Romanian, oldest european language - new developments

Rudiger   Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:30 pm GMT
A lot of scientists, linguists, archaeologists, historians etc. are considering that 8,500 years ago, Romania was the heart of the old European civilization. The new archaeological discoveries from Tartaria, (Romania), showed up written plates older than the Sumerian ones. More and more researches and studies converged to the conclusion that the Europeans are originated in a single place, the lower Danube basin. Down there, at Schela and Cladova in Romania have been discovered proves of the first European agricultural activities which appear to be even older than 10,000 years.

Out of 60 scientifically works which are covering this domain, 30 of them localize the primitive origins of the man-kind in Europe, where 24 of them are localizing this origin in the actual Romania, (Carpathian- Danubian area); 10 are indicating western Siberia, 5 Jutland and/or actual Germany room, 4 for Russia, 4 for some Asian territories, 1 for actual France area and all these recognisied despite against the huge pride of those nations.

Jean Carpantier, Guido Manselli, Marco Merlini, Gordon Childe, Marija Gimbutas, Yannick Rialland, M. Riehmschneider, Louis de la Valle Poussin, Olaf Hoekman, John Mandis, William Schiller, Raymond Dart, Lucian Cuesdean, Sbierea, A. Deac, George Denis, Mattie M.E., N. Densuseanu, B.P. Hajdeu, P Bosch, W. Kocka, Vladimir Gheorghiev, H. Henchen, B.V. Gornung, V Melinger, E. Michelet, A. Mozinski, W. Porzig, A. Sahmanov, Hugo Schmidt, W. Tomaschek, F.N. Tretiacov are among the huge number of specialists which consider Romania the place of otehr Europeans origines and Romanian the oldest language in Europe, older even than Sanskrit.

According to the researchers and scientists, the Latin comes from the old Romanian (or Thracian) and not vice versa. The so called "slave" words are in fact pure Romanian words. The so called vulgar Latin is in fact old Romanian, or Thracian language, according to the same sources...

The arguments sustaining the theories from above are very numerous and I don't want to go into them so deeply as long as the forum is and has to remain one languages dedicated, to.

In the limits of the language, please allow me to present a list of just a few (out of thousands of words), which are very similar/ even identical in Romanian and Sanskrit:

Romanian

numerals : unu, doi, trei, patru, cinci, sase, sapte...100=suta

Sanskrit

numerals: unu, dvi, tri, ciatru, penci, sas, saptan...100 = satan

then Romanian Sanskrit

acasa acasha (at home)

acu acu (now)

lup lup ( wolf)

a iubi (considered slave) iub (love)

frate vrate (brother)

camera camera (room)

limba lamba (tongue)

nepot napat (neffew)

mandru mandra (proud)

lupta lupta (fight)

pandur pandur (infanterist)

nevasta navasti (wife)

prieten prietema (friend)

pranz prans (lunch time)

Ruman Ramana (Romanian)

saptamana saptnahan (week)

struguri strughuri (grapes)

vale vale (valley)

vadana vadana (widow)

a zambi dzambaiami (to smile)

umbra dumbra (shadow)

om om (man-kind)

dusman dusman (enemy)

a invata invati (to study)

a crapa crapaiami (to break something)

naiba naiba (evil)

apa apa (water) and not AQUA like in Latin. It looks like aqua came from apa and not the other way around...

and so on for more than thousand situations...

According to M. Gimbutas, the confusion Roman (Romanian as in original language) = Roman (ancient Rom citizen), is generated by the fact that Romans and Romanians have been the same nation, the same people. The Dacians/Thracians and Romans have been twins. The illiterate peasants called Romanians, Ruman and not Roman. Why do they call so? Because RU-MANI, RA-MANI, RO-MANI, API, APULI, DACI and MAN-DA , VAL-AH are all synonyms expressing the person from the river banc or from the river valley. APII could be found under the form of mez-APPI in the ancient Italy, under he same name as the APPULI Dacians. APU-GLIA, (or Glia Romanilor in Romanian - Romanian land) can be found with this meaning only in Romanian (Glia= land)

In the Southern side of Italian "booth" exists the first neolitical site of Italy and it is called MOL-feta. The name itself has Romanian names, according to Guido A. Manselli: MOL-tzam (popular Thank you), MUL-tumire (satisfaction), na-MOL (mud); MOL-dova (province and river in Romania, Za-MOL-xis, Dacian divinity. Manselli said that this archaeological sit is 7,000 years old and has a balcanic feature.

I came up with this topic just to hear decent opinions and not banalities like those of a few days ago when while surfing for a language forum, I read all kind of suburban interventions. This topic is for people whith brain only.

As a German myself, I was pure and simple stunned by the childish commentaries regarding German Language given by some individuals, yesterday. I hope, I won't generate anything like that today...if that will happen, I sugest to the moderators to delete it.

What do you think, are you ready to take the challenge and carry on a nice discussion on this topic or I have to look for another place for it?

What do you say about these new (for me - although the theory appears to be known for long time - it has been said that Vatican preserves some secrets about the origins of us all - information obtained in the moment of St Sofia church devastation, in Constantinople, when the churches separation took place).
Josh Lalonde   Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:06 pm GMT
This is pseudo-science. Romanian descends from Vulgar Latin and is therefore no older than French, Spanish, Italian, etc.
Rudiger   Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:06 pm GMT
Ok, but how do you explain the similarities between Sanskrit and Romanian? How do you explain the existence of the old written plates, (the age expertise was done by specialists by using the latest techniques)?

I'm afraid, it is too simple to say it is only pseudo-science! When Herodotus said that, approximated cite: " after the nation of Indians, the Thracians are the most numerous people in the world" how could they and their language, disappear so quick?
Then, when the from the former Dacia (which was almost in the same limits as the actual Romania) was occupied by the Romans only 14%, how could the biggest majority of people , the free Thracians learn the vulgar Latin so fast, in only 200 years ? Britain was under Romans for over 400 years and that latinisation 'wonder" never took place. It must bee something more than that. I"m sorry but I can not resume myself at such a simple explanation - pseudo-science! I don't believe in Thracians extermination when I know for the fact that they where fierce worriers, against whom the ersten Deutschen have suffered a lot. Read "die ersten Deustchen" and see there how dangerous was to fail in conflict with the Thracians. I don't believe that these guys who hated so much the Romans because of country occupation, would accept to learn and speak their language.

There is a lot of scientific work out there and so many proves which simple don't make sense considering the actual Romanians the result of Romans and Thracians combination. The Thracians in that time where so many that they could rise an armies of 200,000 man. Not even the Romans could put together so many people on a front line... That's an enigma for me!
JLK   Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:06 pm GMT
Respectfully, what do archaeological digs have to do with languages? There are native American artifacts that predate anything in Europe by thousands of years. Is English now the oldest European language? And realistically, who cares which European language is the oldest? God knows it isn't Romanian, anyways. The only people I've met who believe that are a fundamentalist lot of Romanian nationalist. I find it very odd that a "German" is talking about this...
Josh Lalonde   Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:09 pm GMT
<<Ok, but how do you explain the similarities between Sanskrit and Romanian?>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages
Rudiger   Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:38 am GMT
JLK,

Who cares anything about any language then if I had to follow your way of thinking? It was just a simple topic and nothing else. I don't understand why are you so irritated by that. I'm sorry, I understood too late that your are not ready for a discussion about languages. And why is odd to be a german and discuss about Romanian? I really don't understand you and if you cannot overcome potensiall resentiments which you might have against Romanians (or maybe germans, I don't know), we can not have any conversation therefore, the only thing I can say is that it was only my fault coming on this forum and I deeply regret it!

Good bye and have a happy new year!
Guest   Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:14 am GMT
Every nation's nationalistic pseudo intelectuals has come with a similar theory or two, claiming that their nation is the oldest in the world. So nothing new there.
JLK   Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:19 pm GMT
<<JLK,

Who cares anything about any language then if I had to follow your way of thinking? It was just a simple topic and nothing else. I don't understand why are you so irritated by that. I'm sorry, I understood too late that your are not ready for a discussion about languages. And why is odd to be a german and discuss about Romanian? I really don't understand you and if you cannot overcome potensiall resentiments which you might have against Romanians (or maybe germans, I don't know), we can not have any conversation therefore, the only thing I can say is that it was only my fault coming on this forum and I deeply regret it!

Good bye and have a happy new year!>>

Now, no reason to get offended, mate. I had reason to be suspicious. This is not the first time something like this has been posted and it is usually done to provoke. I have never seen this topic discussed with any legitimate linguistic interests, so I was questioning your motives and your logic. The latter was particularly poor, so I find it amusing that you attack my reasoning. Just because Romania perhaps hosted Europe's oldest civilization does not in any way prove the language survives. You are too emotional and irrational. I don't resent anyone least of all you. I simply question whether it was a profound interest in languages that lead you to discuss this topic. I'm still in doubt...Any linguist would tell thee that Romanian is a descendant of vulgar Latin and is therefore one of the youngest languages in Europe. No archaeological dig is going to change that.
JLK   Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:23 pm GMT
And about the similarities between Sanskrit and Romanian. There are other languages in Europe that are much closer to Sanskrit than Romanian. Check out the Baltic languages, for example. You seem too emotional to be a German. Trivia question....What was Hitler's favorite city in Germany? Every German would know this...
Guest   Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:51 pm GMT
JLK do you think some peopleS are more emotional than others? In my view, some individuals may be more or less emotional than others, not a whole people, That's because I'm not a racist!
JLK   Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:56 pm GMT
Yes, I do. It's not a matter of racism,but, cultural differences. Take a man or woman off the streets of Madrid and then take a manor woman off the streets of Moscow. You will notice a vast different in emotional expression.
guest   Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:23 pm GMT
<<Any linguist would tell thee that Romanian is a descendant of vulgar Latin>>

"thee"???
guest   Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:26 pm GMT
<<Yes, I do. It's not a matter of racism,but, cultural differences. Take a man or woman off the streets of Madrid and then take a manor woman off the streets of Moscow. You will notice a vast different in emotional expression.>>

There is a grain of truth in this, as in all stereotypes. Not 100% truth, but an element, otherwise 1. the stereotype would not have been created, and 2. it would not continue to exist.

Please don't argue over trivial stuff...in the end, you will have 1. failed to convince the other, and 2. still hold to your own beliefs
Rudiger   Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:59 pm GMT
You made me laugh! To test my quality of being a German counts more the answer to a naive question than a statement made by me, as a human being. You must have had many bad experiences with people to lose the trust in them, to became so suspicious. I still don't get it why you wonder so much if a German expresses a curiosity about Romania and its language...I simple don't get it, I am sincerely sorry about that!
I might miss something but let me have doubts thinking that the other forumists while speaking about Spanish , French, Russian or German, are only people of those specific nationalities...I assume that there could also be chineses or an jamaicans who would express opinions about a foreign language. What is wrong with that? I still have difficulties understanding you logic... I'm sorry man but that's how I feel...

I am too emotional for being German? That's another interesting assumtion...How many German do you really know or how many do you met in your life? What kind of Germans did you meet? Have you ever been on a german forum to see the decency of conversation, even during contradictions?

Then, we are as different personalities as every other people but judging us with prejudice made me understand that you and you forum mate, Josh Lallonde cannot detach yourselves from subjective judgements and conclusions. That was not what I was trying to obtain entering your forum. I came here hopping on obtaining reliable opinions, (at least a single one), regarding the topic from above.

I'm an engineer, not a linguist, nor a historian but I like history very much and because it happened to read about this hypotheses, (that we all Europeans might have been originated in actual Romania), I found it very interesting and also very possible. I cited many authors (majority of them are not Romanians, I guess), which sustain the theory that Romanian language is not of Latin origin but vice versa.

I have a totally different way of approaching theories or hypoteses. I start by credinting them and then, under researches and analyses of what is possible and what is not, I eventually get to a conclusion. I'm still working on the subject from above, I cannot take your or Josh's recommendation (wikippedia - very poor source of information), for grant. It is too simple, too superficial!

By seeing your interventions and the quality of answers, I already made up my conclusion about the quality of the forum. I don't want to upset anybody but I'm not used to have such discussions, to give so many explanations, in fact for what?.

You said that a German cannot react like me...hmm! You must have a very bad perception about us. No, sir! The Germans are very civilized in general and conversations in special and my reaction against your answer was not an emotional one (although, it could very well be, I'm like everybody else too), but an observation towards your way of making statments. I don't understand why somebody expresses an opinion when doesn't have much to say, or when his/her answer is based on subjectivism, only.

Your reaction was exactly like the ones of those who are contradicting the existence of God. They limit themselves at a simple statement: God doesn't exist and pretend from the others to accept it. Well, you have to understand that it doesn't work this way. You have to prove concrete, what you sustain. If God doesn't exist, why are we putting this question, then? Maybe because we are not sure? Maybe because we have doubts about that? If Got doesn't exist, shouldn't represent any subject of discussion, in the first place. We discuss though about him, because we have doubts. Exactly the same situation is with Romanian language. I rose a question because there are reasons for it. Somebody out there made us look at the things from another perspective... and why should we refuse it?

Finally, to answer to your "funny test" question, please read the answer below. But don't even ask it somebody else again, because it is not in your advantage, believe me. There are millions of Germans out there who don't know which was Hitler's preferred town - and you won't look too good asking it!

Answer:
Berchtesgaden (surrounded by Bavarian Alps)
That's all! Bye, bye!
Rudiger   Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:00 pm GMT
I'm sorry , the posting from above was for JLK