Romanian a MADE up language

augustin717   Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:52 pm GMT
Luis Zalot,
Yeah, perhaps that on line dictionary is not the most reliable source in determining to what extent Romanian is a Romance language and to what extent it is not.
They don't give you there any diachronic survey of the Romanian vocabulary. What you find there is purely synchronic Standard Romanian, and not even always so.
Romanian as it is spoken across the Romanian territory and on the territories of its neighbouring countries (Hungary, Serbia, Ukraine and Moldova) is a single mutually comprehensible dialect, with four local subdialects: Moldavian (spoken in the North-Eastern part of the country), Wallachian (or Muntenian which forms the basis of what Standard Romanian is, spoken in the South of the country), Banatzean (South-Western Romania) and Crishan (Western, North-Western Romania; it derives its name from the three rivers called "Crishuri").
S.P.Q.R   Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:33 pm GMT
I can suggest you a good grammar book, it is called urbis et orbis written by Tantucci, it has got diachronic studies on latin grammar the developement of these in italian, the only probelm, is in italian and ti is a relatively old book. (1989)
The Om os question:
This is rather tricky because phonologically Om os are equivalent to um us,
in fact during 200bc latin had a shift of graphemes,from then to on ai was written ae.
oi oe, O long was replaced with U and so on.
Italian and spanish could heve both inerithed them and both developed them with the process of palatalization and fricativization of consonat and the corresponding reducing of the wovel quantity.
Excuse me for spelling errors.
Luis Zalot   Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:12 pm GMT
Spanish, also conversed "some" words from "Old-latin" which retain more of it's look and pronunciation.>>>>
augustin717 wrote;
Some old Latin words only regionally (Western Transylvania) preserved in Daco-Romanian:

pad'estru (lame and then, "lacking smth) (d' signifies palatalization)
I wrote;

[Early 18th century. Directly or via French pédestre from Latin -pedester- “going on foot,” from pes “foot.”]

Spanish; Pedestre (on foot; pedestrian).

branca (hand) used in the bihor region instead of "mana" (<Lat. branca).
I wrote;

[13th century. Via French branche from late Latin -branca- “paw,” possibly of Celtic origin. The underlying meaning was “limb.”]

Spanish; pata (paw, from french; [13th century. Via Old French powe , poue , poe from, ultimately, the prehistoric Germanic language.]

vintrish (crawling, creeping) <Lat. venter
[Mid-16th century. Directly or via law French and French ventre from Latin -venter- “belly.”]
I wrote;

Spanish; -estomogo- (stomach) {ultimately, Greek stomakhos “throat, gullet,” from stoma “mouth.”}

a custa (to live and, at the same time, to cause to live
"Zo te custe" (May God keep you).
I wrote;

Latin; -constare- “to stand together,” from stare “to stand”

SPANISH-constar; {{{de be clear from, be evident from; consist of; constar en be on record in; constar por be shown by; hacer constar record; certify; reveal that.}}}

jun'e (youngster-iuvenem-, instead of the more common
"tanar"(<Lat. tener

I wrote;

-Iuvenem- (old latin) juvenilis/juvenis (classical latin)

juventud (feminine youth; young people. )
joven (young, youthfull etc.)
juvenil (young; youthful; obra early)


prunc; used with the sense of "son"

Lat. -puerunculus-
Old latin;-puerunculus-

pueril (childish)
puerilidad (feminine puerility, childishness.)

So, it's evident. Spanish has Old Latin aswell, along with greek/german.
Luis Zalot   Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:19 pm GMT
S.P.Q.R ; "urbis et orbis written by Tantucci" thanks.

"Italian and spanish could have both inherited them and both developed them with the process of palatalization and fricativization of consonat and the corresponding reducing of the wovel quantity."

Thanks, it's odd how Italian & Spanish have this along with the other minor romance languages and portuguese as well. So that would 'mean' in a SENSE;

Italian/spanish/portuguese etc...from "old latin" "om/os"


Romanian/sardianian/sicilian/asturian from "classical latin "um/us"

"Om os are equivalent to um us." THEY do sound similar and are ALMOST pronounced the same.

S.P.Q.R (do you know any "old latin?" and if so could you place some pharses or words, again... thanks.)
Octavian   Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:20 pm GMT
to Senatus:

I never even mentioned Italian in my last post so why are you questioning whether I know it or not? How can you be so sure I don't know Italian?

Tu serios intelegi limba romana? tu ma intelegi pe mine acum? eu nu te cred.

I have the utmost respect for Italian linguists and all linguists just not for the ones that try to disproove that Romanian is the closest language to Latin in syntax for their own national pride.

I maintain that Romanian is closest grammatically to Latin or classical latin. Prove me wrong.
Sorin   Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:43 am GMT mai sunt singurul pe post de ambasador cultural!

O placere sa va cunosc - intelectuali de valoare, vizavi de analfabetii astia vestici, incababili de o conversatie in Engleza de baza. Sindromul "invazia-estica" se manifesta nu doar economic, dar si cultural. O fobie culturala -un boicot cultural.

Servus !
Aldo   Sat Mar 18, 2006 3:30 am GMT
Something for the kids....;)

Archaic Latin

Sources for studying the Archaic stage of Latin are rather scarce. Linguists define the time frame of the period from the 8th to the 5th century BC. Romans and citizens of other towns in Latium acquired the script in the 8th century from Italian Greeks whose colonies existed in Cumae and Neapolis, close to Rome. We will not describe the Roman script and its development in detail, but you can turn to a special page devoted to it (Roman Alphabet) instead. It seems that Etruscans who were at the time much more civilized than Italics gave them first skills in writing. But Latin people in fact did not use much of it, they were occupied by primitive agriculture and wrote no literature works. That is why inscriptions written on columns and walls of temples are the only thing left from Old Latin.

The earliest of them, as far as modern science has discovered, is the inscription on a fibula (a sort of a golden adornment) from Praeneste. It dates back from the late 7th century BC and reads the following:

Old-latin;Manios med fhe fhaked Numasioi
(Classical Latin; Manius me fecit Numerio)
(Spanish; Manio me hizo por numeros)
"Manius made me for Numerius"

Another quite ancient inscription is that found on the so called "black stone" which was found during archaeological works on the spot of the Roman forum. It is dated around 500 BC and reads:

quoi honc… sakros esed
(Classical qui hunc… sacer erit)

Other Archaic Latin inscriptions were written later and contain usually just a few words, mostly personal names, which is typical for ancient written examples. They were mostly written on burial stones, and only a few are official documents of the rising Roman Republic. Among them the most famous are the epitaphs of the Scipio family and the text of the Senate's order concerning temples of Bacchus in Rome.

The above mentioned documents allow us to get acquainted with the ancient stage of the Latin language, to understand better processes which were under way later. Archaic Latin stands much closer to the Proto-Indo-European stage. In phonetics, its major characteristic feature is the preservation of diphthongs, which were later partly simplified, partly disappeared. The examples are:

ai was preserved in cailavit, aire (spanish; aire & italian aria) (in classical Latin it turned to ae: caelavit, aer).

Latin words borrowed from Greek with this diphthong also made it ae (Thermopilae) au became long o in Classical Latin, though it was present in Archaic Latin: maurtia is the example (Latin mortis 'death')

ei also became a monophothong, long e in deus (Archaic Latin deivos);

another variant was long i in sive, si (Archaic Latin seive, sei 'if') (Spanish; "si" from C.L) & (Italian "se" from Old-latin)

oi changed its pronunciation to oe (Latin foederatio, Archaic Latin foideratei); this very oi turned to long u sound when in the beginning of the word: oino (spanish & italian; -uno-) 'one' becomes unus, una in Latin,

and the word comoinem (Classical Latin communem is the derivative from the same word unus with a prefix com- 'together', 'with')

Archaic Latin shows a strange diphthong which did not exist in Proto-Indo-European and was probably an Italic innovation: oe in coeravit 'he cured', Classical Latin form curavit with long u
again two different ways of reflection of the diphthong ou which existed in Archaic Latin met in the words iouestod, souad (Classical Latin developed u here) and cloulei (later oe)

The preservation of diphthongs is thus an archaic feature which later disappeared in the language. Oscan as the most conservative among Italic languages, preserved all them too, while Umbrian did not have the majority of them.

Archaic Latin phonetics used a number of other vowels which were changed in certain positions in the Classical period. But most of them were changed just due to assimilation processes:
a changed to e (Archaic Latin muliar, cuncaptum)
e to i (Archaic mereto, Classical merito 'by merits')
o to i (Archaic Primogenia, Classical Primigenia)

The letter u in Archaic Latin sometimes sounded a bit like modern German ue, and that is why could be replaced by i; later this sound coincided with original i. The example of this is Archaic lubs, Classical libens, liber (from IE *leudh- 'free people').

Old Latin consonants did not undergo those important changes we seen in the Classical period. Many original Italic phonemes sounded still archaic. For example, the initial b- in Latin bonus 'good, kind' originated from Archaic Latin dv- (dvenoi). Consonant sounds did not yet disappear in weak positions: like -v- between vowels in deivos 'a god', Latin deus. The final -d (which is quite important for the noun declension, because it was in the ablative singular ending) was still on its place; later it was dropped.

And one of the most significant features - Archaic Latin did not know the law of rhotacism, it preserved -s- between vowels (Numasioi > Nomerio, vetusia - Classical vetoria). This proves that rhotacism is not a Common Italic trait, it appeared rather late, but simultaneously in Latin and Umbrian (but not Oscan).

Other consonant changes are mostly kinds of assimilation (suepnos > somnus, adcedo > accedo, conquatsai > concussi)

Latin morphological system is the result of graduate simplification of the Indo-European original structure. The number of cases decreased, as well as the number of verbal grammar forms - moods, tenses, etc. Latin produced more analytic forms, which is typical for all Indo-European branches.

It's perhaps an NATURAL Phenomenon that Italian/spanish/portuguese and the rest of the minor romance languages incorporated "ARCHAIC OR OLD LATIN;" FORM OF WRITING ALONG SIDE WITH "CLASSICAL LATIN"
Sorin   Sat Mar 18, 2006 3:54 am GMT
Aldo, Hello my Latin brother !


Italian------------FratellO (are you surprised ? )
French----------- Frère
Portuguese------ Irmão

Why are you FRATERnizing with the trols ? Hope you got my irony…
Octavian   Sat Mar 18, 2006 3:58 am GMT
Sorin imi pare bine, eu nu cred ca vor sa inteleg sau sa accepta faptul ca limba romana este cea mai apropriata de Latina, si vorba ta, sunt speriati de est. Eu cred ca ei sunt copii care nu pot accepta adevoru ca le sperie, dar asta este.

O placere sa te cunosc si la revedere,
Guest   Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:02 am GMT
The "O"s sorin, come from "Archaic" Latin as DEPICTED.

Enough with your "childish" remarks or slapsticks remarks.

for example;

Archaic-latin;Manios med fhe fhaked Numasioi
Classical Latin; Manius me fecit Numerio)
Spanish; Manio me hizo por numeros)
"Manius made me for Numerius"
another variant was long i in sive, si
Archaic Latin -sei- 'if') (Spanish; "si" from C.L) & (Italian "se" from Old-latin)
ai was preserved in cailavit, aire (in classical Latin it turned to ae: caelavit, aer).
archaic latin; aire
spanish; aire
italian; aria
classical latin; aer

spanish & italian; -uno-
Classical latin; unus

etc......enough already.
Sorin   Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:08 am GMT
Draga Octavian, eu sunt in strainatate, din pacate, dar sunt originar din Hunedoara.

Apropo, acest sindrom "invazia-estica" va disparea in timp. Boicotul cultural este present doar in acest forum (nu exista un sistem de autentificare cu parola) promovand boicoturi si impersonalizari. Alte forumuri lingvistice cu (parola si admin) sunt mai educate acceptand si vaforizand Limba Romana.

Sanatate si numai bine,
augustin717   Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:25 am GMT
Da avem oare nevoie ca romana sa fie favorizata?
Baiu nu-i ca nu-i favorizata, ci ca nu-i prost cunoscuta .
augustin717   Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:27 am GMT
Ar fi trebuit sa pun un "decat" inainte de "prost".
Aldo   Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:44 am GMT
Archaic Latin; is from —75 B.C and earlier. And they end their words END with:"Om/Os"

Classical Latin; chosed to end them with "Um/Us" (75 BC – 1st c.)

Spanish/Italian/Portuguese has inherited or incorporated it from "archaic" latin.

Romanian/Sicilian/Sardinian/Asturian have inherited from "classical" Latin.

although..Asturian perserved the "o" for the "speaker" when referencing himself example;

Eo entro (singular, refering to 'I') I enter

Nos(altros) entramus (plural, more then one.) We other enter
Octavian   Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:52 am GMT
da ma Augustin am inteles oricum. dar astia nu vrea ma efectiv nu vrea sa accepta adevaru. poti sai spui orice si sai presinti cu evidenta, dar ai doare in cur, pardon, dar asta este.

ceau la toti romani de pe forum