Which Romance language sounds more Slavic?

dude   Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:10 am GMT
Wtf? You'd be even more surprised then, assface.

It was one of our people who designed the jet engine, the fountain pen, discovered insulin, contributed to the field of cybernetics, and several other important inventions often taken for granted, so chill out and don't say stuff you don't know about.

This video shows a few of the things Romanians made:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCf8NWJ8kzA

Most of the things in there are historically verifiable facts. Only I don't agree with the precursor of baseball thing: that's a bit of a stretch. We might have had a game similar to it, but it didn't necessarily originate there.
To Mikey   Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:10 am GMT
Let me answer Mike's question!

"What have Romanians ever done for the good of mankind"?

First of all, they didn't do too much damage. Thanks god, we don't have the Spanish, German, English, Russian, Turkish past.

We fought the Turks throughout the entire Midle Age time without getting any help from the so called westerner Christian brothers. While we were fighting these Turks, the Westerners were enjoying a luxurious, abundant life; they were quietly consuming the stolen richness from the colonies in Africa, South and North America, India, Oceania etc; when we were still standing up against the Turks and Tatars the westerners again peacefully were using the time and enjoying the peace for developing the arts, science and so on. When the Romanians where seating in saddles day and night to be there when the ottomans attack, the westerners built castles, palaces, huge luxuries churches what their decedents today are showing to the world with such an immense pride; what an irony! How ignorant!

When I see those incredible high numbers of castles, churches, palaces etc in England, Germany, France, Russia, Austria, Spain, Italy etc my pulls always jumps up. I simple cannot just pass by; admire the work of the artists who made those works and not thinking about the lost lives of so many poor people; about how many people have been pushed to the limit of the existence for and by the whims of their masters. I cannot even eat after I visit a place like de Dodge Palace in Venice, for example. Is that something to be proud of?

On the other hand, if you really want to know what the contribution of Romanians to the mankind is, help you self, watching this small clip. A clip which doesn't present everything we have created for the human being:


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1242648772401109800#
Dude   Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:25 am GMT
You are right! We are not sure if Oina is at the base of Basseball. It very well be some English games or so whi led to the today basseball. Basseball is much more easy to play than Oina, See here history of Oina:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oin%C4%83
Dus cu Vaca   Fri Apr 16, 2010 7:59 am GMT
<<But still, what have Romanians ever done for the good of mankind?? ahaha>>

Not much, I admit that, but more than nothing.

Here are some:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinesco_synchronization_gear

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coandă_effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traian_Vuia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Racoviţă

Oil industry was pioneered by Romanians:

http://www.rri.ro/arh-art.shtml?lang=1&sec=9&art=3596

In Romania, we can only speak about oil industry using mechanical equipment starting with 1870. Names of leading scientists such as Gregoriu Stefanescu, Grigore Cobalcescu, Ludovic Mrazek, Valeriu Patriciu, Ion Tanasescu, Virgiliu Tacit, Ion Bazgan and Andrei Dragulanescu are linked to the history of the oil industry. Here is Gabriela Tanasescu again, speaking about the contribution made by Romanians to the development of the world oil industry.

”Ludovic Mrazek, for example, carried out an outstanding geological activity in the field of oil exploitation. It was under his guidance that the first geological map of Greater Romania was drawn in 1920. In 1912, engineer Virgiliu Tacit patented the blow-out preventer, a remote-controlled valve with a piston, which can stand pressures of up to 100 atmospheres. The invention was then taken over by Germany, the Austro-Hungarian empire and Mexico. A prominent figure in the domain of oil processing was engineer Lazar Edeleanu, who made an important contribution to improving the quality of the Romanian lamp oil, using the so-called liquid bio-sulphur selective method. His method was patented in 1908 and afterwards was applied in all countries with an oil processing industry. Edeleanu’s successful method as well as his entire scientific activity brought him world recognition. In 1932, he was awarded the Redwood medal, thus becoming the first foreigner to have received that medal, the second one being Ludovic Mrazek. Another Romanian who stood out in the domain of oil exploitation is Ion Bazgan, the author of many inventions. He patented a special method, first in Romania in 1934 and then in the US in 1934. The method was meant to improve rotative drilling, starting from the “sonicity” theory by another Romanian scientist, Gogu Constantinescu”.
ravinescu   Fri Apr 16, 2010 8:05 am GMT
===============================
Quote from: Anonymous romanian
We fought the Turks throughout the entire Midle Age time without getting any help from the so called westerner Christian brothers. While we were fighting these Turks, the Westerners were enjoying a luxurious, abundant life; they were quietly consuming the stolen richness from the colonies in Africa, South and North America, India, Oceania etc; when we were still standing up against the Turks and Tatars the westerners again peacefully were using the time and enjoying the peace for developing the arts, science and so on. When the Romanians where seating in saddles day and night to be there when the ottomans attack, the westerners built castles, palaces, huge luxuries churches what their decedents today are showing to the world with such an immense pride; what an irony! How ignorant!
===============================

In the quote above you can see at work the little sister of the romanian latinist propaganda, namely the medievalist propaganda. After the "Romania is a latin island in a slavic sea" slogan, we can witness now the "Romanian was a barrage that saved the West from the turks" slogan. The romanians are presented as relentless fighters and the western europeans as lazy bastards, whose civilizations could be built only because the romanian fought the turks and blocked the access to Western Europe. The romanians themselves could not have a great civilization, because all their resources were used in the fight against the Ottoman Empire. If it weren't for the romanians who sacrificed their own civilization, the western civilizations had not existed today. This propaganda serves two puposes. Firstly it "explains" why the romanians did not have a developed medieval civilization, like the peoples from western and central Europe. And secondly it tries a little emotional blackmail, wanting to make the western europeans feel sorry for the current state of the romanians, and help them in any way they could, in order to "pay their historical debt" toward those who saved the western civilization from the attack of the barbarian turks.

As I already said, the romanian propaganda is directed toward the acceptance of romanians as part of the western european civilization, because of their origin from italian colonists and their fight against the turkish hordes that threatened the west in the Middle Age. Of course, we are speaking about propaganda, so these assumptions are lies, the roman colonists arrived in Dacia were not italians and the romanians did not save Western Europe from an ottoman invasion. Actually the romanians fought alongside the turks on a number of occasions against the western armies, not because they wanted to, but because they were under turkish (ottoman) authority, so one of their duties was to supply the turkish army with food, horses, etc. and also to participate with some army corps (thousands of men) alongside the turks.

The romanian historians accept today that propaganda from the 19th and 20th centuries modified the true romanian history in order to gain quick acceptance from the western world. This does not stop the school textbooks to continue brainwashing the romanian children with the latinist and medievalist propaganda, because today the quick acceptance of the romanian immigrants in Western Europe depends also on this image of "latin people who fought hard in order to preserve the western civilizaton". Once again, the romanian propagandists demonstrate that they lack basic knowledge of european geography and history. But thinking that their audience is also lacking this knowledge and will believe the romanian propaganda is nothing more than wishful thinking. Debunking the propaganda is very easy to do by using romanian history books published after 1990, which are available for online ordering in every part of the world. Some are even translated in english or french, like the one mentioned below.

I provide another quotes from the book of Lucian Boia, who is a professor of history at the University of Bucharest. This time he speaks about the romanian-turkish relations in the Middle Age.

http://tinyurl.com/boia-turks
(shortened URL to the preview of the book on Google Books)

=======================================
Raporturile cu turcii reprezintă un important capitol de istorie, dar şi de mitologie romānească. Imaginea mitologică este a unei lupte neīntrerupte şi a unor strălucite biruinţe obţinute de micile ţări romāne īmpotriva unui imens imperiu. Romānii şi-au salvat astfel fiinţa naţională, apărīnd totodată Europa creştină. Realitatea istorică este īnsă -- ca īntotdeauna -- mai complexă şi, īn bună măsură, diferită.

Turcii īşi īncep expansiunea īn Balcani pe la mijlocul secolului 14. Spre sfīrşitul secolului, cele două ţarate īn care se īmpărţise Bulgaria sīnt cucerite şi Imperiul Otoman ajnge la linia Dunării, la graniţa Ţări Romāneşti. Odată cu căderea Constantinopolului (1453), partida este definitiv pierdută de creştini īn Balcani. Tentativele occidentale de cruciadă anti-otomană (Nicopole, 1396; Varna, 1444) se vor sfīrşi īn dezastru. Turcii sīnt opriţi totuşi la Belgrad, unde suferă o īnfrīngere la 1456. Trei sferturi de veac mai tīrziu reiau īnsă expansiunea. Armata ungară este nimicită la Mohącs īn 1526, iar īn 1541 cea mai mare parte a Ungariei devine provincie turcească. De două ori turcii asediază şi Viena, īn 1529 şi 1683, de fiecare dată fără succes: este limita extremă a īnaintării lor spre Occident.

Ţările romāne se aflau īn prima linie. Luptele cu turcii s-au imprimat īn conştiinţa naţională mai mult ca oricare altă temă istorică. Vocaţia romānilor īn Evul Mediu (şi marea lor contribuţie la istoria europeană) ar fi fost să se războiască cu turcii, prelungită īncleştare, din care au ieşit de ceel mai multe ori victorioşi. Īn realitate, dacă adunăm anii de conflict, ajungem doar la cīteva decenii din jumătatea de mileniu de relaţii romāno-otomane. Romānii au cīştigat unele bătălii, turcii au cīştigat altele. Īnsă a cīştiga o bătălie nu īnseamnă a cīştiga războiul. Războaiele le-au cīştigat pīnă la urmă turcii. Rezultatul lor este incontestabil: intrarea pentru multă vreme a ţărilor romāne īn orbita otomană.

[...]

Cum de n-au cucerit turcii ţările romāne? Istoricii romāni şi-au tot pus această īntrebare. Cum de n-au avut soarta Ungariei, o ţară cu atīt mai mare şi aparent mai puternică? Răspunsul patriotic este lesne de intuit: turcii n-au cucerit ţările romāne fiindcă n-au fost capabili să o facă, dată fiind rezistenţa romānească. Interpretată astfel, istoria romānilor se transfigurează īn epopee eroică.

[...]

Unii istorici au īncercat totuşi să judece argumentele mai realist. P.P. Panaitescu aducea īn discuţie două argumente. Primul, uşor de sesizat la o simplă privire a hărţii, este acela că drumul turcilor spre inima Europei nu trecea prin ţările romāne. Teatrul romānesc era pentru ei oarecum periferic. Īnaintarea turcească s-a făcut pe linia Belgrad-Buda-Viena. De aceea a căzut Ungaria şi nu Ţara Romānească! Al doilea argument privea exploatarea economică a ţărilor romāne; indirect, prin monopolul comercial exercitat şi prin tribut turcii cīştigau mai mult decīt printr-o administrare directă. Īn sfărşit, o interpretare recentă dărīmă tot eşafodajul interpretărilor tradiţionale romāneşti: n-ar avea rost să īncercăm să răspundem la īntrebarea "de ce n-au cucerit turcii ţările romāne", pentru simplul motiv că, de fapt, le-au cucerit!

Sporadicele victorii romāneşti nu au īmpiedicat trecerea treptată a ţărilor romāne sub autoritatea otomană. Mai īntīi Ţara Romānească, cea mai expusă, apoi Moldova, urmate (īntr-o situaţie de ceva mai mare autonomie) de Transilvania, rămasă principat de sine stătător după dispariţia Ungariei. Iniţial nu a fost decīt plata unui tribut. Cu timpul īnsă, ţările romāne au intrat īn sistemul politic, militar şi economic otoman.

[...]

Bătăliile cu trurcii -- oricīt de puternic ar străluci īn amintirile istorice ale romānilor -- au avut consecinţe mai puţin īnsemnate decīt īncadrarea ţărilror romāne, timp de secole, īn sistemul otoman. Mai mult decīt un conflic prelungit, s-a petrecut o interferenţă a civilizaţiilor. Aşa au intrat īn limba romānă -- cu siguranţă, nu pe cīmpul de luptă! -- numeroasele cuvinte de origine turcă. Şi rolul romānilor īn apărarea Europei trebuie aşezat la proporţiile lui reale, cu atīt mai mult cu cīt drumul spre Europa Centrală nu trecea prin ţările romāne. Spre [anul] 1500 Apusul devenise suficient de puternic pentru a nu mai risca să cadă īn mīinile otomanilor. Faptul că turcii au ajuns de două ori īn faţa Vienei şi de două ori au fost īnfrīnţi nu are prea mare legătură cu istoria romānilor.

Lucian Boia: Romānia, ţară de fromtieră a Europei (editura Humanitas, 2007) - paginile 64-68


English translation:
Relations with the Turks constitute an important chapter in the
history of the Romanians, but also in their mythology. The mytho-
logical image is of an uninterrupted struggle in which the little
Romanian lands won many glorious victories against a vast empire.
The Romanians thus preserved their national existence while at the
same time defending Christian Europe. The historical reality was, as
usual, more complex and substantially different.

The Turks began their expansion into the Balkans around the
middle of the 14th century. Towards the end of the century,
the two tsardoms into which Bulgaria was divided were conquered,
and the Ottoman Empire reached the Danube, the border of
Wallachia. The fall of Constantinople (1453) sealed the fate of the
Balkan Christians. Westem attempts at an anti-Ottoman crusade
(Nicopolis, 1396; Varna, 1444) had ended in disaster. The Turks were
finally stopped at Belgrade, where they were defeated in 1456.
However, three-quarters of a century later, they renewed their
expansion. The Hungarian army was destroyed at Mohącs in 1526,
and in 1541 the greater part of Hungary became a Turkish province.
The Turks twice laid siege to Vienna, in 1 529 and 1683, on both occassions without success; this was the extreme point of their advance
towards the West.

The Romanian lands lay in the front line. The wars with the Turks
have remained imprinted on the national consciousness more than
any other historical theme. The Romanians' vocation in the Middle
Ages (and their great contribution to European history) would
appear to have been to fight the Turks, in a prolonged struggle from
which they emerged victorious most of the time. In reality, the years
of conflict add up to only a few decades out of half a millennium of
Romanian-Ottoman relations. The Romanians won some battles, the
Turks won others. However, winning a battle does not mean
winning the war. lt was the Turks who won the wars in the end! And
their result is indisputable: for a long period, the Romanian lands
came within the Ottoman orbit.

[...]

Why did the Turks not conquer the Romanian lands? Romanian
historians have continually confronted this question. Why did these
areas not suffer the same fate as Hungary, a country so much larger
and apparently more powerful? The patriotic answer is easy to guess:
the Turks did not conquer the Romanian lands because resistance
was such that they were not able to. In this interpretation, the
Romanians’ history becomes transfigured as heroic epic.

[...]


Some historians tried, all the same, to reach a more realistic
judgement. P. P. Panaitescu [a 20th century romanian historian]
introduced two arguments into the discussion.
The first, which is easy to grasp by simply looking at the map, was that the Turks’ route towards the heart of Europe did not go through the Romanian lands; the Romanian theatre was thus rather peripheral for them. The Turkish advance was along the line Belgrade-Buda-Vienna, so Hungary fell rather than the Romanian lands!
The second argument concerned the economic exploitation
of the Romanian lands; indirectly, through the commercial
monopoly which they exercised and through the collection of
tribute, the Turks gained more than they could have obtained by
direct administration! A recent study has demolished the whole
scaffolding of traditional Romanian interpretations: there is no
point in trying to answer the question 'Why did the Turks not
conquer the Romanian lands?' for the simple reason that in fact they
did conquer them!’

Sporadic Romanian victories did not prevent the gradual passing
of the Romanian lands under Ottoman control: first Wallachia,
which was the most exposed, and then Moldavia, followed (in a situ-
ation of somewhat greater autonomy) by Transylvania, which
remained a principality in its own right after the fall of Hungary. At
first, it was only a matter of paying tribute. ln time, however, the
Romanian lands entered the Ottoman political, military and
economic system.

[...]

The battles with the Turks - however brightly they may shine in
the Romanians' historical memory - were less significant in their
consequences than the incorporation of the Romanian lands, for
centuries, into the Ottoman system. What took place was not so
much a prolonged conflict as an interference of civilizations. lt is in
this way - and certainly not on the battlefield! - that the many words
of Turkish origin entered the Romanian language. And the
Romanians' role in defending Europe needs to be seen in its true
proportions, especially as the road to Central Europe did not pass
through the Romanian lands. By around 1500, the West had become
sufficiently powerful to bein no danger of falling into Ottoman
hands. The fact that the Turks twice arrived before Vienna and were
twice beaten has little to do with the history of the Romanians.

Lucian Boia: Romania, borderland of Europe (Reaktion Books, 2001) - pages 65-68
==================================
To ravinescu   Fri Apr 16, 2010 11:33 am GMT
you showed up again, little bastard? What latinist propaganda is there you idiot? Isn't that true that you VI country, Hungary was transphormed into a Turkish "pashalic" (province) while Roamanian provinces not? Go and kill yourslef, you frustrated monolian bastrad!

It coems to me to puck when I see your interventions on this forums! You are jkust repeting the same "partiture" over, end over again, without any inspiration. What an uglly primate!
To ravinescu   Fri Apr 16, 2010 11:40 am GMT
"the
Romanians' role in defending Europe needs to be seen in its true
proportions, especially as the road to Central Europe did not pass
through the Romanian lands. By around 1500, the West had become
sufficiently powerful to bein no danger of falling into Ottoman
hands. The fact that the Turks twice arrived before Vienna and were
twice beaten has little to do with the history of the Romanians. "

What a bulshit! If the road to Europe didn't go true Romania, why did the truks attacked us so offtent, you idiot? Only Stefna the Great, in 47 years how much was in pwer, conducted 36 wars against the Turks. Is that not telling anything? The turks attacked Viena easy because Hungary, and all otehr Balkan countries were already "pashalic". There was their teritories and they didn't have to fight anybody else to reach the borders of Austria because they were there, you moron! use a bit you head, even if it doesn' have anything in it...
Kurt   Fri Apr 16, 2010 1:35 pm GMT
Don't worry guys...you, Romanians might have been stopped the Turks expand into Europe during those times but it looks like it didn't help for example Germany much... they did occupy it now...(lol)
To the ravinescu, the fru   Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:12 pm GMT
1. The Romanians didn't claim to have been the guards of Europe. They tried to preserved their own existence. That Europe gained time and peace during those fights, it was - it is just an effect!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_III_of_Moldaviasecondary


2. In 1456 the Turks have been stopped at Belgrade,and yes it is true. You did forget to mention though who was the leader of the Christian army in that battle? (we speak about Christian army because it was made of many nationalities). Who led it to that historic victory? Iancu de Hunedoara, (Hunyadi in Hungarian).

"Hunyadi is a Hungarian noble family — according to the great majority of sources — of VLACH /ROMANIAN origin. In numerous medieval documents Hunyadi's byname appears as John the Romanian / Jįnos Olįh / Johannes Olah (Olįh is the Hungarian word for Vlach, and it is also the surname of numerous noble families of purely Hungarian stock). Although some Hungarian historians have tried to disprove that the Hunyadi family was of Vlach (Wallachian) origin, the overwhelming evidence supports the view that they indeed were not Magyars...

He is widely celebrated in Hungary as the country's most prominent, successful and powerful generalissimo who promoted a revision of dated military doctrine, as such a recognizably outstanding and iconic military opponent of the Ottoman Empire; in a sweeping scope of European military history was undoubtedly the pre-eminent strategist and tactician of the 15th century in Christendom. He was also a Voivode of Transylvania (1441–1446), the patriarch of the Hunyadi family, and FATHER of THE MOST RENOWNED renowned king in Hungarian history, King Matthias Corvinus.

"John Hunyadi is often considered the bellwether of the European "post-Roman" professional "Standing Army". Hunyadi is mostly renowned as one of the greatest Medieval field commanders of all time, his brilliant and prodigious overthrow of Mehmed II at the Siege of Belgrade in 1456 against overpowering odds is regarded as a seminal piece of European military history as "Having decided the fate of Christendom" - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hunyadi)

I have to state here that some sources are suggesting based on the name of one of his forefathers to have some Serbian background as well. But he was Romanian - an "Athleta Christi" how Pop Pius II, called him. However, plague broke out in Hunyadi's camp three weeks after the lifting of the siege, and he died August 11. 1456.

After the Hunyadi's dynasty disapeared, Hungary became an ottoman province (pashalic) for 160 years !!!

Hunyadi has an important place in the history of Romania too. During his reign (as voievode of Transylvania) many of the Romanian cnezes in the area of today's Banat and Hunedoara county won conditional nobility and, by the end of the 15th century, attained full nobility. It is hardly coincidental that the mass ennoblement of Romanian cnezes is linked to the name of John Hunyadi, for this great general had grown up among them and understood their aspirations. When he served as Transylvania's voivode and Székely count (the first time that the two offices were held by one man), Hunyadi drew into his retinue not only Hungarian and Székely retainers but also several Romanians.

Hunyadi was also responsible for establishing the careers of both Stephen III of Moldavia and the controversial Vlad III of Wallachia. Probably he spoke the Romanian language only during his youth, because for most of his adult life, he was in a Hungarian- and/or Latin-speaking environment.

Pope Pius II writes that Hunyadi did not increase so much the glory of the Hungarians, but especially the glory of the Romanians among whom he was born.


3. As my countryman from above has said: the best thing what the Romanians did for the mankind was that they didn't do too much bad; they didn't murder Amerindians, Africans, Palestinians, they didn't impose communism over other nations or anything like this. They did keep the Gypsies and the Tatars as slaves for quite a few centuries and that weights pretty heavy on their conscience.
OriginalGuest   Fri Apr 16, 2010 6:11 pm GMT
The Romanians are not "Latin" because if you remove the two thirds of the language that are Latin from Romania, then nothing else in Romania is Latin.

If the Romanians would speak a Slavic language but everything else would remain the same then they would be considered ethnically and culturally to be Slavs, most likely a buffer Slavic country between the Southern Slavs (Bulgarians, Serbians, etc) and the Eastern Slavs (Ukrainians, Russians.etc).

A Great Myth of the Romanians is that they have always considered themselves to be Western and that they have been "oppressed" by the Slavs until 1800s. That is certainly not true, the Romanians always identified themselves as Easterners, not Westerners. They seemingly had no issue with fighting shoulder to shoulder along with the Russians, Ukrainians against the Poles and the Teutons and, shoulder to shoulder along with the Serbians against the Hungarians and the Hapsburgs.. When the Slavs arrived south of Danube they are described as a barbaric pest by the local Greeks and Latins and they have caused a great deal of war, damage and social change.

But North of Danube in Romania archeological evidence shows that they lived side by side without any apparent major conflict. The place from where the Slavs migrated appears to be close to Northern Romania which means that the Slavs and the ancestors of the Romanians must have shared a lot of ethnic and cultural background even before large masses of Slavs moved into Romania. In fact this shows that the Romanians weren't true "Romans" either as they were never fully Romanized culturally. The cities of Roman Dacia are few, small and poor. Moreover most of today's Romanians live outside of what was the Roman Dacia Province which means that most Romanians have not been latinized by the Romans!!!!! but most likely by latinized Dacians and the process took place long after the Romans have left Dacia (possibly until as late as 8th century AD). Since no signifiant cultural Roman traits are associated with the latinized Dacians then we can safely assume that the Romanians have never felt "Romans" at least not in the way we casually understand the word "Roman".

If 150 years ago, before the latinist propaganda, you would have asked a Romanian peasant about the Romans he would tell you that he has never heard about them and probably assume that they must be some sort of Germans (because catholic westerners were all assumed to be Nemtzi - slavic word for Germans). For the common Romanian the word "German" and "Westerner" were pretty much synonymous and they meant "the Papist Enemy" for much of the Romanian history. The only people who knew about the Romans and the Latins were the rich and educated people (the Boyars) but they were bilingual Romanian-Russian anyway and had matrimonial alliances with the Russian boyars, and used Church Slavonic as THE written language for much of the history. And the Romanians learned writing only after the Bulgarians and Russians were Christianized around 1000AD. At about the same time the Romanians got a Church too. That is: priests, liturgy, the bible, WRITING!! and all the tings that come along with Christianity. Until then the Romanians had a religion that was a mix of pagan and christian elements, probably similar to the pagan-christian mix that existed elsewhere in Eastern Europe before the "official" conversion of the Slavs to Christianity.

The Latin language in Romania was reintroduced through contacts with Hungary and Poland but only as late as 1200s-1400s and it remained in sporadic/marginal use since then.

This went on until 1800s when the Russians suddenly decided that French is "cool" and Church Slavonic is not "cool" anymore. "Coincidentally" that was the exact point when the Romanians started to speak French too.
have you ever   Fri Apr 16, 2010 7:02 pm GMT
imagine how a salad made of cabbage ,carrots, paprika, garlic, onions, potatoes, pumpkin, corn, yogurt, fish, spinach, milk and marmalade is testing; would you eat such a garbage? Maybe if you won't have any other choice. Something like that looks for a informed person what these two chicken hunters, OriginalGuest and Ravinescu are doing here within their comments: a salad of nonsenses, hate, frustrations and stupidity!

I should mention that the illness what Ravinescu is suffeirng is so bad, that in order to make a point, he writes under many nicks. He is one and the same person with OriginalGuest. What a poor and unhappy guy!

Have a nice weekend and try to relax, Ravinescu. Learn once that you cannot change anything! The facts are facts! The Romanians and Romanian language exist and they will be here for ever no matter if you like it or not. It is God will to be so!
Dan   Fri Apr 16, 2010 7:05 pm GMT
Wow, lots of nonsense in the previous post (OriginalGuest).
Romanian was not 'reintroduced' between 1200-1400. Romanian was an evolution of the Vulgar Latin spoken North and South of Danube, which it replaced sometimes between 6th and 8th centuries. Until 6th century, prior the Slavs arrival, only two major languages were spoken, Greece in South, and Vulgar Latin derivates in North (from today's Croatia to Bulgaria). Southern Romania was mostly Romanized by 6th century as well.

The territory covered by today's Bulgaria, Macedonia and Southern Romania is where Romanian language appeared (6th to 8th century AD). The early Romanian speakers were former Dacian, Getae, Thracian tribes together with Romanized populations from other regions of Roman Empire (like Illyrians or even Latins). The Romanian language was displaced by old Slavonic in Bulgaria through the policy of the Bulgarian tsars for political reasons (though neither the majority of Bulgarian population nor the Bulgarian tsars were Slavic at that time), but it remained strong in Southern Romania from where it spread quickly to the other Romanian regions.

Bulgarians are the descendants of the Grecized/Romanized Thracians, Slavicized later on by a Turkic population. Romanians, Bulgarians' closest relatives, were also led for a long period by Turkic (Avars, Pechenegs, Cumans) populations, but preserved their Romance language. Neither Bulgarians nor Romanians have strong Slavic influences (most likely less than 15 procent of their population is of Slavic origin). Hungarians on the other hand, are mostly a Slavic population, also led for a while by a Turkic population speaking a non-Turkic language (more exactly ugric - the Hungarian language). The Turkic populations that helped form the first medieval Bulgarian, Romanian and Hungarian states left almost no genetic trace, because they were too few to influence the gene pool.

As anyone can see, the complex nature of these nations' genealogies can easily be politically manipulated. We witness the political flawed discourses on this very thread. I completely ignore ravinescu, who seems to be a Russian ethnic that emigrated to Romania sometime ago and was never able to successfully integrate into the society. However, for me, a more interesting case is that of OriginalGuest, who is another Russian ethnic that has this ingrained idea, that Romanians are a Slavic population. I never understood why this is such an attractive idea for every Russian that learns about it. Why do they care so much about it? I have never understood this fascination.
Franco   Fri Apr 16, 2010 7:34 pm GMT
So interesting...
OriginalGuest   Fri Apr 16, 2010 7:42 pm GMT
@Dan

When I said that Latin was "reintroduced" I obviously meant about the Latin Language as used by the Catholic Church.

And yes it it true that before Slavization the Bulgarians, Serbians, Macedonians spoke either Greek and to a lesser extent in what is today Northern Bulgaria, Northern Serbia the indigenous people spoke Romanian (Eastern Romance).

But they were part of the Roman Empire and later on the Byzantine (Easter Roman Empire) for a long .. long.. time. Culturally it is hard to say if they were related to the people living North of Danube because the people North of Danube had an obviously different society which was mostly barbarian with only some Romanic elements beside the language. On the other hand the people who lived South of Danube were culturally Romans, not just linguistically.

This is why I have considered so important to mention in the previous post the result of the interaction between the natives living South of Danube and North of Danube. It clearly shows that the Romanians were in fact never truly Romanized. When the Romans met the Slavs they had a very antagonistic relation marked by warfare. That was not at all the case in the territory of today's Romania because the period of Latinization was just too short and in a too small part of Dacia. Most of the Latinization happened gradually until 8th century AD and this Latinization was not a Roman one but one done by the Latinized Dacians.

The Romanians are not a Daco-Roman ethnic group as they claim but a Daco-Slavic ethnic group speaking a Romano-Slavic language with a mostly Slavo-Dacian culture. I wonder why the Latinists do not try to explain how is that most of the customs and traditions of the Romanians are shared with the Slavs then with the Dacians and lastly small elements with the Romans.

The amount of R1a (as Eastern Slavic) origin in Romania is roughly 20% in Southern Romania and 30-35% in Northern Romania, Western Romania and Eastern Romania. It is at 20% in the South and South-East where the cultural similarities with the Bulgarians are highest. For comparison Ukraine and Belarus have about 50% R1a.

But the amount of ethnic overlap between the Romanians and Eastern Slavs is higher than that because roughly 30% of Ukrainians and Belorussians are of Balkan origin.

R1a in Bulgaria is 15% and in Serbia 8%..

And lastly no, I am not Russian. If a Russian says that Romania is closer to the Slavic countries than to the Latin countries, is that necessarily incorrect? You should not mix politics of the present with history of the past. Just because the Russians had territorial claims on Romania based on the claim that all Eastern European Orthodox people should be a part of Russia, it doesn't mean that the history of Romania should be rewritten for the sake of propaganda.
To Dan   Fri Apr 16, 2010 7:48 pm GMT
"I have never understood this fascination."

you never understood it because you didn't take in consideration that these guys are just ill. They suffer of mental illnesses, they are unhappy and they try to make the other people unhappy as well. It is simple like that. Yes, the best solution is to ignore them! It is also a very good exercise!

Take care!

Ion