izvorīt şi cură.

Nu zic īnsă că toţi, toţi cīţi astăzi să află lăcuitori īntracéste ţărī, că sīnt toţi rumāni, că acéia nici au fost, nici iaste, nici nice īntr-o ţară cīte putem şti că sīnt īn emisferiul nostru, ce mai mulţi streini şi veniţi dupe-ntr-alte ţărī. Īnsă mai vīrtos cei ce să află şi pănă astăzi mai blagorodni şi mai de folos neamuri, unii sīnt den sīrbi, alţii den greci, alţii den arbănaşi, alţii den frīnci, alţii dintr-alte limbi. Că şi domnii īncă mai mulţi den streini au stătut, cum şi Băsărăbeştii să trag de neam sīrbesc şi alţi domni de alte neamuri, cum īn vieţile lor să va arăta, īncă cīţi să vor şti den ce rod au fost. Ca acéstea dară neamuri de tot feliul, viind ei aici, şi căsătorindu-se, şi amestecīndu-se cu lăcuitorii pămīnturilor şi aşezīndu-se, fiind dintraceia mai mulţi vrédnici şi destoinici, rămīind moşténi şi numele de a să chiema rumāni.

Aşadară mai mulţi şi aici de aceia sīnt şi de aceia să văd, că mai de-a firea sīnt; că nice unul nu e, mi să pare, din cīţi mai nainte să văd astăzi şi la curte că sīnt, a cărora au tată-său, au moşu-său, au stremoşu-său, au tatăl stremoşu-său, au cevaşi mai īn sus, care să nu fie fost au sīrbu, au grec, un alt cevaşi neam strein, au măcar armean, din care, zic, că să trag şi rudénii, care şi ei īncă de cīndvaşi şi cītvaşi neam au fost şi bogat, şi cinstit īncă. Ci dară cum să zice şi aici, amestecaţi cu de altfel de oameni, cum şi pen toate ţările sīnt. Că iată şi la Moscu — lasă altele — că mai mulţi să trag den fel tătărăsc şi leşesc, mulţi şi de alte féliuri multe decīt hireş moscalii sīnt, īnsă de cei mari zic. Tac de turci că-mi pare că nici unul neaoş turc nu e, ci den tot feliul de limbi amestecaţi şi cum sīnt aiave tuturor iaste, şi īncă tuturora turci le zicem, celorlalţi tot moscali, şi altora iar aşa, cum şi cestora tot rumāni, cīţi lăcuitori şi moşnéni să află aici.

Că nici un rod osebit de oameni īn véci poate rămīnea īn lume, nici feliurile limbilor īn mii de ani tot acélea neschimbate şi nemutate pot sta. Că nimic supt soare iaste stătătoriu, ci toate cīte sīnt, īn curgere şi īn mutări sīnt zidite de vécinica lui Dumnezeu īnţelepciune şi putére.

http://tinyurl.com/constantin-cantacuzino
(shortened URL to "The History of The Romanian Country" by Constantin Cantacuzino)
#############################
ravinescu   Sun Mar 14, 2010 5:54 pm GMT
==============================
Quote from: Galerius
Anyway here’s the trump card. To really determine the character of Romanian before the importation of many French derived words, one needs to look at the earliest surviving written document in the language: Neacşu’s Letter, dating from 1512. Despite a Slavic opening and the occasional words, it is mostly similar to modern Romanian and 175 words out of 190 are of Latin origin, not counting repeats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neacsu's_Letter
==============================

I thought you understood that such statistical tricks mean nothing from a scientific point of view. They are only useful for propaganda purposes. But obviously you have a long way ahead of you in order to learn to think in a non-propagandistic fashion. You cannot obtain meaningful conclusions pertaining to the whole romanian language by analyzing one short text who is an informing note. It's like inferring conclusions about today's english language by analyzing the text of a short press release.

The language spoken in the old times was not so uniform as the language of today, when all the population learns the same language in school and reads/hears the same language in the mass-media. Moreover, the language spoken by the very few educated people (like Neacşu) in the medieval times was different than the language spoken by non-educated people. And of course, the language spoken in Cīmpulung (where Neacşu lived) in 1521 was different than the language spoken in Cluj or Iaşi in the same year. So, a statistical analysis of Neacşu's letter is even more useless than the statistical analysis of Eminescu's poems, which discovered 80% frequency of latin words (of course there is a so high percentage, because the prepositions and conjunctions are in romanian mostly of latin origin and also Eminescu was influenced by the latinist movement of that time).

The obsession of the romanian propaganda with linguistic statistics just proves right the saying: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics".

##############################
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments, and the tendency of people to disparage statistics that do not support their positions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics
##############################


==============================
Quote from: Galerius
Take that, slavinescu!
==============================


You think you're funny, but this is only because you do not perceive the gravity of the situation, as you are not living in Romania. You probably think that a language is supported by propaganda and thrives automatically by virtue of inertia. No, not at all. The poor state of today's romanian language is the perfect evidence that for a language to thrive and develop it must be fully supported by the people that speaks it natively. When the people begins to abandon its language in favor of a foreign one this is a bad sign, and this has happened in Romania from 1990 on. Not to speak about the fact that for the first time in history the romanian language has lost a big amount of speakers that numbers in the millions. This is not because they were killed in some war, but because they have chosen after 1990 to leave the country with their families and settle mainly in western Europe and North America. So, for one, you have a language with a sharp decrease in the number of speakers in a relatively short period of time. And the situation is furter complicated by the fact that many romanians think that their native language is inferior to english, so it should not be used in anything concerning computers or internet. When you add also the fact that the majority of romanians do not write correctly (with diacritics), you can have the full picture of a language that is despised by many of its native speakers, a situation which is not pleasant to see.

This latinist propaganda built around the relationship between latin and romanian is partly responsible for the poor state of the romanian language today. The latinists fueled the public opinion that romanian is only worthwile because it derives from latin, so the only value of romanian is in its relationship with latin. This is why they strenghtened this relationship by reromanizing the language. Unfortunately for them, they had not foreseen the fact that latin would eventually lose his international reputation and this would engender also a loss of reputation for romanian, inside Romania no less. This is what happened after 1990 and is very easy to see. Today almost nobody inside Romania truly cares about latinity, the latin language or the latin-romanian relationship except in the presence of non-romanians. Also, a sizable part of the population had the tendency to abandon romanian and embrace english, as is majoritarily seen in the case of software. For the non-romanians that visit Romania this evolution is very strange, to the point of being unbelievable, like it is described in the quote below taken from a blog post.

###############################
Deşi nu ştiu cāt de interesant a fost partea despre limba romānă īn software pentru majoritatea persoanelor din sală (cred că mulţi au aşteptat ceva mai tehnic), pe mine chiar m-a pus pe gānduri. Prezentarea a fost, oricum, foarte interesantă. Dar, de fapt, mai mult m-au atras conversaţiile pe care le-am avut cu o seară īnainte, cānd am avut ocazia să stau la un pahar de vin cu preşedintele Mozilla Europa, Tristan Nitot. Am aflat foarte multe lucruri din interiorul Mozilla (cum ar fi noua lor organizare sau planurile lor pentru anii viitori). Tristan şi Antoni (unul din Franţa şi celălalt din Spania) au fost şocaţi să vadă cāt de puţin pun romānii preţ pe limba lor. Şi adevărul este că, deşi noi nu prea dăm importanţă, au dreptate. Discuţiile au fost de la faptul că nu există destul software (nici propietar nici open) īn limba romānă (ex. Windows-ul care este livrat cu calculatoarele vāndute īn Romānia este īn limba engleză) pānă la faptul cā nu sunt folosite diacriticile īn diverse situaţii (de la afişe publicitare pānā la acte oficiale).

Although I don't know how interesting was the part about the use of romanian language in software for the majority of the persons in the hall (I think most of them expected something more technical), for me this got me thinking. The presentation was in itself very interesting. But actually I was more interested by the discussions from the evening before that, when I had the opportunity to drink a glass of wine in the company of the president of Mozilla Europe, Tristan Nitot. I have learned a lot of things from inside Mozilla (like their new structure or their plans for the future). Tristan and Antoni (one from France and one from Spain) were shocked to see how little value attach the romanians to their language. And the truth is that, although we do not care so much about this aspect, they were right. The discussion started from the fact that there is not enough software (proprietary or open) in the romanian language (for example the Windows OS that is included with the computers sold in Romania is in english) and continued with the fact that the romanian diacritics are not used in various instances (from advertising posters to official documents).

http://alexj.info/2008/12/04/mozilla-in-politehnica/
###############################

For those that want to read more about the current state of the romanian language, there is a group of articles published very recently in a romanian cultural magazine:

http://www.dilemaveche.ro/index.php?nr=314&cmd=articol&id=12521

http://www.dilemaveche.ro/index.php?nr=314&cmd=articol&id=12491

All the articles are linked here:

http://www.dilemaveche.ro/index.php?cmd=sectiune&nr=314&s=1
ravinescu   Sun Mar 14, 2010 5:55 pm GMT
==============================
Quote from: Galerius
I know that Eminescu was originally of Russian background and called Eminovici, and I heard he was actually of Tartar descent to be more accurate, but he was still an important cultural figure in our history because he considered himself Romanian.
==============================


No, Eminescu was not of tartar descent. There was a theory that he had a turkish ancestor, because in romanian the word "emin" (the root of the name "Eminovici") does not exist, whereas in turkish "emin" means "bailee", "fiduciary". So it was said that Eminescu descended from a turkish merchant named Emin Efendi who settled in Moldavia and converted to christianity, but this is a tale, it is not proven by anything. Much more plausible is a descendance from Murad Eminowicz, an armenian merchant that lived around the year 1646 in the ruthenian city of Lviv (the former polish town of Lwów, now situated in Ukraine). More information about this theory (including excerpts from the biography written by G. Călinescu) is available in the article linked below:

http://tinyurl.com/eminescu-origine-arm
(shortened URL to an article about the supposed armenian origin of Eminescu)

Not only Eminescu considered himself romanian, he actually was romanian by birth and culture, even to the point of being labeled as an ultra-nationalist, because of his socio-political articles written as a journalist at a conservative newspaper. The fact that Eminescu had a mixed genetic ancestry makes it to appear just like the other romanians from his time and from today.


==============================
Quote from: Galerius
And I didn’t know he was that pro-Latinist anyway. Wasn’t he dissing all the politicians and academics who tried changing the language and culture around through French influence and spending their youths in debauchery in Paris and such, like in Scrisoarea IIIa?
==============================


Eminescu was influenced by the latinist movement, like all the intellectuals from that time. There is a letter written when Eminescu was 17 years old, that is quoted in the biography written by G. Călinescu. The latinist orthography is obvious.

####################################
"Avźnd dorinţia de a urma studiile collegiale la gymnasiul plenariu
din Bucovina, mě věd constrins de a abdica īndătorirelor querute de la
personalul postului de scriitoriu, que l'am occupat pănă acum la
cancelaria dirigeată de Dmv. Pe asemenea considerente, vě rog, Domnule
Preşedinte, a'mi accorda şi a regula şi eliberarea salariului cuvenit
mie pe luna Februare īn suma de doă sute cinci deci lei cursul
tesaurului quăci prevěd necessitatea aquesta din mai multe punte de
vedere, quare essercită o mare influenţă asupra interesselor melle şi
quare negligeate nu mě vor putea feri de ore quare consequente relle.
Fiţi buni, vě rog āncă o dată Domnule Preşedinte de a regula de
urgenţă īndeplinirea quererei melle şi de a primi şi la aquestă
occasio assigurarea profundului respect, que vě conserv şi vě voiu
conserva pentru perpetuitate. M.G. Eminovicz"

(din cartea "Viaţa lui Mihai Eminescu" de George
Călinescu)
#######################################

The first poem published by Eminescu was in a literary magazine from Transylvania, the center of romanian latinism. The antipathy of the latinists towards anything slavic is demonstrated also by the fact that Eminescu's real name (Eminovici), who had the slavic suffix "ici", was changed by the director of the literary magazine without him being asked for permission. However, Eminescu did not mind, he even adopted the new name as his permanent literary pseudonym.

Speaking of latinism, Eminescu did not turn in a hardcore latinist because he liked to read the old romanian writings from the previous centuries. He liked the language used in those writings, so he did not want a radically changed romanian language, as the latinists wanted.


==============================
Quote from: Galerius
Wasn’t he dissing all the politicians and academics who tried changing the language and culture around through French influence and spending their youths in debauchery in Paris and such, like in Scrisoarea IIIa?
==============================


As you have observed, Eminescu is speaking about the french influence, not the latin influence. The latinists (mainly from Transylvania) were not pro-french, they were firstly pro-latin and secondarily pro-italian. The pro-french current was mainly supported by the nobility and bourgeoisie form Wallachia and Moldavia. But anyway, Eminescu did not criticize those that wanted to modernize the language by importing french words, he criticized those that were so influenced by the french culture that they spoke a blend of romanian and french. This was a phenomenon also mocked by another poet from that time, Vasile Alecsandri, in his well-known comedies ("Coana Chiriţa"). Today a similar situation exists in Romania, but it concerns the english language, namely with the advent of romglish ("romgleză"), a blend between romanian and english.


==============================
Quote from: Galerius
Of course Romanian culture is definitely a mix of mainly eastern Euro/Balkan and other influences due to its location, and this makes sense. But how do you measure the “Latinity” of a culture anyway?
==============================


I have no idea how anyone can measure latinity of a culture, but you may ask the romanian propagandists, it's their specialty to work with percentages. I do not see any latinity in Romania except for the language, which some romanians now stuff with english words that actually decrease its latinity.


==============================
Quote from: Galerius
Is it the stereotypical quickness to anger and using lots of gestures while talking fast and loudly, or being a “romantic and fiery lover” or whatever? I think all the Romance countries derived a lot from their original Latin roots (Romanian obviously much more so than the others), and languages and cultures evolve and change over time; you don’t see Spaniards and French wearing togas or whatnot. They all have their own unique, distinguishable cultures that they are proud of.
==============================


Hey, you actually measured the romanian latinity and found it much greater than that of the western romance peoples! Wow!

On a serious note, you are suffering from "chronic propagandistic disease". I already told you that there is no way that romanians could be more latin than the romance peoples from Western Europe. The roman colonists brought to Dacia were not italian, like the colonists that populated Gaul (present-day France) and the Iberian Peninsula (present-day Spain and Portugal). The romans stayed in Dacia for at most 170 years, then retreated, a situation that did not happen in Western Europe, where the roman rule extended for 400-500 years and the romans never leaved. Latin was not the official language of state and church in the romanian principalities, like it was for example in medieval France. The western romance countries did not have a period of 1000 years during which they were roamed by many migratory peoples of european and asian origin, some of them choosing to settle on the land and mix with the autochtonous population. Etc., etc., etc.

You definitely are not living in Romania, because otherwise you would have seen firsthand that the romanians are not proud of their "unique, distinguishable culture". This is why they try to imitate other cultures, yesterday was the french one, today it's the american one. This behavior is very obvious for foreigners that visit Romania. It was surely obvious for the american journalist John Reed who wrote in 1915 about the latinity of romanians:

#################################
"The Rumanian... speaks a Latin language strongly impregnated with Slavic and Asiatic roots -- an inflexible tongue to use, and harsh and unmusical to the ear. And he has Latin traits: excitability, candour, wit, and a talent for hysterical argument in critical situations. He is lazy and proud, like a Spaniard, but without a Spaniard's flavour; sceptical and libertine, like a Frenchman, but without a Frenchman's taste; melodramatic and emotional, like an Italian, without Italian charm. One good observer has called Rumanians 'bad Frenchmen' and another 'Italianized gypsies'."

http://www.bookcase.com/~claudia/mt/archives/000057.html
#################################


==============================
Quote from: Galerius
I think one of the major factors preserving the Latin culture in Western Europe was of course the Roman Catholic Church and the constant interactions between them. I must agree that the Romanian academics went a little too far in trying to create an overly artificial connection to ancient Rome at the cost of the existing culture. It’s one thing to acknowledge that a part of your past and language comes from there, but to make it the sole focus of your culture isn’t fair. I guess it’s that we never had the glorious history of empire and conquest that the western Romance countries did, so they had to look back to a better time or “golden age” in the distant past, in which we weren’t really the same people we are today.
==============================


Latinity was never the sole focus of the romanian culture, it was the sole focus of the romanian propaganda. The culture was always romanian, balkan at its core, it never changed, even when the language was reromanized. Nobody can change the culture of a people by simply modifying its language. Even the latinists were no more "latin" than the other romanians, they only pretended to be like that, but their tricks and propaganda showed their true balkan colors.
ravinescu   Sun Mar 14, 2010 5:57 pm GMT
==============================
Quote from: Outsider
Is it
a) ɪŋk/iŋk
b) ɪŋg/iŋg
c) ɪŋ/iŋ
=============================


In romanian it is definitely ɪŋg/iŋg. More emphasis means a more strong pronounciation. This is probably why many say that romanian sounds slavic.


==============================
Quote from: Radovan P
I adressed you a question, clear question and because you are not able to answer, you change the topic, you moron?
==============================


It's not my fault if you do not read my messages. There is an article on Wikipedia about Neagu Djuvara. I have put a link to it, you can go and find the works of this historian. So it seems that you are the moron who is not even capable of reading.


==============================
Quote from: Radovan P
I am Serbien you govno yedno ! I have now idea who that Joshua is , some!
==============================


Yeah, sure, you are a serbian with strong pro-romanian feelings... About Joshua P, if you want to know who he is, just look in the mirror.


==============================
Quote from: Radovan P
It is clear to me that you are a fucking hungarian idiot who hates Romanians as you hates the Serbiens, because you dream about the big Hungary. I would always chose Romanians ahead of you, wild mongols and peecko smrdlyeeva!
==============================


You are out of luck, I am not hungarian, so all your "intellectual" strategy based on ethnic slurs is just useless.


==============================
Quote from: Radovan P
Everybody who is not agreeing with you or any other hungarian whore, is called propagandist, govedo...
==============================


The propagandists are not persons who do not share my opinions, they are persons that spread lies, that make unsubstantiated claims, that do not back up their assumptions with quotes from materials written by specialists. You and your clones are perfect examples of propagandists.


==============================
Quote from: Radovan P
Who do you think you convice here that you are telling the truth? Day by day, within interminable interventions you just show everybody how sick you are. You found here a bunch of (in history) ignorant people and keep suffocating them with your bullshit. You show no respect of langauges and of anybody here, dumb!
==============================


I think I am convincing the Antimoon audience with my messages that contain numerous quotes from history and linguistics books.

You keep insulting the audience by saying it is composed of people that are ignorant with regard to history. I do not think this is the case.

As for the suffocating part, you seem the only one to be suffocated, with your own rage, of course.


==============================
Quote from: Radovan P
To come here and insist to say that your are the only one who is telling the truth, is not just stupid; it is ill!
==============================


I participate in a discussion and present my point of view. This is normal, not ill. What is really ill is the presence of brainless propagandists that are infected with rage and keep posting nonsense assorted with expletives. If that's not an ill behavior, I don't know what is.


==============================
Quote from: Radovan P
I never pretended to speak English perfectly, that's everything you could say, (just inusults), instead of answering legitmate questions?
==============================


Speaking of questions, you said in the previous message that "There are a lot of other better known historians than this one who contradicts Djuvara at any time and not only in words...". I don't know what you meant by "not only in words". What are the other "better known" historians doing in the discussions with Djuvara, they are using gestures, they are showing pictures, movies or what else are they doing? I asked you to provide names and links to the works of those "better known" historians, but of course you just refused to answer ("te-ai făcut că plouă" as it is said in romanian). If you think that somebody except your clones is believing your 19th century propaganda, you are completely fooling yourself.


==============================
Quote from: Radovan P
govno yedno
peecko smrdlyeeva
govedo
Ako te pojebem u guzicu majki ęeš na grobu govoriti kako ti je lepo bilo
==============================


Whatever, you just discovered the site insults.net and you think you can use four insults in serbian taken from that site as a proof that you are serbian. This trick is extremely weak, anyone knows it...


==============================
Quote from: Radovan P
I regret every bad word I have said here, above...
I am sorry guys, I lost my control....
==============================


You are pathetic with your little drama and your acting is just terrible. I can hear the boos from the audience. This is not a show with clowns, and there is a circus that awaits you...


==============================
Quote from: Radovan P
Obviously, I cannot take easy the insults and I have to confess that I don't like Hungarians. Throughout their history they always behave as whore; two faces, not honest ,nor trustful....
==============================


There was no discussion about serbians on this thread, so obviously there were no insults directed toward serbians. I know you have short memory, but come on, you are playing your role very poorly. In romanian it is said "a uita de la mīnă la gură" [to forget from the hand to the mouth]. You said you were a serbian, but if this was true, how can you feel insulted by something that has nothing to do with serbians, but with romanians?


==============================
Quote from: Radovan P
They always asked for help from the powers of the moment (Germany, Austria, USA) to take/occupy territories what they never deserve to have and which are not belonging to them.
==============================


Your attempt to divert the discussion toward a flamewar about the relationship between hungarians and their neighbours was so obvious, that nobody reacted to it. Grow up, it's not 1997 anymore, ayone knows how the trolls try to stir trouble.
ravinescu   Sun Mar 14, 2010 5:58 pm GMT
==============================
Quote from: Radovan P
When we were bombed by Americans they wanted to take away from us Voijvodina. Unlike the Romanians (who helped us with oil supply during this war), the ravenescus nation did agitate the spirits in Woijvodina where a Hungarian minority live. They hit us right when we were down; this are the Hungarians...and by seing this ravinescu how insistent is he to prove absurdities and nonesense it just reminded me what an ugly character these Hungarians have - 80% of them are like that, I am not afraid to say that...
==============================


Why don't you say also that Romania opened its airspace for the NATO aircrafts, so they could bomb Serbia and return safely to their bases? Maybe the following quote will refresh your memory:

####################################
In October 1998, the Romanian Parliament approved a government decision to allow NATO forces limited access "for emergency and unforeseen situations" to the country’s air space in the case of military intervention by the alliance in FR Yugoslavia. This was followed in early April with considerable logistical and political support to NATO in its attempts to resolve the crisis in Kosovo. Not only did the government risk popular disapproval in backing NATO’s bombing of Serbian targets but Parliament also approved a NATO request for unlimited use of Romanian airspace.

http://tinyurl.com/romania-kosovo-crisis
(shortened URL to an article about the role of Romania during the Kosovo crisis)
####################################

You want more? There is more. If you were a true serbian you had already knew the truth.

####################################
For NATO, Romania provided a valuable strategic position. Bordering Serbia, she was particularly useful if a land attack had been required and she also had invaluable air space. Fostering relations with Romania was not an arduous task. Benefits were to be reaped from both sides but with one major difference. NATO was immediately advantaged by Romanian support whilst Romania relied on promises for future aid and development.

Despite this uncertainty, Romanian backing for the NATO initiative was forthcoming. In order to relieve pressures on Macedonia and Albania, Romania volunteered to accept up to 6000 refugees from Kosovo. As a reward for their assistance, an extra USD 6 million was loaned by America to help accommodate the refugees. NATO was unable to offer any further financial help. On 16 April, US deputy secretary of state, Strobe Talbott, officially thanked Romania for their aid.

Not only did Romania accept refugees from Kosovo, but they also granted NATO unlimited use of Romanian airspace. NATO aircraft had unofficially infringed upon Romanian airspace raising concerns over the safety of regulated domestic flights and national security. To alleviate future problems the Romanian parliament resolved to allow unrestricted over-flight clearance to NATO aircraft. They requested that the government continue to set up a framework of adequate security and continue seeking assistance to remove the negative effects of the conflict. Parliament also reiterated its desire to join NATO.

In reward for assisting NATO, Romania was assured fast track entry into NATO and the EU.

http://www.ce-review.org/99/13/lovatt13.html
#####################################

You want even more? Romania has troops in Kosovo and no intention of pulling them out until NATO (actually, USA) decides so.

http://tinyurl.com/romania-troops-kosovo
(shortened URL to an article containing the declarations of the romanian president in 2009)


==============================
Quote from: Radovan P
They hit us right when we were down; this are the Hungarians...and by seing this ravinescu how insistent is he to prove absurdities and nonesense it just reminded me what an ugly character these Hungarians have - 80% of them are like that, I am not afraid to say that...
==============================


They really brainwash you thoroughly at the romanian propaganda school... You are speaking about the magic percentage (80%) even when there is no discussion about the words of latin origin in romanian. Talk about robotization...


==============================
Quote from: James T. Kirk
1st @ Ravinescu you retard, stop posting you must have 1000 post on this forum , you " all-knowing" freak!!
==============================


News at eleven! Knowledgeable persons freak out propagandists, that cannot spread their lies anymore.


==============================
Quote from: James T. Kirk
2nd This forum was about romance languages in general not a debate about the romanian ethnogenesis and language. They are a romance culture , leave them alone.
==============================


Of course that you, from you StarTrek spaceship, know better the romanian culture than me, who am writing from Bucharest. But your nickname is well chosen, it really shows your knowledge of history, I mean fictional history.


==============================
Quote from: iullian
Ravinescu you retarded lifeless freak now you mock Eminescu our national poet? you piss with your lies on a genius; he would turn in his grave if he knew what lies you spread about him, a man of inestimable value.
==============================


I doubt that Eminescu is "your" national poet. From your writing it is absolutely clear that you have read nothing from what he wrote. But at least read the poem named "Junii Corupţi" [Debauched Youngsters], he makes your portrait in it.


==============================
Quote from: iullian
If I could ever find you I would stick your ass on a stake just like Vlad the impaler would do to the kinds of you.
==============================


Nice advertising for those that would want to visit Romania. Land of Vlad the Impaler! You are surely helping foreigners to gain a "good" image about romanians. You know, anyone would want to visit a country where there are savage people carrying stakes. Oh, it is just the violent "balkanity" speaking from inside you, you are helpless and must let it come out. I already said it, there is no latinity in Romania, but plenty of balkanity.
iullian   Sun Mar 14, 2010 11:21 pm GMT
Quote from Ravinescu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I doubt that Eminescu is "your" national poet. From your writing it is absolutely clear that you have read nothing from what he wrote. But at least read the poem named "Junii Corupţi" [Debauched Youngsters], he makes your portrait in it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You "all-knowing guru" of men, souls, universal history and everything else, how did you come the this assumption that i don't know Eminescu's creation just from my comment on your dejections that you spit out on this forum? You are just pathetic.

It is clear to me that you didn't understand nothing from Junii Corupţi. So how could you undertsand something as it is clear to me that you are not romanian; in fact you are an anti-romanian propangandist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from Ravinescu

Nice advertising for those that would want to visit Romania. Land of Vlad the Impaler! You are surely helping foreigners to gain a "good" image about romanians. You know, anyone would want to visit a country where there are savage people carrying stakes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is a widely used romanian expresion. An yes you are not the only one in the world capable of complex thought. That comes as a shock to you , isn't it... as you are so full of yourself?

People are not that retarded as you are, and think that in 21st century Romania people run around carrying stakes and impaling others because a 15th century king (voivode) did that to his enemies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from Ravinescu

"...know better the romanian culture than me, who am writing from Bucharest."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may be from Bucharest but it is clear you are not romanian.

You probably are a frustrated hungarian nationalist pised off that you lost Transilvania 92 years ago and can't get over it ...now you just try to get revenge by making a mockery of the romanian people.

Or a rusofil mad because Romania doesn't "jump" anymore when Moscow says "jump" ( let's see if you take this expression adliteram too), frustrated by the power Romania now has in East Europe and Balkans!

Or you are just stupid...or a gypsy? Which are you ?
iullian   Mon Mar 15, 2010 12:07 am GMT
Quote from Ravinescu

You may be surprised, but there are also romanians that support the migration theory. They say that the romanian people migrated from the south of the Danube river (Pannonia and Dalmatia) to Transylvania, then to the other romanian territories. You can find them easily by reading the Softpedia forum thread about the origin of romanians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You just gave me the answer to my last quest question. "Which are you?"
It seems that you are the "frustrated hungarian nationalist".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from Ravinescu

The non-romanians do not have any agenda, because nobody, except the romanians, believes that the origin of a people and its language are important anymore. No, it doesn't matter whether a people is of latin, slavic, germanic, etc. origin, all that matters is what that people is doing, what it has created or produced, what is its contribution to the advancement of the world civilization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then i ask why are you so determined to give romanians a bad name and mock our history ? It is clear to me that it's of great interest to you to "prove" to the other readers of this forum that romanians are a fake nation , with a fake language which is an abominable lie! Why is our origin so important to you? Hypocrite!

It is clear that you think you have something to gain from this, by trying to convince the readers that romanians are a nation of liers and your "well chosen" words of your comments are ment too mislead an make it sound like romanian has little to do with latin. Again an abominable lie!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from Ravinescu

They say that the romanian people migrated from the south of the Danube river (Pannonia and Dalmatia) to Transylvania, then to the other romanian territories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another lie from the "all-knowing" supreme propagandist and "forum authority" (sarcasm) Ravinescu.

It is exactly the other way around.

"Some linguists believe that the Istro-Romanians migrated to their present region of Istria and all the way up to the city of Trieste about 1,000 years ago from Transylvania."

Istro-romanians live in Dalmatia (present day Croatia).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istro-Romanian_language see entire article.
interesting   Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:10 pm GMT
shlee ro   Thu Mar 18, 2010 6:53 am GMT
why are hungarians so obsessed with romanian's history anyway? i feel like sometimes they care more about it than their own.
Macedonia is not greek   Thu Mar 18, 2010 8:31 am GMT
Who cares about .hu and
.ro?