Is this Romanian?

Maybe Romanian is closer to Classic Latin, but not to Vulgar Latin.


>>>>I am the one who posted this and I am from North America -- I studied Latin in 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th grades -- thanks a lot. To someone who has probably studied Latin for more years than many or most of you posting here (and also was paid by my school to tutor other students in Latin), Romanian startlingly resembles Latin. I was shocked somewhat because I had never seen it without its weird accent marks before.<<<<

The startling part is that you actually studied Latin all those years and know nothing about Romance languages, or how it evolved.
In that situation, and if I were you, I wouldn't be so quick to advertise my own skills.

>>Maybe Romanian is closer to Classic Latin, but not to Vulgar Latin.<<

How? Please explain. Classical Latin was NEVER in daily use; be that, that plebeians never spoke Classical Latin but Vulgar Latin. Classical Latin was only a language in writting used by the Roman elite.

>>How? Please explain. Classical Latin was NEVER in daily use; be that, that plebeians never spoke Classical Latin but Vulgar Latin. Classical Latin was only a language in writting used by the Roman elite. <<

Many Romanian words, unlike other Romance languages, descend from Classical Latin, and not Vulgar Latin, especially their meanings.
Probably because Romania was independent sooner from the Roman Empire.

As you may or not know, who decides/ controls the language "rules" and grammar is the elite or educated people, not the plebeians. It doesn't matter if Classical Latin was never used daily.

>>>Many Romanian words, unlike other Romance languages, descend from Classical Latin, and not Vulgar Latin, especially their meanings.
Probably because Romania was independent sooner from the Roman Empire.<<<

How do you know what you state is true? Do you have documents to support this? I mean, in the 1850s your language transformed drastically from mostly Slavic to mostly Latin just because some Italian visitors declared it a Latin derivative on their voyage to E. Europe. So how does anybody know...if it were not the scholars / linguists / clergy in Romania who'd modified the Romanian language to their liking?

List some words you say are not in the other Romance languages.

>>>As you may or not know, who decides/ controls the language "rules" and grammar is the elite or educated people, not the plebeians. It doesn't matter if Classical Latin was never used daily.<<<

The plebeians ALWAYS decide the fate of any language. The elite in those times didn't care whether their subjects commanded Classical Latin or Koine Greek - all they cared was if they tilled the land correctly, and paid taxes daily, and stayed loyal. Plus, the oldest Romanian document is from around the 16th century ergo your language is still obscured at best to validate its authenthicity. As a result Classical Latin was never practical nor used in the daily life of commoners.

>>The plebeians ALWAYS decide the fate of any language. The elite in those times didn't care whether their subjects commanded Classical Latin or Koine Greek - all they cared was if they tilled the land correctly, and paid taxes daily, and stayed loyal. Plus, the oldest Romanian document is from around the 16th century ergo your language is still obscured at best to validate its authenthicity. As a result Classical Latin was never practical nor used in the daily life of commoners. >>

Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about.
First, how do you know if my language is Romanian or not? But if you look for the origins of some Romanian words, they descend from Classical Latin. No special document is needed to know that. Just look around and compare.

Then, if you know history and the history of some colonizer countries, you'll understand how they cared about language and imposed some use of the language no matter if people back then were mostly illiterate. That's why many times what's teached in school isn't a 100% match of what's talked on the streets, but again, that doesn't matter because commoners do NOT decide anything. Never did.

>>>Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about.
First, how do you know if my language is Romanian or not? But if you look for the origins of some Romanian words, they descend from Classical Latin. No special document is needed to know that. Just look around and compare.<<<

Romanian is an ambiguous language. Romanian has borrowed extensively from the other Romance languages since the 1850s, changed its orthography as well and even diluted some of its Slavic words. Strangely enough, nowadays it is borrowing a lot of words from English as a side note. So how can one really know? Eh? There has to be documents in order to authenticate its originality.

>>>Then, if you know history and the history of some colonizer countries, you'll understand how they cared about language and imposed some use of the language no matter if people back then were mostly illiterate. That's why many times what's teached in school isn't a 100% match of what's talked on the streets, but again, that doesn't matter because commoners do NOT decide anything. Never did.<<<

Dacia at the time of its sovereignty was not governed by any strong religious entity or empire within its country as it was a community which resided in the mountains. As a result, the people would have absorbed many words from the Slavs, Greeks and Turks which they ended doing until the 1850s when they -the people- abruptly decided to change its orthography, wordage and grammar to that of Latin. The people decide.

I agree with most of the message above except this part:
>>Romanian is an ambiguous language. Romanian has borrowed extensively from the other Romance languages since the 1850s, changed its orthography as well and even diluted some of its Slavic words. Strangely enough, nowadays it is borrowing a lot of words from English as a side note.<<

It's not a shame to change something of your own if the change expresses your identity. Other languages underwent similar reformations and it seems that nobody reproaches their present speakers as much as Romanians are reproached today for *their* language reformation.

In a reasonable debate this matter should never be brought up as an argument or counterargument.

As for the English words, there are not many English loans in Romanian, and most of the recent loans are related to various technologies, in cases where it's hard and ineffective to invent Romanian translations.

>>>It's not a shame to change something of your own if the change expresses your identity. Other languages underwent similar reformations and it seems that nobody reproaches their present speakers as much as Romanians are reproached today for *their* language reformation.<<<

Other languages didn't change so drastically as did Romanian.

>>>In a reasonable debate this matter should never be brought up as an argument or counterargument.<<<

It should always be brought up as this is fundamental.

>>>As for the English words, there are not many English loans in Romanian, and most of the recent loans are related to various technologies, in cases where it's hard and ineffective to invent Romanian translations.<<<

Uhh...yeah they do. In Romania is not strange nor uncommon to hear 'honey bun' as an example.

>>>It should always be brought up as this is fundamental. <<<

The fact that Romanians held their ground and stood countless invasions for 1500 years after Romans left Dacia is much more fundamental than the language reformation they did in the 18th century. That should be named reparation of the language, not reformation neither revision.

Romanians didn't invite any of the expansive or vagabond nations around to their villages. So judge first those who changed the Old/Proto-Romanian language, not the Romanians of 1850's who wanted back its Latin spirit.

The guy who said Romanian has Classical Latin as its background was wrong and your argument about Vulgar Latin was valid. As he didn't give any examples, why did you bring up the 1850 in the discussion?

>>>Uhh...yeah they do. In Romania is not strange nor uncommon to hear 'honey bun' as an example.<<<

What's that 'honey bun'? I guess a product labeled by a foreign enterprise -- I don't know it. So was pizza, champagne, strudel, eclair, etc. Big deal!
You can't say Romanians replaced "miere" by "honey" and "paine" by "bun".

Romanian sounds like Esperanto
don't like it at all

>>>The fact that Romanians held their ground and stood countless invasions for 1500 years after Romans left Dacia is much more fundamental than the language reformation they did in the 18th century. That should be named reparation of the language, not reformation neither revision.<<<

Where is your proof / evidence? Many Empires conquered the Romanian people evidence was seen in its language although now many words have been erased from it vocabulary to say otherwise - what you are saying. Reparation? Give us a break - more like a revival of a glimpse past.

>>>Romanians didn't invite any of the expansive or vagabond nations around to their villages. So judge first those who changed the Old/Proto-Romanian language, not the Romanians of 1850's who wanted back its Latin spirit.<<<

Many of the locals refuse the Latin spirit as many of them in rural areas or surrounding the capital use more Slavic or non-latin derived words.

>>>The guy who said Romanian has Classical Latin as its background was wrong and your argument about Vulgar Latin was valid. As he didn't give any examples, why did you bring up the 1850 in the discussion?<<<

Thanks. Well, this is a forum regarding languages; obviously that date marks the uprising of Latin derivatives being introduced into the language. Plus...how does anybody know those scholars, clergy or linguists who implanted and erased Slavic (and other languages) did not purposely try to make Romanian look more conservative to Latin.

>>>What's that 'honey bun'? I guess a product labeled by a foreign enterprise -- I don't know it. So was pizza, champagne, strudel, eclair, etc. Big deal! You can't say Romanians replaced "miere" by "honey" and "paine" by "bun". <<<

In Spanish for example you will never hear a Latin-American or Spaniard say "Honey Bun" but "pan dulce / pan meloso" or something along those lines. It does not surprise me either that Italian and French also, tend to use English words now (more often) then in the past.

Hai ma nene nu mai cauta acu' in caru' cu fan. Painea e dulce de obicei, ar fi aiurea sa zici si "paine cu miere" ca oricine poate sa faca paine cu miere. Tai felii de paine si pui miere pe ele, ce mare smecherie?
Pe de alta parte "honey bun" indica un produs, la fel ca pepsi sau cico... si vezi nu ma enerva ca acu'ti zic bancul cu cico :)))