Which Romance language sounds more Slavic?

To Macedonia is not greek   Thu Mar 18, 2010 6:00 pm GMT
Who cares about hu and ro? Ravinescu, didn't you notice?

Yes, I do agree that Macedonia is not Greek...Greek is bigger, it includes a province called Macedonia.
...   Thu Mar 18, 2010 8:11 pm GMT
the real macedonia is in northern greece around thessaloniki, not the fyrom, which is a slavic country

but that's totally off topic anyhow
Samey   Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:24 pm GMT
Where is real Luxembourg, in Belgium or in Luxembourg?
And the real Georgia, in the USA or in eastern Europe?
How about Galicia, in Ukraine or Spain?
Extremadura is Spanish or Portuguese, it's not the same thing since Alentejo is in between LOL.
ravinescu   Sat Mar 20, 2010 7:19 am GMT
===================================
Quote from: iullian
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.
===================================


You do seem to have a fixation on bodily secretions ("dejections", "spit"). This shows not only some unresolved psychological conflicts, but also the primitive strategy used by the romanian propagandists. Instead of providing insightful arguments in support of their assumptions, they just qualify the discourse of their opponent as being composed from "dejections spat on the forum". Bad-mouthing the adversary is their only "intellectual" weapon. This is the balkan "rhetoric", and it shows how much the romanian propagandists eat their own dogfood (the latinity of the romanian people). Their discourse is only composed of a succession of expletives launched on the adversary, not a carefully constructed discourse in the style of the latin rhetoricians (Cicero, Quintilian). Put to choose between the balkan rhetoric and the latin rhetoric, they always choose the former.


===================================
Quote from: iullian
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.
===================================


What can be seen in the quote above? A new variation on the theme that "romanians know best", so if you want to know the origin of romanians you must ask them, they are the specialists. This would be true if the romanians would read books about their history, which is far from the real situation. Between the propaganda fed in school and the one broadcasted through mass-media, the romanians are in the worst position to know anything about their past. The same is true for romanian literature. Someone who does not read romanian literature cannot understand it, even if he is a romanian. The propagandists never encouraged romanians to read history books, because otherwise they would find the truth about themselves. A fully-functional propagandist is someone who is relying on the official propaganda and never reads books. So, by way of consequence, someone who reads history books must be a non-romanian. If he then presents the truth about the origin of the romanian people and language, as it is reflected in those books written by specialists, he is a non-romanian anti-romanian propagandist.

But, you cannot be anti-romanian if you say the truth about romanians, you are anti-romanian if you lie about romanians. The supreme liars, the propagandists, destroyed the credibility of the romanians and this is why romanians have such a bad reputation when it comes to truthfulness. But which is better, to be a nation with a great origin and a bad reputation, or to be a nation with a normal origin and a good reputation? The propagandists think that origin is more important than reputation, but it is obvious that in today's world the reputation is much more important than the origin of a nation.


===================================
Quote from: iullian
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?
===================================


No, this is not a widely used expression, because if this was the case, Romania would be a savage country. Remember what you said on page 29 of this thread, 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." These physical threats are not widely used in real life, at least not in the civilized parts of Romania.


===================================
Quote from: iullian
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.
===================================


Some people do understand from your "widely used expression" that romanians resolve their conflicts by impaling their adversaries, like Vlad the Impaler did hundreds of years ago. You were full of hate when you said it and it was not a joke. But let's just presume that non-romanians would not take you to the word, and will not think that romanians use stakes to settle their disputes. However, from your "impaling" reaction and from your general attitude in this debate, they do get an impression that romanians are a violent people. Sure, they will probably not think of romanians as carrying stakes with them, because that would be impractical, but they can presume that romanians carry knives with them, and when someone says something they don't like, they will stab ("impale") that person. This is not a good image and this is not something that would incite a foreigner to visit Romania. Who would want to visit a country where you run the risk of being stabbed ("impaled") only because you tell the truth and your interlocutor (a native of that country) does not like that?


===================================
Quote from: iullian
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
===================================


We now enter the realm of the "hateful and frustrated foreigner", seen by the romanian propagandists as their longtime adversary. It is interesting to see how iullian enumerates the three foreign peoples that in his opinion hate romanians the most: the hungarians, the russians and the gypsies.

But why he does that? It's very simple. He wants to balkanize the discussion. He wants to turn the debate from one about the origin and language of romanians, into one about the politics of the Balkan region. This is why he invented the fake persona of a serbian, this is why he wants so desperately to introduce the hungarians in the discussion. It's a trollistic approach, intended to sabotage the discussion by transforming it in a balkan type of war, with everybody against everybody.

Now back to the presumed frustration caused by the loss of territory. As a precondition to admission into NATO and the European Union (EU), both Romania and Hungary have stated that they accept the current country borders and do not intend to have them modified. This is the end of discussion about the romanian-hungarian borders. Romania and Hungary cannot afford to be kicked out from the international organizations, so being frustrated or not does not help in any way, because these are the borders as long as the NATO and EU exist. Romanians were frustrated by the loss of North Bukovine, a part that was incorporated in the Soviet Union in 1940 and then was inherited by Ukraine after the breakup of the USSR. But Romania had no other option in 1997 than to sign a treaty with Ukraine, otherwise the country would not have been accepted as part of NATO and later the EU. Hungary did the same thing by signing treaties with the surrounding countries, all of them having more or less significant hungarian minorities. Showing frustration today is of no use for romanians or for hungarians, both peoples accepting their current boundaries prior to being admitted into NATO and EU.


===================================
Quote from: iullian
...now you just try to get revenge by making a mockery of the romanian people.
===================================


It is obvious that YOU are the one making a mockery of the romanian people by showing it as a brainless, violent and intolerant people. You present yourself as the prototype of the true romanian, when in fact you are only the prototype of an internet troll.
ravinescu   Sat Mar 20, 2010 7:21 am GMT
===================================
Quote from: iullian
Or a rusofil mad because Romania doesn't "jump" anymore when Moscow says "jump" ( let's see if you take this expression adliteram too),
===================================


Your lack of historical knowledge is truly amazing. Romania had soviet troops on its territory from 1945 to 1958. After 1958 Romania gradually distanced itself from the USSR in terms of foreign policy, and that's why Romania did not participate in the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. In the 1970's Romania was regarded as the communist country the most oriented toward the west. Even in the 1980's Romania almost never followed the orders of Moscow, for better or for worse. For example, Romania participated in the Summer Olympics from 1984 (Los Angeles), when all the other european communist countries boycotted the games at the orders of Moscow. But at the end of the 1980's, the same Romania refused the orders from Moscow to institute a policy of openess and restructuration ("glasnost and perestroika"), like in the Soviet Union from that time. Ceauşescu even insisted that the troops of the Warsaw Pact (this time including the romanian ones) should invade Czechoslovakia in 1989 to put an end to the anti-communist manifestations. He was the same Ceauşescu who refused to participate in the invasion of 1968, being again, 20 years later, in complete contradiction with Moscow, who never envisioned to invade Czechoslovakia again. So, there was no jump for Romania when Moscow said it.

However, today things have changed and Romania jumps anytime when the USA says so. Romania has never had after 1990 a free foreign policy, its policy was always subordinated to the policy of the USA. Examples are a lot: the bombing of Serbia, the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. In all these instances Romania sided strongly with the USA, even when other european nations were reticent about the american foreign policy. Romania was never the lapdog of the USSR, but today Romania is the lapdog of the USA. And in the communist period the romanian language was never considered inferior to the russian language, but today the romanian language is considered by many romanians to be inferior to the english language.


===================================
Quote from: iullian
frustrated by the power Romania now has in East Europe and Balkans!
===================================


Not only you have no idea about recent history, you also have no idea about present history! What power has Romania in Eastern Europe and the Balkans? What country from Eastern Europe and the Balkans listens to Romania? What influence can have a country that has lost to emigration almost a fifth of its population from 1990 to today ? What influence can have a country with an economy that was thoroughly destroyed by its politicians after 1990 and was never rebuilt? What influence can have a country where the population wants to emigrate in western Europe or North America and has begun to abandon the romanian language? What power can have a country that was indebted by the post-1990 politicians even more than it was indebted by the communists?

More and more the romanian propagandists appear as completely out of touch with reality. The strange part is that they believe they can fool the non-romanians, in an age where the information is at the fingertips of anyone that has a computer connected to the internet.

As for the true situation of today's Romania, below are a blog and a newspaper with romanian news written in english:

http://www.romanianewswatch.com/
http://www.nineoclock.ro/


===================================
Quote from: iullian
Or you are just stupid...or a gypsy? Which are you ?
===================================


Of course, a discourse from a romanian propagandist could not lack the obligatory ethnic intolerance directed toward the gypsies, by associating them with stupid people... I say it again, you do absolutely everything in order to persuade the non-romanians to never visit Romania.


===================================
Quote from: iullian
You just gave me the answer to my last quest question. "Which are you?"
It seems that you are the "frustrated hungarian nationalist".
===================================


So from the two options offered previously by you, stupid and gypsy, you choose "frustrated hungarian nationalist". Never look for logic in the minds of propagandists, they always have the pre-programmed answer ready...

As for the theory of migration from south of the Danube, it is embraced not only by hungarians, but also by some romanians, as can be seen from the Softpedia thread linked below:

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

I already offered my opinion on this theory in a previous message (see my answer to Randy in page 24 of this thread), but it's easy to search for my messages posted on the Softpedia forum, including those posted in the thread about the origin of romanians.
ravinescu   Sat Mar 20, 2010 7:22 am GMT
===================================
Quote from: iullian
Then i ask why are you so determined to give romanians a bad name and mock our history ?
===================================


The propagandists are those that give romanians a bad name, because deceivers do not have a good reputation. They are the ones who mock the true romanian history and invent a new one to suit their exhibitionistic interests.


===================================
Quote from: iullian
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!
===================================


The romanian nation is not a fake nation. It is a true nation with a fake identity created in the 19th century, and with a modified language in order to support that fake identity. These fabrications have alienated the romanians and that's why the emigration is so massive and the romanian language is so despised by many of its native speakers.


===================================
Quote from: iullian
Why is our origin so important to you? Hypocrite!
===================================


Anything about the romanians (including the origin) is important in order to understand what happened after 1990, when the censorship disappeared and the full liberty of expression and movement was established. It turned out that the latinist propaganda from the last 200 years was very effective in destroying the true identity of romanians and in making them hate the land on which they were born. The latinist propaganda created the myth of Romania as a latin island in a slavic sea, populated by a people of italian origin who spoke a language very close to latin. Because of that lie, many romanians feel like they are some italians exiled in Eastern Europe, whereas their true land is in Western Europe, together with the other "latin" peoples. The catastrophic scenario used by the latinists to scare the population, about a hostile slavic sea that threatens to engulf the latin island has created a mentality of "besieged castle", that sooner or later will be overrun. And what to do in order for the population of the latin island to continue to be latin? Of course, emigrate from "the island" to "the continent", from Romania to Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, countries that are not threatened by the "slavic tide". The continuous latinist propaganda from the last 200 years made romanians to feel uneasy and depressed about their country and language, and it is a factor that contributed to the depopulation of Romania seen after 1990.


===================================
Quote from: iullian
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!
===================================


Unfortunately the romanians have been turned into a nation of liars when it comes to speak about their origin and language. The romanians were led to believe that the historical propaganda taught in schools and broadcasted through mass-media was their true history, when in fact it was a fabricated history. Nobody believes those lies anymore, except the romanians that were brainwashed and refuse to read history books.

As for romanian having little to do with latin, it may become true in the future, if the pace of the anglicization of the language is maintained. The majority of today's romanians use operating systems and software in english, not in romanian. This and other similar abnormal linguistic developments have caused the apparition of romglish, a mix between romanian and english.


===================================
Quote from: iullian
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).
===================================


Your ridiculous attempt at manipulating the Antimoon audience by distorting the meaning of my sentences is laughable. I said that on the Softpedia forum there are persons that support a migratory theory for the formation of the romanian people. THEY say that the romanian people migrated from the south of the Danube river (Pannonia and Dalmatia) to Transylvania, then to other romanian territories. If you want to dispute their theory you can do it on the Softpedia forum. But be warned, they don't speak of the istro-romanians as being the ancestors of romanians, they consider a romanized celto-illyrian population as being the ancestors of the romanians.


===================================
Quote from: Anonymous poster
http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/dunay/dunay03.htm
===================================


That page has a bad encoding, which makes some romanian diacritics (ă, ş, ţ) to be displayed incorrectly. The following corrections should be applied:

| = ă
Ő or ’ = ş
Ű or Ř = ţ


===================================
Quote from: Anonymous poster
Who cares about hu and ro? Ravinescu, didn't you notice?
===================================


Hungarian is not a romance or slavic language, so it has nothing to do with a thread whose subject is "Which romance language sounds more slavic?". Only the propagantrolls have tried to turn the discussion into a romanian-hungarian flamewar. Fortunately, their attempt at forum balkanization has failed miserably.


This prolonged discussion about the romanian language and people is a testimony to the fact that no country should ever brainwash its citizens, because the end result is a people that has lost his identity and with this comes the losing of the bond between the people and his native land and language. Aside from that, some consequences of propaganda are really the opposite of the intended ones. For example the latinist strategy from the 19th century served as a trojan horse that greatly helped after 1990 in the anglicization of the romanian language. And the fact that the true romanian identity was suppressed in favor of a latin identity had the effect of transforming romanians into a people of copycats that lack originality and creativity, always wanting to superficially imitate the dominant nation from the world stage. This tendency has been also transferred to the language, which was modified by the cultural elites from the 19-20th centuries in order to imitate latin and french and now is modified by the population in order to imitate american english. The spelling reform from 1993, who reverted the romanian language to an archaic and exhibitionistic orthography ("¬/sunt" instead of "ő/sÓnt") has set the stage for today's orthography, which tends to not have any rules as long as it concerns the words recently imported from english, that must not be adapted to romanian in any way, so they can show clearly their english origin. The funny thing is that today the latinization propagandists are vastly outnumbered by the globalization (americanization) propagandists. All the latinist propaganda unleashed on the romanians in the last 200 years ultimately had no effect on the population, who now wants to embrace not latinity, but americanity. And this is normal, because the latinists want the population to look towards the distant past, but today's population wants to look to the present. Of course, the best course of action for the future would be a rejection of the latin or american simulated identities, together with the development of a genuine and modern romanian identity, alongside a genuine and modern romanian language.
to ravinescu   Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:57 pm GMT
My Good, Ravinescu: stop it! We don't care about Romania and Romanian history, please take a break; give us a break, you mororn!
lolling Joao   Sat Mar 20, 2010 2:54 pm GMT
He he, two 3rd tier countries are going to play in a few minutes. Football? No! Rugby! The match qalifies only one of them to the next World Cup.

Portugal-Romania within a few minutes in the University Stadium in Lisbon.

Good luck for both!
Spartacus   Sun Mar 21, 2010 12:32 am GMT
Thereís got to be some reason why the Latin element of the language survived for almost 2000 years when there were so many invading peoples and foreigners surrounding us; otherwise it would have just been forgotten. Why didnít they fully adopt Slavic or Cuman or Hungarian or whatever? Itís not like any Italian, Spanish, or Portuguese people conquered Romania, so it had to have come from an ancient source. And Slavs wouldnít have seen the ďprestigeĒ of Latin, which was largely lost in the East during the early Middle Ages, and decided to start speaking it.
Oh and I never said we had a higher Latinity than the western countries. If anything, itís obvious that we have a lower one, if such a thing exists. I just sarcastically listed some traits that people typically associate with ďLatinĒ people, and I didnít know Romanians exhibited them that much. I have family members that do, but I always thought it was because of their partially actual Italian and Greek background. All Iím saying is that few people from any of these countries consider Latin the center of their cultures, and neither should Romanians. Besides, I think most people acknowledge that the native non-Roman people still constitute the main bulk of the populations in places outside of Italy, like Spain and France (Iberians and Gauls, with a later Roman and Germanic addition).

I have to admit Iím not happy about the people on here who tried making unfounded claims that we are the closest to Classical Latin and stuff like that, and it has ruined our credibility, but how dare you side with or defend those who insult us by denigrating our language to a fake. Besides, why should we be punished in this way because of what Domnu Heliade and those few people did back then (for what they believed was the best interest of the country). Itís like these foreigners think that the entire Romanian population just one day agreed to reform the language to fool outsiders. As if. If anything, we can be seen as the victims.

Why do you have to try to convince everyone of your ideas? Iím a firm believer that ignorance is bliss. If something really bad happens that doesnít directly affect someone, why tell them about it? It will just lower their morale and bum them out. You see how these people react when they hear what you have to say about Romanians. What do you expect? If theyíre content thinking theyíre the descendants of Roman colonists and Latinized Dacians and that their language is an island in a Slavic sea, just let them have that if it makes them feel ore special. Why expose the ďtruthĒ and make them angry? You said it yourself: within the country and with day to day matters, no one cares about their identity like that, and thatís how it should be. No need to contest it. Most people donít go flaunting the whole Latinity thing to outsiders anyway. And for those who donít care (probably most people), it doesnít matter anyway. And as for the Antimoon audience, Iíve noticed a lot of them seem to be a bunch of Spanish or Portuguese people arguing over which dialect is best or discussing how lame French is; they donít care that much about the truth about us. I tried telling some of my family members about it but they cut me off before I could even finish, denying the relatinization and fact that we used Cyrillic once; when I got to the part about the possible Arab colonists, my uncle almost flipped out lol. Personally, I donít think youíre a Hungarian and I realize that your arguments are unfortunately fairly carefully researched, but come on man, give us a break already.
Itís becoming painfully obvious to me that this guy might be on to somethingÖ Ah, who cares. I find it much more convenient to keep believing what I have been this whole time. In the end, people are just going to believe what they want to, regardless of your constant arguments.

What, should we all bury our heads in shame because we speak a ďfakeĒ language, or better yet, stop speaking it at all? It would be an even more foolish or embarrassing move to go the other way and start accentuating all the Slavic and go back to Cyrillic despite the fact that most of the core of the language is Romance-based, and there is essentially little to no mutual intelligibility with any other language; though I donít completely agree with what they did in the 19th century either (at least it helped draw us away from excessive Soviet influence or association at times). For better or for worse, our language and culture is what it is now, and thatís what we have. Itís gone through many changes over time, but that just makes it all the more unique and special. So f you, you failed.

Anyway, this thread has gone on long enough. Letís wrap it up, people.
Franco   Sun Mar 21, 2010 12:35 am GMT
Romanian does not sound that Slavic, maybe Moldavian variety does. I would say Romanian sounds more similar to Spanish or Italian than Portuguese.
OMG   Sun Mar 21, 2010 2:28 am GMT
god!... another page full with Ravinescu's obsessive bullsh*t!
iullian   Sun Mar 21, 2010 4:30 am GMT
I APOLOGIZE TO THE OTHER READERS AS I AM OFF TOPIC LIKE RAVINESCU ...BUT I CAN'T LET RAVINESCU'S CHARADE GO ON AND ON!

Quote from Ravinescu

He wants to turn the debate from one about the origin and language of romanians, into one about the politics of the Balkan region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Ravinescu you turned the forum into anti-romanian propaganda.

The theme of this thread is "Which Romance language sounds more Slavic?" not what YOU turned it into "Where romanians, the romanian language and culture has it's origins?".

Open another thread as a so much "civilised" and "superior" person as you think of your self, with the appropriate theme.

Don't you understand that PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO HEAR WHAT WE BOTH HAVE TO SAY AND ESPECIALLY WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from Ravinescu

but they can presume that romanians carry knives with them, and when someone says something they don't like, they will stab ("impale") that person.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice try! Don't you see that people begin to understand what you are? A hater! You give it your best to create a distorted image of romanians.

You are in no more danger on the romanian city streets that in other european countries. If some day any of you would visit with bussiness or just travel you would better understand why i care so much for my country and my history.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from Ravinescu

It is obvious that YOU are the one making a mockery of the romanian people by showing it as a brainless, violent and intolerant people. You present yourself as the prototype of the true romanian, when in fact you are only the prototype of an internet troll.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
INSULTS INSULTS INSULTS ...more severe insults about my country, my nation, my language. Who's the troll? Who spent months on this forum spreading anti-romanian propanganda. ME or YOU? LET THE PEOPLE TAKE A VOTE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from Ravinescu

Unfortunately the romanians have been turned into a nation of liars when it comes to speak about their origin and language,

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
INSULTS INSULTS INSULTS adressed to an entire nation.
Good, let people see who you are!

Quote :"...romanians that were brainwashed and refuse to read history books."
In Ravinescu's vision romanians are a nation of dumb, retarded, uneducated fu*ks. And you Ravinescu have the guts to give me lessons about tolerance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote :"You present yourself as the prototype of the true romanian"

I don't think that about my self but I would gladly give my life for my country, and if i could be resurected i would die again and again.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SERIOUSLY, WHY DO WE, ROMANIANS OBSESS YOU SO MUCH RAVINESCU?

P.S. I stayed on the forum for 3 days a few month ago ...and left as you bored me Ravinescu. Rejoined the discussion because i see you won't stop spreading lies about romanians.

I APOLOGIZE TO THE OTHER READERS AS I AM OFFTOPIC LIKE RAVINESCU ...BUT I CAN'T LET RAVINESCU'S CHARADE GO ON AND ON!
I hop i successfully unmasked his "face". Salut!
don juan   Sun Mar 21, 2010 7:52 am GMT
i guess we can all agree that we should just ignore this ravinescu guy.

but after reading some of this stuff, it seems the real question is not whether or not romanians are slavic, but whether they are really from daco-romans or from romanized illyrian vlachs in albania
James T. Kirk   Sun Mar 21, 2010 11:18 am GMT
Dude, this guy is unbelieveble. He is happy as long as romanians are not of daco-roman origin ...anything will work for him illyrian,celtic,syrian,slav origin ... who knows maybe later we will hear from him that romanians are from Irak or Nigeria =))...lame!.
Arhimede   Sun Mar 21, 2010 12:08 pm GMT
"The majority of today's romanians use operating systems and software in english, not in romanian. This and other similar abnormal linguistic developments have caused the apparition of romglish, a mix between romanian and english. "

Reply:
English words or words of english origin are today more or less a part of any language.
They usually refer to : technical terms, relative recently appeared jobs, company hierarchy, computers, internet technology etc.

The extensive use of english as a second language, the use of english operating systems and software for pc's actually gave romanians an advantage as a work force.
When i started using computers 15 years ago i didn't know about language packs, as i started on Ms-dos and it's complementary application Norton Commander. Even the Windows 95 romanian language pack was released later and access to such software was limited in those years.
Learning english terminology as a young teenager than, now it comes very hard to me to use with efficiency a romanian language software.