Why do some people consider Romanian a Slavic language?

Sorinescu-Ceausescu   Thu Jun 21, 2007 3:27 pm GMT
I don't like it when people think that Romnaian is a Slavic language. It is an insult. It makes me realllllly maaaaad!!!!!
João   Fri Jun 22, 2007 10:20 am GMT
Romanian is the most eastern remain of the Latin language. In fact Romania's name ressembles itself of Rome the Roman Empire. That's why romanians are considered latins too, because they share the same linguistic culture as the other sisters languages in the West. One thing I'm not sure is their ethnic origin, maybe someone could help me out in this one. Are romanians from slavic origin? Thank you
Guest   Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:43 am GMT
Romanian are NOT Latin, you wish
Another Guest   Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:59 am GMT
The Romanians are slavs, the slavs are greeks, the greeks are albanians, the albanians are turks, the turks are italians, the italians are arabs, the arabs are jews the jews are humans and you Guest, are just another individual full of hate, lacking of education and of...everything related to that...tehn ofcourse, not busy enough 'cause you are not able to do anything but clamping the mouth on languages forums.

You are pathetic!
Amalampere   Fri Jun 22, 2007 2:00 pm GMT
I don't want it to have slavic influence, but this is the truth. Romanian have more words in common with slavic languages than with Albanian. But this doesn't mean that Romanian is slavic. Romanian have more words in common with e.g. Italian than with any slavic language. The grammar also is very important. Disregarding the vocative there is no slavic influence in Romanian grammar.
Alba   Fri Jun 22, 2007 2:05 pm GMT
@ Amalampere: still your capital Bucuresti in Albanian Bukuri means beautiful so you cant say there is no connection. There is some. In fact I wouldnt be surprised if Albanian has also Italian influence since we have a lot of words in common like tavolina, makina, etc. and plus its easy for Albanians to learn Italian.
Amalampere   Fri Jun 22, 2007 2:29 pm GMT
I agree with you regarding Bucuresti. Bucuresti is from a proper name Bucur related to "bucurie"("joy"), "a se bucura"( "to enjoy"), which Albanian also have, but with other meaning. Any Romanian learns at school that there are some so called "dacian" words in language, in common with Albanian, like mazare, manz, varza etc., but they are few. There are other words in common with Albanian, but Albanian took them directly from Latin or from Romanian. Regarding the names of animals how you say in Albanian to "urs"("bear"), "lup" ("wolf"), "vulpe"("fox") etc. ? Like "iepure", "peste", "cal" they are also from Latin, but I'm sure that Albanian doesn't have these words...
Xavier   Thu Jul 26, 2007 12:03 am GMT
Es indudable que la lengua rumana es latina, pese a las numerosas palabras eslavas, turcas y griegas que contiene. En cuanto a la gente, tienen algo de teatral y de sensual como los italianos, ya sea en política, en su vida cotidiana o simplemente en la forma de hablar y gesticular, el viajero no hallará este tipo de rasgos en ninguna otra parte de Europa oriental."
furrykef   Thu Jul 26, 2007 2:38 am GMT
Translation of Xavier's post:

"It's doubtless that the Romanian language is Latinate, despite the numerous Slavic, Turkish, and Greek words it has. As for the people, they have something dramatic and sensuous about them like the Italians, whether it is in politics, everyday life, or simply in the manner of speaking and gesturing. A traveler will not encounter such characteristics in any other part of Eastern Europe."

(One part of the translation I'm not 100% sure about is "they have something dramatic and sensuous about them like the Italians", but the general sense of the post should be clear.)

- Kef
Sorinescu Ceausescu   Thu Jul 26, 2007 12:38 pm GMT
Most people consider Romanian to be a Slavic language because it is in Eastern Europe, where all of the other Slavic languages are spoken. It is a fact that prior to the mid 19th century, the people of what is now called "Romania" spoke a predominantly Slavic language with about 20 to 25% of the words emanating from Latin. Since the 1850's, remarkable efforts have been made to Re-Latinize Romanian to make it somewhat resemble the Western Romance Languages.
furrykef   Thu Jul 26, 2007 2:09 pm GMT
Do you have a source to back that up?
Marc   Thu Jul 26, 2007 2:42 pm GMT
In years about 1000, Romanians and Bulgarians had the same state. The Eastern Roman emperor called it The Empire of Vlacho-Bulgarians, recognising for a sort period of time as Emperor the rebel Ioan Asen, a Vlach dude and naming him a defender of Orthodox Christian cause. Also Bulgarians introduced the official religion texts and forced Romanian to use Slavic words for an institutionalised church. Regarding this, the so-called re-latinization of Romanian language from XIX century was, actually, a "restituito in integrum" act, regarding the Romance language of Romanians
Guest   Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:35 pm GMT
just people of the association of the country with its geographical situation in eastern Europe, while all other latin countries are in western Europe.
Sorinescu Ceausescu   Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:44 pm GMT
"the so-called re-latinization of Romanian language from XIX century was, actually, a "restituito in integrum" act, regarding the Romance language o Romanians". There you go. You just admitted it. The truth comes out. Romanian WAS, in fact, re-latinized.
Sorinescu Ceausescu   Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:02 pm GMT
A Latinate, Romance language in Eastern Europe is like having a Slavic, or Asiatic language being spoken in Western Europe. It doesn't jive. It don't make sense. It's like putting ketchup on ice cream. It doesn't go. A Romance language certainly existed in Ancient Dacia. However, too much history happened since the Romans pulled out way back in remote antiquity. Anybody who tells me that a Romance language evolved naturally from Latin (like it did in Western Europe) anywhere in Eastern Europe is full of poop.