Aromanians in Greece, Albania and Bulgaria

Psellos

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
2,666
the Polis
Purely abstract talking again, try to read some serious books on the subject. BTW, letting aside the information which I already provided in this thread and others similar, as you like to quote Byzantine authors, did you read Laonikos Chalkokondyles' (Laonikos Chalkokondyles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) Proofs of Histories? About Romanians see especially 77-78, the Aromanians are mentioned at 34,35 and 319,35. For those interested, the Romanian translation is available at dacoromanica.ro, search for „Expuneri istorice/Chalcocondil, Laonic”.
What does it have to do with the origin of the Romance speaking populations, and their language in pro-1500 era...? Obviously Chalkokondyles, and every Greek could not understand the dialectical differences...
 
Last edited:

Ficino

Ad Honorem
Apr 2012
6,932
Romania
What does it have to do with the origin of the Romance speaking populations, and their language in pro-1500 era...?
Maybe you want to say pre-1500, the book was written before 1500. Read about the Aromanians there. I don't understand what's your point with "origin of the Romance speaking populations", we are not discussing the origin of Romance-speaking population, but of Romanian-speaking population (BTW, read at 319,35). How can you imagine that people came to speak the same language without contact between them? Do you imagine somehow that Romanians conquered the Aromanians or vice-versa, and one group imposed its language to another?
 

Ficino

Ad Honorem
Apr 2012
6,932
Romania
What does it have to do with the origin of the Romance speaking populations, and their language in pro-1500 era...? Obviously Chalkokondyles, and every Greek could not understand the dialectical differences...
Are we discussing dialectal differences? There are Aromanian words and phonetic features which lack in standard Romanian, but were/are found in one or another of the Daco-Romanian sub-dialects, and besides Aromanian has its own sub-dialects and speeches, some closer to Daco-Romanian than others. I don't know exactly on which sub-dialect is the new "standard" (in the degree we can talk about such standard) Aromanian based, though I suppose that those who made it didn't choose one of the closest.
 
Last edited:

Psellos

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
2,666
the Polis
Maybe you want to say pre-1500, the book was written before 1500. Read about the Aromanians there. I don't understand what's your point with "origin of the Romance speaking populations", we are not discussing the origin of Romance-speaking population, but of Romanian-speaking population (BTW, read at 319,35). How can you imagine that people came to speak the same language without contact between them? Do you imagine somehow that Romanians conquered the Aromanians or vice-versa, and one group imposed its language to another?
I'm pretty sure that an average Greek can't understand the difference of a Bulgarian, a Serb and a Slovenian speaking. Neither a Romanian can understand a Greek from his dialect, Cretan, Cypriot, Pontic etc...

Chalkokondyles of courses noticed that they speak the same language, as we notice that between the Balkan Slavs.

My point is not that these languages are different, obviously they are related. But you can't answer what kind of relation did all these Balkan people have, after got latinized in this huge area, from above the Greek speaking zone (of Epiros, Macedonia, Thrace and some coastal areas more north), to Danube and beyond... You can't answer in the simple question, where did Aromanians came from, Dardania, Pannonia, Mysia, Upper Thrace, Dacia etc...

You see I don't claim a "latinized Greek origin", because I don't find it plausible, judging from the view of Latin language among Greeks, even during the Roman era. Latin language managed to get introduced and displace the previous tongue in people with no cultivated languages and literature, and with minimal urbanism that would lead to the two mentioned...
Aromanians of Greece(not the ones that chose to migrate to Romania, as Romanophiles) are tied with the Greek nation not because they are "latinized Greeks", but because during their historical route they "chose" ,during the Ottoman period, to promote their voluntary hellenization, by mixing with Greeks, promote Greek education and Greek causes. So for the role and place of Aromanians today within the Greek nation, their distant origin doesn't have crucial importance, only for historical reasons we have to search it.

A Greek historian, Rafaelides, has told with a dose of sarcasm, that the historian that would solve that issue, the exact origin of Aromanians, should get a Nobel...I wait the Nobel prize nominents here to answer it properly...
 
Last edited:

Ficino

Ad Honorem
Apr 2012
6,932
Romania
I'm pretty sure that an average Greek can't understand the difference of a Bulgarian, a Serb and a Slovenian speaking. Neither a Romanian can understand a Greek from his dialect, Cretan, Cypriot, Pontic etc...

Chalkokondyles of courses noticed that they speak the same language, as we notice that between the Balkan Slavs.

My point is not that these languages are different, obviously they are related. But you can't answer what kind of relation did all these Balkan people have, after got latinized in this huge area, from above the Greek speaking zone (of Epiros, Macedonia, Thrace and some coastal areas more north), to Danube and beyond... You can't answer in the simple question, where did Aromanians came from, Dardania, Pannonia, Mysia, Upper Thrace, Dacia etc...
I never denied that Romanian and Aromanian are distinct dialects (especially because borrowings from different languages have led to vocabulary dissimilarities), not even the fact that there are other differences between Romanians and Aromanians, developed through time. My point was always that their ancestors spoke the same language, which was no more Latin (not even in a late form) as some wrongly like to insist, but Common Romanian, or Proto-Romanian - call it as you wish, a language having obvious distinct particularities and features for anyone who understands Romance philology, named themselves with the same endonym and were named by others with the same exonym. If those ancestors were descended from the same ancient tribe or not, or what percent of contribution had various ancient tribes to their genetic makeup is hard to be proven and is thoroughly irrelevant for the actual discussion.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2019
5
Albania
" According to my knowledge, those Aromanians who managed to preserve their ethnolinguistic identity and to develop a certain self-consciousness have always felt related and linked with Romanians."

Because that's WHAT we actually affiliate with both linguistically, partially genetically and ethnically, we are BOTH descendants of the ethnicity of Dacians who greatly latinized, we have the SAME origins. INDEED it makes sense since it's scientifically confirmed beyond logical doubt we were Dacians, Greeks are literally being infinitely illogical like that Psellos who brainfartedly stutters and psychotically rambles the lamest and dumbest 5-year-old arguments a 3-year-old would brainfart.
 

Similar History Discussions