Romania and romanian language - Historum

**Perix** · May 5th, 2012, 04:52 AM

Here, we can argue about this subject which oftenly derails other threads, due to trash nationalistic history in east and central Europe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mosquito

So the alphabet was latinised together with language, latin letters replaced cyrrilic and latin/french words replaced slavonic words. And both happend in the same time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ficino

Not at all. Read the pages in the book by Paul of Aleppo whose link I posted above. BTW, this is Romanian language from 1675: http://ro.wikisource.org/wiki/Letopi...ă_încoace (transliterated into Latin alphabet), any Romanian speaker can see for himself how much the language has been ("intentionally" or not) changed (i.e. I understand without problems the text just being a native speaker of CONTEMPORARY Romanian).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mosquito

What I would like to know is:

1. Where from come informations that in the XIX century 50 % of Romanian vocabulary was of slavic origin and now only 14 % is

2. Who and why did name your state "Romania". Such country never existed before. I guess there was an option that it will be named "Dacia" right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ficino

1. This is clearly anti-Romanian propaganda written by some "friendly" neighbours. Look at who writes such propaganda and try to understand which is their aim. Count my friend from which language originate the most words from a 1675 Romanian book. Do you want links to other XVII-XVIIIth century Romanian books, to count the words' origin from there also?

2. It was named so because we call ourselves "Romanians". Look at how refers to us and to our language Miron Costin in "De neamul Moldovenilor" (De neamul moldovenilor - Wikisource), written approx. in 1687. Read just the first paragraph. Look at how is called Wallachia in the oldest Romanian text we still have, written in 1521 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neacșu's_letter), "Ţeara Rumănească" somehow?

**Perix** · May 5th, 2012, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mosquito

1. Where from come informations that in the XIX century 50 % of Romanian vocabulary was of slavic origin and now only 14 % is

You tell us! Probably from slavic trash nationalist books. Some archaic words indeed, dissapeared, but no way to a such level. On the other hand, not only slavic words became obsolete, also latin. For example, for "soup", the latin "zama" was replaced by turkish "tchorba". For "dragon", the latin "drac", was replaced by the slavic "zmeu", etc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mosquito

2. Who and why did name your state "Romania". Such country never existed before. I guess there was an option that it will be named "Dacia" right?

Ficino answered you: valachians called themselves rumani or romani. Maybe would been rightful Rumania, but they choosen Romania. In some regions, they called themselves romani(romȃni, Romȃnia sounds different from Romania)
"Moldovénii mainte de Dragoș-vodă să chema vlahi sau rumâni de la Rîm" - "the moldavians before Dragos voivod, were called valachians or rumani from Rome"-Miron Costin, if you have some doubts about moldavians...
Personally I'd prefer Dacia, but valachians were called dacians only ocasionaly by some german or bizantine authors, never by themselves. Finally, those dacians becomed after 106(or after Commodus), romans

**Perix** · May 5th, 2012, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mosquito

So the alphabet was latinised together with language, latin letters replaced cyrrilic and latin/french words replaced slavonic words. And both happend in the same time.

you're ridiculous....

Ficino · May 5th, 2012, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perix

You tell us! Probably from slavic trash nationalist books. Some archaic words indeed, dissapeared, but no way to a such level. On the other hand, not only slavic words became obsolete, also latin. For example, for "soup", the latin "zama" was replaced by turkish "tchorba". For "dragon", the latin "drac", was replaced by the slavic "zmeu", etc

Ficino answered you: valachians called themselves rumani or romani. Maybe would been rightful Rumania, but they choosen Romania. In some regions, they called themselves romani(romȃni, Romȃnia sounds different from Romania)
"Moldovénii mainte de Dragoș-vodă să chema vlahi sau rumâni de la Rîm" - "the moldavians before Dragos voivod, were called valachians or rumani from Rome"-Miron Costin, if you have some doubts about moldavians...
Personally I'd prefer Dacia, but valachians were called dacians only ocasionaly by some german or bizantine authors, never by themselves. Finally, those dacians becomed after 106(or after Commodus), romans

Why Dacia if we call ourselves "români", and not "Dacians"? We are Vlachs/Romanians

Vlachs

(not "Romans" and not "Dacians", but "români", a still existing people with many influences and with our own contemporary culture, not an ancient one from 2000 years ago). Our country is not called "Rome", but "România".

**Midas** · May 5th, 2012, 09:13 AM

I am actually interested in seeing a presentation on the Romanian language first. I don't know from what derailed thread this came and I don't really care. I believe Romanian language deserves a thread of its own as a presentation.

Hit it!

Ficino · May 5th, 2012, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midas

I am actually interested in seeing a presentation on the Romanian language first. I don't know from what derailed thread this came and I don't really care. I believe Romanian language deserves a thread of its own as a presentation.

Hit it!

Please, can you be more specific, what you mean by "presentation"?

Ficino · May 5th, 2012, 09:24 AM

BTW, are you Aromanian somehow? I could recommend you some very interesting books. Myself I have some relatively close Greek-Aromanian ancestry on my mother's side, though personally I don't speak Aromanian (my great-grandfather did).
EDIT: Sorry, I made a mistake, I falsely recalled that the books I was referring are in English, but they are in fact in Romanian. Anyway, they are to be found here: http://proiectavdhela.ro/.
EDIT AGAIN: no, they are in different languages, but mainly Romanian, it is true. Just look.

**Perix** · May 5th, 2012, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midas

I am actually interested in seeing a presentation on the Romanian language first. I don't know from what derailed thread this came and I don't really care. I believe Romanian language deserves a thread of its own as a presentation.

Hit it!

Romanian language is a language spoken by romanians;

Romanian_language

But would be very interesting to find your oppinion about.

And I have some aromanian roots too, but much older(probably from 18 cnt)

**Perix** · May 5th, 2012, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mosquito

What I would like to know is:

1. Where from come informations that in the XIX century 50 % of Romanian vocabulary was of slavic origin and now only 14 % is

On the other hand, the answer may lay in your own post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mosquito

It is possible and probable that Slavs simply assimilated all the people on the way of their migrations.

Even you claim polish are not adepts of panslavism, is clear you are unconsciently. The panslavist authors preached the greatness of slavs. Thus, they issued the ideea that nobody resisted from asimilation in the slavs way. But the existence of romanians(a non slavic speakers people) would contradict their claim. So, they issued the ideea, based on the speculations of Scoala Ardeleana attempts, that romanians were also slavs, but they swithched to latin. Peculiary romanians had to be depicted as slavs: panslavicts preachen the "holly" war against pagan otomans. But, despite pompous depictions of the slavs battles against turks, the very majority of those battles were...defeats. The only nation who realy could claim clear several great victories against turks are...romanians. I hate to praise this, but in front of these perfid attacks against romanians and their language, i think it is a neccessity-the modesty is obsolete

**Midas** · May 5th, 2012, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ficino

Please, can you be more specific, what you mean by "presentation"?

I meant like a historical summary, so that people can have an idea when reading this thread. I am actually interested in Dacian substratum in Romanian to be precise. I have read several things about it in the past.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ficino

BTW, are you Aromanian somehow?

Not from what I know for certain, but I suspect there's a small chance that some people in my grandfathers family 150 years ago might have been Aromanians. The region I come from has some Aromanian villages, so I would not dismiss a possibility of intermarriage.

I know people who are though. However, they grew up in urban regions and do not speak aromanian.