Which Romance language sounds more Slavic?

you are obssesd   Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:39 pm GMT
With these diacritics. You don't even assume that I might not be a Romanian, (I just used those expressions in Romanian and don't care if you believe it or not). More than that, you don't even imagine that I might live outside Romanian, and I don't have any reason or possibility to use those diacritics what you are obsessed with...

I learned and am still learning Romanian because I like it! And I am not alone. I have friends from Peru, Chile, Germany and even Hungary who are learning this language...One was here, on this forum long time ago but he left it because of you...

I am very disappointed that you and Ravinescu (which are one and the same person - I am positive about that), are trying to pollute this forum with endless comments which in fact are probably regarding only you and the Romanians - or maybe only you.

We are other nationality in here too and to disregard our presence is very rude and totally disrespectfully. I personally want to know and speak about Romanian language as it is not about its history or whatever you guys are here to dispute. It is totally impolite what you are doing here. There were so many people asking you to stop posting these long nonsenses but you just keep doing it. You have this fixation; you want to prove something what nobody cares about. That's beside rude, effectively stupid and shameless. That's all! I am going to avoid this forum and that because of you, ravinescu! I am sure that there are other forums where you could dispute the origins of Romanians and their language but you came here to suffocate us with your idiocies what nobody cares about.
Be happy now, you won; keep writting here for ever if that is makeing you feeling good...
the messge   Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:41 pm GMT
from above was for ravinescu and his other many faces...
loulou   Sun Mar 28, 2010 5:41 pm GMT
portuguese is slavic
iullian   Sun Mar 28, 2010 9:49 pm GMT
try to ignore ravinescu ...don't even waste your time to read his comments... full of lies an hatred. pure hatred!... he has one problem . one obssession, especiailly the romanians and probably all romance speaking people.

many people leave this forum because thay look for a civilised debate about romance languages. you can't have one with the like of ravinescu, with such an obsessive - compulsive behavior.

"you are obssesd" ... i feel you man! :|
iullian   Sun Mar 28, 2010 10:05 pm GMT
Quote from Ravinescu

"Your time has expired. Do not expect anymore an answer to your trollistic messages. "
____________________________________________________________

Obviously when it comes to answer legitimate questions like "WHY DO WE, ROMANIANS OBSESS YOU SO MUCH RAVINESCU?" he backs out spreading his bullsh*t propaganda and polluting two more pages of the forum with crap. I am beginning to find his comments like some "stand-up commedy" of some sort . It's like I am reading some rasist jokes of Chris Rock's.
Breno   Sun Mar 28, 2010 10:53 pm GMT
Look, people, if we're going to carry on this thread at all we might as well keep it on the original topic, and I really don't know how far that can possibly go (apparently almost 500 posts, but a lot of that was other discussion). This is going too far.

And just because ravinescu is better at writing and presenting his argument than some of the other people here doesn't necessarily make him right, but I partially believe some of his points. Enough of this topic, anyway.
breno   Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:53 pm GMT
you don't believe what you are saying, don't you?

"ravinescu is better at writing and presenting his argument than some of the other people here "

Are you serious? Ravinescu is good in writting? you must be kidding!
I a gree with you yhough, to stop this absurd topic! I can take ravinescu's bulshit anymore!
ravinescu   Sun Apr 04, 2010 1:46 pm GMT
================================
Quote from: Razvan Vlad Bogdanescu
It's funny you should mention Lucian Boia's book. I just so happened to check it out from the library yesterday before I even read your post. I read that whole chapter you posted just now. I don't really know what to say. No further comment.
================================


You see just how is easy is to gain access to meaningful information. A trip to a library or bookshop or an online order is all that is needed. This is the perfect antidote for propaganda and the cure for years of indoctrination with false historical theories about the romanian people and language. Of course, there is the side effect of temporary "speechlessness", because the difference between the historical truth and the propaganda is so big that it is difficult to articulate words in order to express the degree of astonishment. But at the same time the brain begins to process the truthful information, being awakened from the intellectual sleep induced by the propaganda. And then you can speak again, and this time you can actually show that you are not a mouthpiece of the official propaganda, because this time you are capable of presenting the true historical processes that participated in the birth and evolution of the romanian people and language.


=================================
Quote from: Razvan Vlad Bogdanescu
As for the people moving to Italy and Spain, they're mostly gypsies anyway and are giving the rest of the country a bad image with their crime and behavior.
=================================


Not at all, your assumption is incorrect. The number of romanian citizens that left the country beginning with the year 1990 is not officially known, but it is in the millions (probably like 4-5 millions). If they were gypsies, then Romania would not have any gypsies left, which is not the case. Of course there are also gypsies who emigrated, but they are not the majority, far from that. Actually the gypsies are even today a nomadic people, they come and go. Many of them returned to Romania with their newly "acquired" riches and some have built big houses that are the pinnacle or kitsch and are priced in the millions of euros. This is the sign that they want to stay in Romania, because otherwise they would not have spent so much money for those houses. The gypsies return, because in Romania they know the country and have more freedom of action for their nomadic lifestyle and for their customs (marriage at a very early age). This is not the case with romanians, which majoritarily do not return anymore, except for short periods of time, like leaves and holidays (mainly Easter and Christmas). The children of the romanians that emigrated are already in school in their countries of adoption, so it is hard to believe that their parents would want to transfer them to the romanian schools, that suffer from a chronic insufficiency of funding (there is a strike of the teachers that is in development just now).

When estimating the number of romanians who left the country one must discern between romanian citizens and romanians. At its peak, in the 1980s, the romanian population numbered 23 000 000 persons (romanian citizens). But ethnic romanians were at most 19 000 000, the rest being hungarians, gypsies and other less numerous ethnic minorities. From the 4-5 millions that emigrated after 1990 (1 million only to Italy in the last 2 years), the vast majority were ethnic romanians, probably close to 80-90%. If the USA will grant free entry (without visa) for the romanian citizens, there will be another massive emigration wave, probably between 0.5-1 million persons a year.


=================================
Quote from: Anonymous romanian
Seeing what you are doing on this forum, I have gotten to the conclusion that your are sick! Get a rest, man and see a doctor!
=================================


The number of trollisms has increased sharply, one of them being the old and tired strategy to present the opponent as ill and in need of medical treatment. Yeah, sure, the propagantrolls give medical advice and want to be believed, when in fact they have trouble thinking outside the preprogrammed routines that were inoculated in their brain after the repeted brainwashings. Desperation is high in the ranks of the propagandists...


=================================
Quote from: Another Mari
Who asked you to give here an answer? I am afraid that you have a too good image about you! Yes, I think that you are infected with stupidity, boy!
=================================


Another Propagantroll to the rescue! But more likely it's just one of those that have already posted on the thread, now being really annoyed that his preference for half-illiterate writing is exposed once again.

I suggested to a romanian poster (Mari) to write correctly (with diacritics) and one of the romanian trolls immediately jumped from the woodwork, ready to fight for his right to be perceived as half-illiterate. That's what I always said, the romanian propagandists do not care at all about the romanian language, they don't give a damn if it is mutilated by writing it without diacritics. All they do is posturing, in order to be seen as "latins" when emigrating to a new country. They have no intention to write correctly, because in secret they hate romanian and love english, like the majority of the romanian population who refuse to use diacritics when writing on a computer.

But let's demonstrate again the importance of diacritics for the language, maybe some romanians who read this thread will want to write correctly afterwards. Let's take the original message posted by Mari and analyze the words:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quote from: Mari
Daca ar fi adevarata ipoteza latinizarii fortate a limbii romane ce explicatie se poate da caracterului unitar al limbii romane , caracter care din cate stiu este destul de putin intalnit printre limbile europene. [...] Poate ca vorbim de fapt limba vechilor Daci sau a tracilor .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Daca => romanian word that in english means "the dacian female"
Dacă => is the correct writing in the quoted text (means "if" in english)

adevarata => word that does not exist in romanian
adevărată => is the correct writing (means "true" in english)

latinizarii => word that does not exist in romanian
latinizării => is the correct writing (means "latinization" in english)

fortate => word that does not exist in romanian
forţate => is the correct writing (means "forced" in english)

romane => romanian word that in english translates as "roman" (adjective reffering to a noun related to the people from Antiquity)
romāne => is the correct writing (means "romanian" in english)

explicatie => word that does not exist in romanian
explicaţie => is the correct writing (means "explanation" in english)

cate => word that does not exist in romanian
cīte (cāte) => is the correct writing (means "as" in english)

stiu => word that does not exist in romanian
ştiu => is the correct writing (means "know" in english)

putin => word that does not exist in romanian
puţin => is the correct writing (means "little" in english)

intalnit => word that does not exist in romanian
īntīlnit (īntālnit) => is the correct writing (means "encountered" in english)

ca => romanian word that in english translates as "like"
că => is the correct writing in the quoted text (means "maybe" in english)

In just 2 sentences there are 11 spelling errors. Just imagine how many errors are in a bigger text. Just imagine the sheer quantity of romanian texts on the internet written with this half-illiterate spelling. It's really a big problem, but almost nobody cares about it.
ravinescu   Sun Apr 04, 2010 1:47 pm GMT
The romanian trolls like the impostor named "Another Mari" favor the diacriticless writing because it is the one that fools non-romanians into thinking that romanian language is really the closest to latin from all of the modern languages. The presence of diacritics would spoil the picture, because latin has no diacritics at all and italian has very few diacritics (accents) compared to romanian (where the diacritics are different sounds, not accents). Also, the diacriticless writing unleashes the real power of the propagandistic letter [ā], written in the middle of the words instead of the genuine letter [ī]. When writing without diacritics, the cheating power of [ā] is doubled, because it is written as [a], making the non-romanians to believe that the sound is a true [a], not even an [a] with a circumflex accent [ā], when in fact the sound is an [ī] ("barred-i" => close central unrounded vowel : Ī). So, the resistance to the correct writing is strong not only because of laziness, but also because writing without diacritics helps enormously the fooling task of the latinist propaganda directed toward non-romanians.

But speaking about spelling propaganda, I just encountered a recent situation where the stupidity of writing the [ī] sound as [ā] became too obvious for a non-romanian translator, so he decided to use the true letter, [ī]. The translator is also a linguist, so his decision to use [ī] instead of [ā] is coming from a specialist.

#################################
Să semnalăm, pentru toponime [nume de locuri], o opţiune inteligentă a traducătorului*, care, deşi a adoptat noile norme ortografice, īn această traducere face o derogare de la normă şi scrie cu ī din i īn acele toponime īn care – chiar citit ca un simplu i, aşa cum spontan face orice străin – pronunţarea este oricum mai aproape de cea originală, decīt dacă ar fi lăsat grafemul ā, pe care străinii īl pronunţă a. Cīteva exemple: „Tīntava”, īn loc de Tāntava, cu derivatul „tīntavesi” pentru tāntăveni” (it. p. 41, ro. p. 35; it. p.164, ro. p.144, passim); „Dīrvari”, īn loc de Dārvari (it. p. 156, ro.p.138); „Dīmboviţa”, īn loc de Dāmboviţa (it. p. 230, ro. p. 212). Dar exemplele sīnt mult mai numeroase.

*Traducătorul de care se vorbeşte este Bruno Mazzoni, decan al Facultăţii de Limbi Străine din Pisa, Italia. Cartea tradusă este primul volum din romanul "Orbitor" scris de Mircea Cărtărescu, unul din cele mai bune romane romāneşti scrise după 1990.

English translation:
Let's point out, that for toponyms [names of places], an intelligent decision was taken by the translator*, who, although having adopted the new spelling rules [ā/sunt], in this translation makes an exception from the rule and writes using 'ī' in those toponyms in which -- even prononunced as a simple 'i', like does naturally a non-romanian -- the pronounciation is much close to the original one, than if he had used the letter 'ā', which the non-romanians pronounce 'a'. A few examples: "Tīntava", instead of Tāntava, with the derived word "tīntavesi" as a translation for "tāntăveni" [people from Tīntava] (it. p. 41, ro. p. 35; it. p.164, ro. p.144, passim); „Dīrvari”, instead of Dārvari (it. p. 156, ro.p.138); „Dīmboviţa”, instead of Dāmboviţa (it. p. 230, ro. p. 212). But the examples are much more numerous.

*The translator is Bruno Mazzoni, dean of the Faculty of Foreign Languages in Pisa, Italy. The translated book is the first volume of the novel "Orbitor" [Blinding] written by Mircea Cărtărescu, one the best romanian novels published after 1990.

http://revistaramuri.ro/index.php?id=1052
###################################

As I already said, the propagandistic spelling rule endorsed by the Romanian Academy in 1993 stated that the sound "barred-i" (close central unrounded vowel : Ī) should be written as [ī] at the beginning or end of the words, and as [ā] in the middle of the words. The reason was, aside from the obvious latinist propaganda, that the romanian words of slavic origin would become less alike the words from the slavic languages. In Romania there are a lot of toponyms of slavic origin (probably close to half from all the toponyms), whereas the toponyms of latin origin are virtually non-existant. The slavic toponyms have been "disfigured" by the stupid academic rule to write them with [ā] instead of [ī], and their pronounciation by non-romanians has become too distant from the original pronounciation. The italian translator realized that the toponym "Tāntava" would be pronounced "Tantava" by the non-romanians, which is far away from the romanian pronounciation. So, he decided to write the toponym as "Tīntava", which although will be pronounced "Tintava" by the non-romanians, is much close to the original pronounciation than "Tantava". This is also the situation of countless toponyms of slavic origin, some already mentioned in the article. Once again, the stupidity of the latinist rule adopted in 1993 is obvious, even for a non-romanian, even for an italian, who is of course partial to the latin language. But a true linguist, like the italian translator, promotes a spelling which is truthful, not deceitful.


=================================
Quote from: Reason Is My Religion
If you're tired of seeing ravinescu's posts, then don't read them. In fact, stop coming back to this thread. It's that simple.
=================================


It's not simple for them, they live for trolling and spreading propaganda. That's why they keep coming back to this thread to play their little whining drama everytime that I post some messages. They say they will never return to read the new posts, but they always are the first to read them and to post all sorts of insults and lies under various nicknames. This makes them full members of the "Romanian Academy of Propaganda (RAP)".


=================================
Quote from: Anonymous romanian
that ravinescu has put monopol on this forum...but I am going to take your advise, caci de unde nu e, nici Dumnezeu nu cere si cu prostii nu are rost sa-ti prinzi mintea!
==================================


I have already written about "romglish", the combination of romanian and english, which is very fashionable in today's Romania. Now anyone can see it in action, in the above quote, where half of the text is in english and half in romanian (the portion after the four-letter romanian word "caci", explained below). Of course, the text in romanian is without diacritics, because romglish must look like english, otherwise it's no fun and no prestige gained by using it. Notice also the expression "has put monopol". This expression does not exist in english, it's actually the clumsy translation of the romanian expression "a pune monopol", meaning "to monopolize". But there's another funny thing in the quote, that once again proves how useful and necessary are the diacritics for the romanian language. Let's analyze the text and look especially at the first word presented below:

caci => romanian word that translates in english as "defecate"
căci => is the correct writing in the quoted text (translates as "because" in english)

si => romanian word that means the musical note "si"
şi => is the correct writing in the quoted text (translates as "and" in english)

prostii => romanian word that means "stupidities" in english
proştii => is the correct writing (translates as "stupids" in english)

sa-ti => word that does not exist in romanian
să-ţi => is the correct writing (translates roughly as "to" in english)

Another 4 spelling errors, in only a half-sentence, and with the bonus that one ("caci") is extremely shameful. However, not so shameful to persuade the romanian propagandists to write correctly, in order not to make fools of themselves and a mockery of the romanian language.
ravinescu   Sun Apr 04, 2010 1:49 pm GMT
=================================
Quote from: Oameni
Or for something more casual, some older comedy even during the communist era when the emphasis of the language was drawn more toward Russian by the govt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-skxvnmeC0c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWT-j4oilOE
==================================


The big lie with the russian influence on the romanian language in the communist period seems to never get old. The more I hear it, the more I think that those that spread it are : 1) teenagers who have no idea how it was like in the communist period; 2) persons of romanian origin who have never set foot in Romania; 3) latinist propagandists who want to fool the non-romanians; 4) all of the above. This lie is used by the propagandists because it is believable, but in fact nothing could be farther from the truth.

I'll say it again, the influence of russian language on the romanian language was close to zero in the communist period. The romanian language spoken today is the same as the language spoken in the communist period and before the communist period. There were absolutely no changes in romanian, because there never was a "rossian" dialect (a combination of romanian and russian), like today's "romglish" (combination of romanian and english). And rightly so, because russian language was not a powerful presence in the romanian cultural/educational/entertainment environment. After the communists took the complete power in 1948, the russian language was studied in schools and high schools. But there were not enough available teachers of russian, so ordinary people who happened to know it (mainly refugees from Bessarabia, present-day Republic of Moldova) were hired as professors, even though they were not at all prepared for the task of teaching russian. So, one can imagine just how "good" were the classes of russian language taught to the romanian children from that time. Not only that, but in 1964, the things changed completely and the russian language was marginalized in favor of french and english, a situation that continued until 1989. This swift change has happened because the relations between Romania and the USSR were cold from 1964 to 1989, Ceauşescu fearing the fact that the soviets wanted to unseat him. The romanian-russian cultural relations were discouraged in Romania after 1964. I will give again a little quote from the book of Lucian Boia mentioned in my previous intervention:

##################################
Schimbare de direcţie īn 1964: cultura rusească īncetează să mai fie superioară celorlalte, limba rusă īşi pierde monopolul, fiind retrogradată īn sistemul liceal ca simplă limbă la alegere, alături de franceză, engleză şi germană (şi alunecīnd treptat īntr-o poziţie inferioară englezei şi francezei). Traducerile din ruseşte se rarefiază, se traduce tot mai mult din literaturile occidentale, inclusiv lucrări recente: ficţiune, istorie, ştiinţă (desigur, alese cu grijă, la nevoie cenzurate şi īnsoţite de studii introductive destinate să explice cititorului cum să īnţeleagă lucrurile). Aceeaşi evoluţie şi īn teatru, şi īn sălile de cinema.

Lucian Boia: Romānia, ţară de frontieră a Europei (editura Humanitas, 2007)

English translation:
There was a change of direction in 1964: Russian culture ceased to
be superior to others, and the Russian language lost its monopoly,
being demoted to the status of a mere option in secondary school,
alongside French, English and German (and in fact rapidly falling
behind the first two). Translations from Russian became thinner on
the ground, while more and more Western literature was translated,
including recent books: fiction, history and science (carefully
selected, of course, censured where necessary and accompanied by
introductory studies which explained to the reader how things
ought to be interpreted). A similar evolution could be seen in the
theatres and cinemas.

Lucian Boia: Romania, borderland of Europe (Reaktion Books Ltd, 2001)
###################################

Ater 1964, the russian cultural influence was minimal in Romania, whereas the english and french influence began to grow steadily, and after 1970 had much more influence than the russian ever had between 1948-1964. It must also be mentioned that the soviet troops were retired from Romania in 1958, so the number of native russian speakers in Romania was very low afterwards. The television always was, even in the communist period, a conduit for english and french influence, because the foreign movies broadcasted on TV were majoritarily american and french, and they were subtitled, not dubbed. The russian movies presented on TV were very few. How could the russian language influence the romanian language when romanians could not hear it on radio and TV, and there were very few native russian speakers in Romania?

The problem with the romanian propagandists is that they think they can easily fool anybody, asserting that the slavic influence in romanian was caused by the russian influence from the communist period. But this influence was non-existent, and this can be easily proven by reading books, newspapers and magazines from that period. The romanian language used in those printed materials had no russian words, like it is today the case with english words. At that time the romanians cared about their language and did not use foreign words when it was not necessary. Compare with today, when the romanians do not care anymore about their language and use plenty of english words, even if there are romanian words already available to designate the desired concepts. Of course, writing without diacritics would have been unacceptable in the commmunist period, whereas today it is accepted by the population and the cultural/educational authorities. The language spoken and written in the communist period was more genuine than the language of today, because the foreign influence was not so prevalent. There never was a russification of the romanian language in the communist period. The only major artificial interferences in romanian are the massive relatinization from the 19th century and the anglicization (americanization) from today, including the writing without diacritics.

Now back to the two YouTube links presented in the message quoted above. The poster "Oameni" tries to fool the audience in stating that the two actors use a language influenced by the russian language, favored by the romanian government. It's a big lie, that tarnishes the memory of two great romanian actors by asserting that they spoke an altered romanian language. The two YouTube movies are most probably from the 1970's, a period when the russian influence in Romania was non-existent. The two actors are speaking a genuine romanian language, devoid of any foreign influence. The first movie is with Amza Pellea, an actor that created the character of "nea Mărin", a clever and humorous peasant from Oltenia (south-western Romania). The second movie is with Toma Caragiu, an actor who played characters that mocked the bureaucrats from that time. Both were professional actors and the characters played by them always portrayed the true romanian population, not a fictional romanian population influenced by the russian culture, as wants the poster "Oameni" to imply. The language used by those characters was the genuine language spoken in Oltenia (Amza Pellea) and in Bucharest (Toma Caragiu).

But there's an interesting twist about those two actors. Their real names are non-romanian. Amza Pellea had the name composed of "Amza" (from the turkish "Hamza", used also by the greeks as "Hamzas") and "Pellea" (family name, from the greek "Pellis"). Toma Caragiu had the name composed of "Toma" (a very uncommon romanian first name, of greek origin) and "Caragiu" (a family name of greek origin). Amza Pellea was born and always lived in Romania, but Toma Caragiu was born in Greece, in an aromanian family that emigrated to Romania between the two world wars, when Toma Caragiu was a child. However, even if the origin of these two actors suggests a greek heritage, they were never considered anything other than romanians, despite the fact that their names are non-romanian. This shows again how diverse is the genetic heritage of the romanians, and how far from the truth is the propaganda story with the latinity of the romanian people.
ravinescu   Sun Apr 04, 2010 1:51 pm GMT
=================================
Quote from: Anonymous romanian posing as non-romanian
You are obsessed with these diacritics. You don't even assume that I might not be a Romanian, (I just used those expressions in Romanian and don't care if you believe it or not).
===============================


You are a romanian, and this is very easy to see by the fact that you are too lazy to use diacritics, like many of the romanians of today. The non-romanians that want to learn the language always use diacritics, because otherwise they could not learn it. This is true also for romanians that learn to write the language in school. The romanian language cannot be learned without diacritics, because they are different sounds than the sounds written without diacritics (Ă is not A, Ī is not I, Ş is not S and Ţ is not T). Someone who learns the romanian language must know precisely when to use A or Ă, I or Ī, S or Ş, T or Ţ, so that's why he will always write with diacritics. A romanian word written without diacritics can have a completely different meaning than the same word written with diacritics. Take for example the word "tari", who has no diacritics. In romanian it means the plural of "hard", like in "coperţi tari" [hard covers]. But in romanian there are also the words "ţări" [countries] and "ţari" [czars], which if they are written without diacritics ("tari") can be confused with the word "tari" [hard]. The writing without diacritics can also confuse the tenses of the verbs. For example the diacriticless word "implica" may mean "implica" (past tense simple) or "implică" (present tense simple). Romanians do not care about that, because they can usually understand from the context the adequate meaning, but the non-romanians cannot do that easily. So you will not find a non-romanian promoting the writing without diacritics, because this makes very hard to read romanian texts posted on the internet. However, you will find plenty of romanians (some masquerading as non-romanians) that will advocate a diacriticless writing, because they don't care about the romanian language, but they love the english language, which has no diacritics.


=================================
Quote from: Anonymous romanian posing as non-romanian
More than that, you don't even imagine that I might live outside Romanian, and I don't have any reason or possibility to use those diacritics what you are obsessed with...
=================================


I already explained that if you were a non-romanian you would have all the reasons in the world to write with diacritics, because otherwise you could not learn to write the romanian language. I am really amazed by the ridiculous excuse used by so many romanians, that they "don't have the possibility to use diacritics". This portrays the romanians as an ignorant people, which is not a good image at all. All the major operating systems (Windows, Linux, Mac) have keyboard mappings (layouts) that allow to write in any language, including romanian. You can switch easily between writing in romanian, english, french, spanish, polish, chinese, russian, etc. if you enable the respective keyboard layouts included in Windows, a process that is done only once and takes 5 minutes. But the majority of romanians are just too lazy for that simple operation and they hate their native language, so they don't want to do it, they want to write in romglish, not in romanian. They are never "obsessed" with the correct writing. They don't care if they are perceived as half-illiterate by not using diacritics, if this is the price to be paid for their writing to resemble their beloved american english. For the romanians of today, english is the new latin and New York is the new Rome.


=================================
Quote from: Anonymous romanian posing as non-romanian
I learned and am still learning Romanian because I like it! And I am not alone. I have friends from Peru, Chile, Germany and even Hungary who are learning this language...One was here, on this forum long time ago but he left it because of you...
===============================


Sure, sure, you are very convincing. Not really. The pathetic tricks used by the romanian propagandists never cease to amaze me and to make me laugh. One of their specialties is whining and crying with crocodile tears. They are inventing bogus stories and characters in order to manipulate the audience, but they do it so poorly and so unconvincing that nobody believes them. Just think of that, one peruvian, chilean, hungarian or german left the forum because of me and is probably lost for the romanian language. How sad is that... Except that's an invention in the well-known style of the romanian propagandists, who want to play the psychological manipulators, but fail miserably. The poor peruvian, chilean, hungarian or german, he could not open a new thread, he was forced to read this thread, because it is actually kept hostage in the mind of the romanian propagandist who invented him.


=================================
Quote from: Anonymous romanian posing as non-romanian
We are other nationality in here too and to disregard our presence is very rude and totally disrespectfully. I personally want to know and speak about Romanian language as it is not about its history or whatever you guys are here to dispute. It is totally impolite what you are doing here.
===============================


Of course, you are the spokeperson for many nationalities that feel disrespected by the discussions from this thread... So, what's keeping you to "know and speak about the romanian language"? Is your browser window locked on this thread? Are you allowed to view only this thread from the entire internet? Once again, I am amazed by the childish psychological manipulation attempted by the romanian propagandists...


=================================
Quote from: Anonymous romanian posing as non-romanian
There were so many people asking you to stop posting these long nonsenses but you just keep doing it.
=================================


So many indeed, but not different persons, actually multiple personalities of a single anonymous poster whose style of writing is easily recognized because he makes the same english mistakes again and again. This is a linguistic forum and the readers can easily see if a person is posting under different nicknames, because he is not changing his style of writing.


=================================
Quote from: Anonymous romanian posing as non-romanian
You have this fixation; you want to prove something what nobody cares about. That's beside rude, effectively stupid and shameless. That's all! I am going to avoid this forum and that because of you, ravinescu!
===============================


Good riddance ("Călătorie sprīncenată" in romanian) ! Although you will come back quickly, because for you this thread is like "Hotel California", you can check it any time you like, but you can never leave.

It's very interesting to see another attempt at manipulation by the romanian propagandists. They always speak about "forum", not "thread", although they are very familiar with "thread", because the romanian forums began to use translated interfaces only 1-2 years ago, so for a long time all of the romanian forums had english interfaces (many have it even now, without offering the possibility to switch to a romanian interface). But why the romanian propagandists confuse "forum" and "thread", even though they are perfectly aware of the difference? It's very simple to answer. They want to depict me as being the cause of people leaving the forum, as if they could not read all the other forum threads in which there are no messages posted by me (I have only posted in this thread). But any manipulation, regardless of its ridiculousness, is good for the romanian propagandists. They've done it for 200 years in real life, now they try it on the internet to see if it works...
ravinescu   Sun Apr 04, 2010 1:53 pm GMT
=================================
Quote from: Anonymous romanian posing as non-romanian
I am sure that there are other forums where you could dispute the origins of Romanians and their language but you came here to suffocate us with your idiocies what nobody cares about.
Be happy now, you won; keep writting here for ever if that is makeing you feeling good...
===============================


So, what do you care about? Why don't you write about it in this thread? Your only contributions until now were trollisms and lies. Do you think that this is needed on the Antimoon forum? Nobody would regret your departure. And nobody would believe that you will actually leave the forum, because a troll never leaves a forum where he can disturb the activity. But anyway, I am sure that my messages posted on the forum have attracted many readers that arrived here after searching the web with Google or other search engines. So even if my messages made one anonymous romanian propagandist to leave the forum (which actually never happened, "iullian the pseudo-quitter" being the living proof of that), there are at least 10 persons that learned about this forum when searching informations about the romanian people or language. The net result is a gain for the forum.


=================================
Quote from: Breno
Look, people, if we're going to carry on this thread at all we might as well keep it on the original topic, and I really don't know how far that can possibly go (apparently almost 500 posts, but a lot of that was other discussion). This is going too far.

And just because ravinescu is better at writing and presenting his argument than some of the other people here doesn't necessarily make him right, but I partially believe some of his points. Enough of this topic, anyway.
=================================


Breno, don't let you be fooled by the little melodrama played by the romanian propagandists. They try to manipulate you in any way possible, having a longtime practice at doing just that. They lie, cry, whine, insult, exxagerate and use all the other tricks from the psychological manipulation manual. They present themselves as victims of intolerance and at the same time insult the ethnic minorities from Romania. They present themselves as victims of hatred, because for the propagandists, telling the truth is a hate crime against their "alternative lifestyle" of spreading lies and manipulating other people in order to achieve their propagandistic goals. But they are the real haters, they hate to learn the truth about the history of the romanian people and language. And they absolutely hate when other people learn the truth, because they lose the purpose of their existence, not being capable anymore to find potential victims for their intellectually poisonous endeavours.


=================================
Quote from: Anonymous romanian
Are you serious? Ravinescu is good in writting? you must be kidding!
I a gree with you yhough, to stop this absurd topic! I can take ravinescu's bulshit anymore!
==================================


What did I told you Breno? You are "kidding" when you say something that displeases the romanian propagandists and you are "right" when you say something that pleases them. They try to manipulate you in order to suit their purposes, telling you what is unacceptable and what is acceptable behavior from your part. Simply put, they try to enroll you for their "cause". But the truth is different, and you can see it for yourself. Just look at the activity on this thread for the last weeks. I have posted once a week, and for the next 1-2 days after my posting there were answers to my messages and the usual trollisms, then nothing, no activity until my next messages, one week later, with the same routine of trollisms and whining from the romanian propagandists. Take as an example what happened last week. I have posted on march, 27 and the responses to my messages (including the usual whining) were posted on march 27-28, then no posting activity on the thread until today, april 4, when I have posted again. The whining propagandists don't care about this thread, they have nothing to contribute to it, all they want is for me to stop posting, they said it numerous times. In between my postings they never intervened in the discussion. For them there is no slavic influence in romanian, except for the fictional russian influence from the communist period. And speaking about the communist period, the romanian propagandists actually use communist methods. They use propaganda and they want to use censoring, because propaganda and censoring work hand in hand.
Băi, omule.   Sun Apr 04, 2010 5:31 pm GMT
Hey, man. I wasn't trying to say that those actors speech sounded Russian. In fact quite the contrary; to me they don't. But I guess I (wrongly) assumed the influence was bigger at the time, and was just trying to show how even during that time it wasn't that much of a change, which is kind of what you said.

Anyway, fata mea and faţa mea can either mean my girl or my face LOL. Diacriticless fools! How dare you insult the sacred limbaj that is Rumīnian like that!

But please keep the frequency of posts down a little bit, rav. I don't want people to get the... wrong idea, if you know what I mean.
DRAGA   Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:44 pm GMT
Romania should become a slavic speaking country- they are speaking a vulgar latin imposed upon the slavic workers, even the names of cities and people are slavic. Any Romanian disputing that is ignorant and badly taught in school. Romania is a country that went wrong.
DRAGA   Mon Apr 05, 2010 5:00 pm GMT
I can actually say that the slavic names and words that exist in Romanian names and topography actually sound more similar to Serbian/Bulgarian than to Ukrainian.