Some Brazilians use two sounds, a harder one as in tchau, Djavan, and
a softer one in tia, dia, it is in Minas and Rio when they use a harder sound for both.
a softer one in tia, dia, it is in Minas and Rio when they use a harder sound for both.
Which Romance language sounds more Slavic?
Here's another interview in standard spoken Romanian. The language used here is normal for the common people and is not some artificial Romanian language used in media, with a high frequency of Latin derived words, as some claimed previously. The interview is typical fodder for the telenovelas market, that target not the most educated people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT_h-Q7OEY8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT_h-Q7OEY8
That's true when Romanian and Spanish people speak my beautiful language they sound slavic.
Portuguese sounds Slavic (except for African accents which sound well AFRICAN!)
===============================
Quote from: Dan
I disagree. The interviews show the typical southern Romanian urban accent, which is indeed the standard Romanian of today. It is false to say that only people in Bucharest use it. I was raised in Tulcea, then I moved to Constanta where I lived for 10 years. All this time this is the only accent I heard (with the exception of the accent of Romanian Lipovans, a small community in S. Romania) and this is my accent as well.
===============================
It is the SOUTHERN URBAN romanian accent, considered a literary standard, but it is not the de facto spoken standard, because the southern urban population is not majoritary when compared to the romanian population as a whole. In fact the romanians that live in Transylvania (urban or rural) have a specific accent and are very proud of it, they don't want to speak as those that live in Bucharest. In the romanian region of Moldova there is also a specific accent that persists even today. Transylvania and Moldova are very old romanian provinces, just like Muntenia and Oltenia, so in each of them the population speaks with a different accent. The situation of Dobruja (in romanian Dobrogea) is very different, for historical reasons. Dobruja (where the cities of Tulcea and Constanţa are located) is the land between the Black Sea and the Danube. It was was ruled in antiquity by greeks (which founded cities there), then romans and after that by the byzantines. In more modern times (1420-1878) it was ruled by the turks (ottoman empire) who lost it to the russians in 1878. The russians gave it to the romanians "in exchange" for "Bessarabia" (present-day Republic of Moldova), which was at that time romanian territory. It was a forced exchange, but the romanians had no alternative (except war with the russians) than to accept it. So Dobruja became romanian territory only in 1878 (before that it was briefly ruled by a romanian/wallachian king only for 20 years, between 1400-1420). So the history of Dobruja resulted in the fact that in 1878 the population of Dobruja incorporated in Romania was in great majority non-romanian (there were also some romanians, mainly shepherds). The romanian government of that time of course settled romanians in order to secure the territorial gain. The new province of Dobruja province was "romanianized" subsequently and today it is considered part of Romania just like the old provinces.
===============================
At the beginning of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878, most of Dobruja's population was composed of Turks and Tatars, but, during the war, a large part of the Muslim population was evacuated to Bulgaria and Turkey. After 1878, the Romanian government encouraged Romanians from other regions to settle in Northern Dobruja and even accepted the return of some Muslim population displaced by the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobruja
==============================
The fact that romanian spoken in Tulcea or Constanţa (cities from Dobruja) is very similar to that spoken in southern Romania (or more precisely Bucharest) is a very logical result of the historical events. Dobruja is a territory where the great majority of romanians are immigrants from other parts of the country. This is also the situation for the city of Bucharest, where most of the population is not "autochtonous", but is from Oltenia, Moldova, Translylvania, Muntenia. This "melting pot" that occured in Bucharest or in the cities of Dobruja favored the loss of the accent, because only by discarding the accent could the various immigrant populations (all romanian) understand themselves more easily. So it is of no surprise that the population from Constanţa and Tulcea speaks a language similar in accent to the one spoken in Bucharest, because the majority of the romanian population in Constanţa and Tulcea is very new there, just like the majority of the population in Bucharest.
===============================
Quote from: Dan
With the exception of the regions close to the Northern and Western borders of Romania (be it in Transilvania or Moldova), the standard Romanian is used by the urban population. The accents survive mostly in the rural areas, but they are vanishing from there as well. It is fair to say that at least 50% of the population uses the standard Romanian.
===============================
Not at all, just visit some big romanian cities like Braşov, Cluj, Timişoara, Sibiu, Iaşi, Bacău, etc. The accent is present, they do not speak like in Bucharest. This situation is very similar to that encountered for example in France, where many of the persons that live in Marseille or Lyon do not speak like the ones that live in Paris, they have a distinct regional accent.
===============================
Quote from: Dan
Such a nonsense triggers all the red flags that a rational discussion with you will never take place. Just as a mention to the other people reading this thread - it is unlikely that spoken Romanian ever had a higher percentage of Slavic words than it has now.
===============================
No, it's not unlikely, it's the truth. Of course romanian language had a larger percentage of slavic words than what it has now. The romanian language was heavily modified in the 19th and 20th centuries by importing large numbers of french words. Everyone that knows a thing or two about the romanian language is aware of the process or "reromanization" ("relatinization") that took part mainly in the 19th century, process that changed considerably the romanian vocabulary and modified the percentage of romanic and slavic words. Whereas the percentage was more or less equal in the 19th century, in the 20th century that changed dramatically, because the percentage of words of romanic origin was greatly boosted by the imports from french (and to a lesser extent from italian). At the present time, when it comes to the vocabulary (totality of words), romanian is more related to french than to latin.
In addition to that, there was in the 19th century a cultural-political movement to expel the words of slavic origin from the vocabulary, and although this was a failure in the majority of situations, in some situations it worked. For example today the romanians (especially those from the cities) do not use anymore "nădejde", the romanian word for the english "hope". The word "nădejde" has a slavic origin and was replaced from the 19th century on with "speranţă", a word derived from the italian "speranza".
http://dexonline.ro/search.php?cuv=nadejde
http://dexonline.ro/search.php?cuv=speranta
There is an entire book written recently (1999) that analyzes the reromanization (relatinzation) of the romanian vocabulary, and this book is available for free. Unfortunately it is only available in romanian.
Author: Coman Lupu
Publishing House : Editura Logos
Book: Lexicografia românească în procesul de occidentalizare latino-romanică a limbii române moderne (1780-1860)
Book: Romanian lexicography in the process of occidentalization of the modern romanian language (1780-1860)
http://www.logos.tm.ro/carte.php?id=73 (click on the link "Citeşte PDF" to read or download the PDF file - 1MB)
==================================
Quote from: Dan
Written Romanian used in administration in the Middle Age had many direct loans from Old Slavonic, but they were not understood by the majority of the population, which was illiterate. Almost all those Slavic word loans were simply dropped when Romanian started to be used in administration in late 18th century.
===============================
No, you are completely wrong, and this is because you have never read a book about the romanian language. You rely solely on very old propaganda and by doing so you appear as a very superficial person. Just go and buy any recent book to learn the truth. For example buy the book "Enciclopedia Limbii Române" (Encyclopedia of the Romanian Language) which was written in 2001 by the Institute of Linguistics "Iorgu Iordan - Al. Rosetti" of the Romanian Academy. It is a book (in romanian) written explicitly for the use of linguists, romanian or foreign.
The majority of the words taken from old church slavonic were never dropped from the romanian language, because they were mainly used in the orthodox church, where they are in use even today. For example the words "mitropolit", "arhiereu", "episcop", "popă", "călugăr", "stareţ", "biblie", "icoană", podoabă", "paraclis", "troiţă", "jertfă", "pomană", "slujbă", "schit", "chilie" etc. are in use today, the majority of them being present also in everyday language. They are mentioned in the book that I recommended you above, in the article "Slavonic Influence".
==================================
Quote from: Dan
The only significant amount of Slavic words from today's Romanian comes from the Old Church Slavonic. These imports took place after Romanian was formed, because Old Slavonic was introduced in Romania after year 1000. Nevertheless, these imports were resilient in the Romanian language because they were understood by the common man. While illiterate, Middle Age man was faithful and had a decent understanding of the liturgy held in OCS. The words related to religious life aspects (love, mariage etc) are from Slavonic, solely because of their use in church. The same goes for the Slavic names - first they were used by monks which were baptized with Slavic names, then gradually these names were adopted by the population.
==================================
Really, you have no clue about the history of the romanian people and its language. Go and buy any history book. For example go and buy "Istoria Românilor" by C.C. Giurescu, a treaty in 3 volumes (written between 1935-1946) that can be found in the bookshops or can be ordered via internet. I will post below a little fragment from that book referring to the romanian words of slavic origin (the emphasis -- CAPS -- was added by me).
########################################
C.C. Giurescu: Istoria Românilor (Editura All, 2007) => vol. I, page 209
Romanian version:
Acest mare număr de cuvinte slave nu au intrat deodată, în aceeaşi epocă, în limba română, ci pe rînd, începînd din veacul al VI-lea (poate chiar sfîrşitul celui de-al V-lea) şi pînă în secolul al XIX-lea. O parte însemnată -- CEA MAI ÎNSEMNATĂ -- a intrat PE TIMPUL CONLOCUIRII NOASTRE CU SLAVII ÎN DACIA, pînă ce i-am asimilat, adică în secolele VI-IX, o altă parte, în legătură cu biserica, am primit-o după creştinarea slavilor, aşadar de la finele secolului al IX-lea înainte. O a treia serie de cuvinte, în legătură cu organizarea de stat, cu dregătoriile, a intrat odată cu întemeierea primelor formaţiuni politice mai însemnate româneşti, prin urmare începînd cu secolul al XIII-lea. În sfîrşit sînt o serie de cuvinte slave pe care le-am împrumutat în epoca modernă. Cele de origine rusească au intrat mai ales în secolele XVIII şi XIX. Concluzia este că ori de cîte ori se vorbeşte de elementul slav în română, trebuie să se deosebească diferitele straturi ale lui, să se stabilească de ce anume epocă este vorba. Altfel, concluziile sînt greşite. Noi ne vom ocupa numai de elementele cele mai vechi slave, acelea care au pătruns în limba noastră în epoca de conlocuire, adică în veacurile VI-IX. Numărul lor este foarte însemnat şi priveşte, ca şi cuvintele latine, toate laturile vieţii omeneşti. Evident repartiţia nu este egală; în unele domenii cuvintele slave sînt mai numeroase, în altele mai puţin; nu există însă nici un domeniu în care să nu le întîlnim.
----------------------------------------------------------------
English version:
This great number of slavic words did not enter the romanian language at the same time, but one by one, beginning with the 6th century (maybe even the end of the 5th century) and continuing until the end of the 19th century. A significant part -- THE MOST SIGNIFICANT PART -- entered at THE TIME OF THE COHABITATION WITH THE SLAVS IN DACIA, until they were assimilated, that is in the 6 to the 9th centuries (the years 500-800). A second part of slavic words, related to the church, was received after the slavs were christianized, that is from the 9th century onwards. A third part, related to the state organization, the political functions, entered at the time of the formation of the first significant political entities of the romanians, that is beginning with the 13th century. Finally, there are also some slavic words that were borrowed in the modern times. Those of russian origin entered in the language mainly in the 18th and 19th centuries. The conclusion is that every time someone speaks about the slavic elements (words) from the romanian language, he must differentiate between the layers of influence involved, he must specify about which time (epoch, age) he wants to speak. Otherwise the conclusions are wrong. We will speak only about the oldest slavic words (elements), those that entered our language in the time of cohabitation, that is in the 6th to the 9th centuries (the years 500-800). Their number is considerable (very significant) and concerns, like the latin words, all the aspects of human life. Of course, their repartition is not equal; in some domains the slavic words are more numerous, in other less numerous; but there is not any single domain were they cannot be found.
#########################################
As for the fact that the words related to love and marriage entered the romanian language because of their use in church, this is a completely ignorant statement. The old church slavonic (language used in the church and official documents) had a minor influence on romanian. It is a very similar situation to that of the latin language, which was used in church and in the official documents from Poland and Hungary until the 18th century. Latin had a minor influence (if at all) on the magyar (hungarian) or polish language, and the words derived from the latin "amare" ("to love") did not replace the magyar and slavic words. This is also the case of romanian, where the word "iubire" ("love") and others like it entered the language because of the lenghty cohabitation of the slavs with the autochtonous population on the present-day romanian territory, which resulted in the assimilation of the slavs. As an anecdote, the romanians took also from slavic the popular (gross, vulgar) word that designates the female external genital organs ( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pizda ), and surely no one can think that word entered also via the vocabulary used in the orthodox church.
==================================
Quote from: Dan
The same goes for the Slavic names - first they were used by monks which were baptized with Slavic names, then gradually these names were adopted by the population.
==================================
You don't know nothing not only about the history and language of the romanians, but also about the orthodox church. The monks do not receive slavic names, but greek ones (Teofil, Teodor, Atanasie, Serafim, etc.). It has always been like that. You don't encounter romanian orthodox monks with slavic names like Răzvan, Mircea, Dragoş, Vlad, they receive greek names when they enter monasticism. And the orthodox church saints do not have slavic names, but greek names. This is why many romanians have names like Ion, Nicolae, Mihai, Vasile, etc., they were baptized with the names of the saints of the orthodox church.
==================================
Quote from: Dan
The theory that Slavic words were introduced in Romanian through the relation with the surrounding Slavic populations is a complete fabrication. Such contacts were too unfrequent for the Romanian peasant, the only speaker of Romanian at that time, to have any significant influence on the language (this is because Romanian regions had difficult-to-cross natural borders with the Slavic populations). If I'll have the time I will expand this explanation.
==================================
You are once again demonstrating your total lack of knowledge when it comes to romanian history. The slavs settled on all the territory of present-day Romania beginning (approximately) with the year 500. They were assimilated little by little by means of intermarriage with the autochtonous population, a process that lasted until (approximately) the year 1200. The slavs are considered by all the romanian historians as the third important part (population) that contributed to the genesis of the romanian people, alongside the dacians and the roman colonists. The romanians were not formed as a people until the arrival of the slavs. It is also the situation of the romanian language, which was not fully diferrentiated from vulgar latin until the appearance of the slavic language, which heavily influenced romanian.
An excerpt from a very recent romanian history book about the contribution of the slavs to the genesis of the romanian people:
######################################
Florin Constantiniu: O Istorie sinceră a poporului român (Editura Univers Enciclopedic, 2008) => page 58
În formarea poporului român, ei [slavii] au îndeplinit o funcţie de desăvîrşire sau încheiere. Etnogeneza românilor apare astfel ca avînd trei componente fundamentale: substratul geto-dac, stratul roman, adstratul slav.
--------------------------------------------
In the genesis of the romanian people they [the slavs] accomplished a function of finalization or closure. The ethnogenesis [formation as a people] of romanians appears thus to have three fundamental elements (parts/layers): geto-dacian substratum, roman stratum, slavic adstratum.
######################################
There was no need for the "romanic" (daco-romanian) peasant to have relations with the "surrounding" slavic populations, because the slavic populations were present for 700 years on the same territory as the daco-romanian peasant. So there was no surrounding by slavs, but mixing with slavs, and from that mixing resulted the romanian people. There are no "difficult-to-cross natural borders with the Slavic populations", anyone can see that from a geographical map. There are no mountains between Romania and Ukraine, Bulgaria, Serbia or between Republic of Moldova and Ukraine. There are however mountains between the romanian provinces of Transylvania and Muntenia or Moldova, but this geographical fact never stopped the romanian population from the three provinces to mix by migration or marriage. Speaking of geography, the slavic names of the romanian geographical elements (regions, rivers, mountains, hills, villages, towns) are probably close to 50%, which again demonstrates that the slavs settled on all the present-day romanian territory and gave name to the places they have encountered, names that were transmitted through the centuries and are in use today. Slavic names have many romanian regions (Moldova, Ilfov, Prahova, Dîmboviţa, Dolj, etc.), rivers (Neajlov, Bistriţa, Putna, Milcov, Cerna, etc.), towns (Craiova, Braşov, Tîrgovişte, Slatina, Rîmnicu-Vîlcea, etc.) and other geographical elements.
=======================================
Quote from: AI
I still believe that Romanians are descended, in large part, from Roman colonists who settled the province of Dacia. Yes the Slavic contributions to the language, culture, and gene pool are very notable, but nevertheless Romance speech prevailed. This could not have been achieved had a sizable Romance-speaking population not already inhabited the Carpathian basin. BTW, I never claimed that the Roman colonists were from Rome or Italy, but they were Roman in the sense that they were culturally Romanized, Latin-speaking, and citizens of the Roman Empire. "Roman" had by this time largely lost its original ethnic meaning by which Roman had to equal Italian. In fact, even Italy itself was ethnically/linguistically diverse prior to the entire peninsula's conquest by the Romans.
=======================================
The truth is that no one can at this time say in which proportion dacians, roman colonists, slavs, etc. contributed to the formation of the romanian people. There is a period of 1000 years (named the "dark millenium" by romanian historians) between the departure of the romans and the mention of the first little states (voievodates / principalities) that can be considered romanian. In those 1000 years there are very few mentions in the historical texts (from that time) of a romanic people north of the danube. It's like the romanic population left in Dacia disappeared from the face of the earth only to resurface a thousand years later. And when this happened, that romanic population was associated with the slavs, because the names of the first romanian rulers were mostly slavic (Litovoi, Seneslau/Seneslav, Sestlav, etc.). The first romanian military hero, a ruler that gave his life in 1273 in a battle with the hungarians, had the name of Litovoi, a slavic name. It is worth mentioning that the brother of Litovoi was named Bărbat, a romanian name, which is actually the word used for "man (male human)" in romanian.
Of course the survival of the romanian language must be tied to the survival of a romanized population north of the Danube. But were it not for the slavs that left themselves to be assimilated and helped the romanic population to survive (and increase in number) in those "dark" years, maybe we would not speak of a romanian people today.
=======================================
Quote from: AI
175 or so years of occupation is relatively brief, but one must also understand the powerful influence of Roman civilization in those days.
=======================================
There are also problems with that "Roman civilization". In Romania the remains (architectural, etc.) of the roman empire civilization are not as many or as important as in other parts of the roman world which were not romanized in the end. For example there are no inscriptions in latin that can be dated after the roman retreat from Dacia and can be attributed to the romanic population that stayed in Dacia. The roman culture likely did not survive for long in Dacia, because probably all those that could maintain it (mainly the urban population) left with the roman army in 275. The language was the only cultural element that survived the roman retreat.
The comparison with the american situation cannot be sustained. The descendants of the roman settlers from Dacia never ruled the territory, because they didn't have a state, unlike the dacians, which had a state before it was destroyed by the romans. The americans could impose the english language for the immigrants, but the same is not true for the romanic population of Dacia, which could not impose anything to the migratory populations that came on to live on the same territory.
Of course the romanians are descendants of the dacians, roman colonists, slavs and other populations that settled for more or less time in the territory inhabited by the romanian people today. The problem is that most of today's romanians (like Dan) do not know the true romanian history and think they are descending from roman colonists of italian origin and to a lesser extent from dacians intermixed with the former, which is not true. The theory of the "latin island in a slavic sea" is completely false, and no romanian historian or linguist will use it.
=======================================
Quote from: AI
Lastly, I wouldn't try to push the argument that Romanians are as Latin as Italians, Spaniards, or Frenchmen, but the Latin imprint on their language and identity cannot be ignored, and it does differentiate them from their Slavic and Hungarian ancestors.
=======================================
The imprint of latin on the romanian language is undeniable, although the reromanization from the 19th century greatly increased it. As for the identity, the romanians are much more balcanic than latin. On a side note, the romanians have no hungarian ancestors, because in the old times all the hungarians were catholic and all the romanians were orthodox (like the slavs), so there was little intermixing between these two populations that lived in Transylvania. Also the romanians were in Transylvania a population that had no rights, because the romanian people was not recognized by the hungarian rulers, although it formed the majority of the transylvanians. Intermarriage between romanians and hungarians in Transylvania (part of Romania from 1918) is even today rarely encountered.
=======================================
Quote from: AI
BTW I'm not Romanian at all ethnically, so please don't think that I'm trying to push any type of political agenda or anything, I just have an interest in its culture and history.
=======================================
Well, in this case you should learn romanian, otherwise you cannot have access to more advanced books on the romanian history and language.
******************************************************
P.S. Those that want to learn more about the slavic influence in romanian can read also the following article written in english:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_superstratum_in_Romanian
Quote from: Dan
I disagree. The interviews show the typical southern Romanian urban accent, which is indeed the standard Romanian of today. It is false to say that only people in Bucharest use it. I was raised in Tulcea, then I moved to Constanta where I lived for 10 years. All this time this is the only accent I heard (with the exception of the accent of Romanian Lipovans, a small community in S. Romania) and this is my accent as well.
===============================
It is the SOUTHERN URBAN romanian accent, considered a literary standard, but it is not the de facto spoken standard, because the southern urban population is not majoritary when compared to the romanian population as a whole. In fact the romanians that live in Transylvania (urban or rural) have a specific accent and are very proud of it, they don't want to speak as those that live in Bucharest. In the romanian region of Moldova there is also a specific accent that persists even today. Transylvania and Moldova are very old romanian provinces, just like Muntenia and Oltenia, so in each of them the population speaks with a different accent. The situation of Dobruja (in romanian Dobrogea) is very different, for historical reasons. Dobruja (where the cities of Tulcea and Constanţa are located) is the land between the Black Sea and the Danube. It was was ruled in antiquity by greeks (which founded cities there), then romans and after that by the byzantines. In more modern times (1420-1878) it was ruled by the turks (ottoman empire) who lost it to the russians in 1878. The russians gave it to the romanians "in exchange" for "Bessarabia" (present-day Republic of Moldova), which was at that time romanian territory. It was a forced exchange, but the romanians had no alternative (except war with the russians) than to accept it. So Dobruja became romanian territory only in 1878 (before that it was briefly ruled by a romanian/wallachian king only for 20 years, between 1400-1420). So the history of Dobruja resulted in the fact that in 1878 the population of Dobruja incorporated in Romania was in great majority non-romanian (there were also some romanians, mainly shepherds). The romanian government of that time of course settled romanians in order to secure the territorial gain. The new province of Dobruja province was "romanianized" subsequently and today it is considered part of Romania just like the old provinces.
===============================
At the beginning of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878, most of Dobruja's population was composed of Turks and Tatars, but, during the war, a large part of the Muslim population was evacuated to Bulgaria and Turkey. After 1878, the Romanian government encouraged Romanians from other regions to settle in Northern Dobruja and even accepted the return of some Muslim population displaced by the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobruja
==============================
The fact that romanian spoken in Tulcea or Constanţa (cities from Dobruja) is very similar to that spoken in southern Romania (or more precisely Bucharest) is a very logical result of the historical events. Dobruja is a territory where the great majority of romanians are immigrants from other parts of the country. This is also the situation for the city of Bucharest, where most of the population is not "autochtonous", but is from Oltenia, Moldova, Translylvania, Muntenia. This "melting pot" that occured in Bucharest or in the cities of Dobruja favored the loss of the accent, because only by discarding the accent could the various immigrant populations (all romanian) understand themselves more easily. So it is of no surprise that the population from Constanţa and Tulcea speaks a language similar in accent to the one spoken in Bucharest, because the majority of the romanian population in Constanţa and Tulcea is very new there, just like the majority of the population in Bucharest.
===============================
Quote from: Dan
With the exception of the regions close to the Northern and Western borders of Romania (be it in Transilvania or Moldova), the standard Romanian is used by the urban population. The accents survive mostly in the rural areas, but they are vanishing from there as well. It is fair to say that at least 50% of the population uses the standard Romanian.
===============================
Not at all, just visit some big romanian cities like Braşov, Cluj, Timişoara, Sibiu, Iaşi, Bacău, etc. The accent is present, they do not speak like in Bucharest. This situation is very similar to that encountered for example in France, where many of the persons that live in Marseille or Lyon do not speak like the ones that live in Paris, they have a distinct regional accent.
===============================
Quote from: Dan
Such a nonsense triggers all the red flags that a rational discussion with you will never take place. Just as a mention to the other people reading this thread - it is unlikely that spoken Romanian ever had a higher percentage of Slavic words than it has now.
===============================
No, it's not unlikely, it's the truth. Of course romanian language had a larger percentage of slavic words than what it has now. The romanian language was heavily modified in the 19th and 20th centuries by importing large numbers of french words. Everyone that knows a thing or two about the romanian language is aware of the process or "reromanization" ("relatinization") that took part mainly in the 19th century, process that changed considerably the romanian vocabulary and modified the percentage of romanic and slavic words. Whereas the percentage was more or less equal in the 19th century, in the 20th century that changed dramatically, because the percentage of words of romanic origin was greatly boosted by the imports from french (and to a lesser extent from italian). At the present time, when it comes to the vocabulary (totality of words), romanian is more related to french than to latin.
In addition to that, there was in the 19th century a cultural-political movement to expel the words of slavic origin from the vocabulary, and although this was a failure in the majority of situations, in some situations it worked. For example today the romanians (especially those from the cities) do not use anymore "nădejde", the romanian word for the english "hope". The word "nădejde" has a slavic origin and was replaced from the 19th century on with "speranţă", a word derived from the italian "speranza".
http://dexonline.ro/search.php?cuv=nadejde
http://dexonline.ro/search.php?cuv=speranta
There is an entire book written recently (1999) that analyzes the reromanization (relatinzation) of the romanian vocabulary, and this book is available for free. Unfortunately it is only available in romanian.
Author: Coman Lupu
Publishing House : Editura Logos
Book: Lexicografia românească în procesul de occidentalizare latino-romanică a limbii române moderne (1780-1860)
Book: Romanian lexicography in the process of occidentalization of the modern romanian language (1780-1860)
http://www.logos.tm.ro/carte.php?id=73 (click on the link "Citeşte PDF" to read or download the PDF file - 1MB)
==================================
Quote from: Dan
Written Romanian used in administration in the Middle Age had many direct loans from Old Slavonic, but they were not understood by the majority of the population, which was illiterate. Almost all those Slavic word loans were simply dropped when Romanian started to be used in administration in late 18th century.
===============================
No, you are completely wrong, and this is because you have never read a book about the romanian language. You rely solely on very old propaganda and by doing so you appear as a very superficial person. Just go and buy any recent book to learn the truth. For example buy the book "Enciclopedia Limbii Române" (Encyclopedia of the Romanian Language) which was written in 2001 by the Institute of Linguistics "Iorgu Iordan - Al. Rosetti" of the Romanian Academy. It is a book (in romanian) written explicitly for the use of linguists, romanian or foreign.
The majority of the words taken from old church slavonic were never dropped from the romanian language, because they were mainly used in the orthodox church, where they are in use even today. For example the words "mitropolit", "arhiereu", "episcop", "popă", "călugăr", "stareţ", "biblie", "icoană", podoabă", "paraclis", "troiţă", "jertfă", "pomană", "slujbă", "schit", "chilie" etc. are in use today, the majority of them being present also in everyday language. They are mentioned in the book that I recommended you above, in the article "Slavonic Influence".
==================================
Quote from: Dan
The only significant amount of Slavic words from today's Romanian comes from the Old Church Slavonic. These imports took place after Romanian was formed, because Old Slavonic was introduced in Romania after year 1000. Nevertheless, these imports were resilient in the Romanian language because they were understood by the common man. While illiterate, Middle Age man was faithful and had a decent understanding of the liturgy held in OCS. The words related to religious life aspects (love, mariage etc) are from Slavonic, solely because of their use in church. The same goes for the Slavic names - first they were used by monks which were baptized with Slavic names, then gradually these names were adopted by the population.
==================================
Really, you have no clue about the history of the romanian people and its language. Go and buy any history book. For example go and buy "Istoria Românilor" by C.C. Giurescu, a treaty in 3 volumes (written between 1935-1946) that can be found in the bookshops or can be ordered via internet. I will post below a little fragment from that book referring to the romanian words of slavic origin (the emphasis -- CAPS -- was added by me).
########################################
C.C. Giurescu: Istoria Românilor (Editura All, 2007) => vol. I, page 209
Romanian version:
Acest mare număr de cuvinte slave nu au intrat deodată, în aceeaşi epocă, în limba română, ci pe rînd, începînd din veacul al VI-lea (poate chiar sfîrşitul celui de-al V-lea) şi pînă în secolul al XIX-lea. O parte însemnată -- CEA MAI ÎNSEMNATĂ -- a intrat PE TIMPUL CONLOCUIRII NOASTRE CU SLAVII ÎN DACIA, pînă ce i-am asimilat, adică în secolele VI-IX, o altă parte, în legătură cu biserica, am primit-o după creştinarea slavilor, aşadar de la finele secolului al IX-lea înainte. O a treia serie de cuvinte, în legătură cu organizarea de stat, cu dregătoriile, a intrat odată cu întemeierea primelor formaţiuni politice mai însemnate româneşti, prin urmare începînd cu secolul al XIII-lea. În sfîrşit sînt o serie de cuvinte slave pe care le-am împrumutat în epoca modernă. Cele de origine rusească au intrat mai ales în secolele XVIII şi XIX. Concluzia este că ori de cîte ori se vorbeşte de elementul slav în română, trebuie să se deosebească diferitele straturi ale lui, să se stabilească de ce anume epocă este vorba. Altfel, concluziile sînt greşite. Noi ne vom ocupa numai de elementele cele mai vechi slave, acelea care au pătruns în limba noastră în epoca de conlocuire, adică în veacurile VI-IX. Numărul lor este foarte însemnat şi priveşte, ca şi cuvintele latine, toate laturile vieţii omeneşti. Evident repartiţia nu este egală; în unele domenii cuvintele slave sînt mai numeroase, în altele mai puţin; nu există însă nici un domeniu în care să nu le întîlnim.
----------------------------------------------------------------
English version:
This great number of slavic words did not enter the romanian language at the same time, but one by one, beginning with the 6th century (maybe even the end of the 5th century) and continuing until the end of the 19th century. A significant part -- THE MOST SIGNIFICANT PART -- entered at THE TIME OF THE COHABITATION WITH THE SLAVS IN DACIA, until they were assimilated, that is in the 6 to the 9th centuries (the years 500-800). A second part of slavic words, related to the church, was received after the slavs were christianized, that is from the 9th century onwards. A third part, related to the state organization, the political functions, entered at the time of the formation of the first significant political entities of the romanians, that is beginning with the 13th century. Finally, there are also some slavic words that were borrowed in the modern times. Those of russian origin entered in the language mainly in the 18th and 19th centuries. The conclusion is that every time someone speaks about the slavic elements (words) from the romanian language, he must differentiate between the layers of influence involved, he must specify about which time (epoch, age) he wants to speak. Otherwise the conclusions are wrong. We will speak only about the oldest slavic words (elements), those that entered our language in the time of cohabitation, that is in the 6th to the 9th centuries (the years 500-800). Their number is considerable (very significant) and concerns, like the latin words, all the aspects of human life. Of course, their repartition is not equal; in some domains the slavic words are more numerous, in other less numerous; but there is not any single domain were they cannot be found.
#########################################
As for the fact that the words related to love and marriage entered the romanian language because of their use in church, this is a completely ignorant statement. The old church slavonic (language used in the church and official documents) had a minor influence on romanian. It is a very similar situation to that of the latin language, which was used in church and in the official documents from Poland and Hungary until the 18th century. Latin had a minor influence (if at all) on the magyar (hungarian) or polish language, and the words derived from the latin "amare" ("to love") did not replace the magyar and slavic words. This is also the case of romanian, where the word "iubire" ("love") and others like it entered the language because of the lenghty cohabitation of the slavs with the autochtonous population on the present-day romanian territory, which resulted in the assimilation of the slavs. As an anecdote, the romanians took also from slavic the popular (gross, vulgar) word that designates the female external genital organs ( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pizda ), and surely no one can think that word entered also via the vocabulary used in the orthodox church.
==================================
Quote from: Dan
The same goes for the Slavic names - first they were used by monks which were baptized with Slavic names, then gradually these names were adopted by the population.
==================================
You don't know nothing not only about the history and language of the romanians, but also about the orthodox church. The monks do not receive slavic names, but greek ones (Teofil, Teodor, Atanasie, Serafim, etc.). It has always been like that. You don't encounter romanian orthodox monks with slavic names like Răzvan, Mircea, Dragoş, Vlad, they receive greek names when they enter monasticism. And the orthodox church saints do not have slavic names, but greek names. This is why many romanians have names like Ion, Nicolae, Mihai, Vasile, etc., they were baptized with the names of the saints of the orthodox church.
==================================
Quote from: Dan
The theory that Slavic words were introduced in Romanian through the relation with the surrounding Slavic populations is a complete fabrication. Such contacts were too unfrequent for the Romanian peasant, the only speaker of Romanian at that time, to have any significant influence on the language (this is because Romanian regions had difficult-to-cross natural borders with the Slavic populations). If I'll have the time I will expand this explanation.
==================================
You are once again demonstrating your total lack of knowledge when it comes to romanian history. The slavs settled on all the territory of present-day Romania beginning (approximately) with the year 500. They were assimilated little by little by means of intermarriage with the autochtonous population, a process that lasted until (approximately) the year 1200. The slavs are considered by all the romanian historians as the third important part (population) that contributed to the genesis of the romanian people, alongside the dacians and the roman colonists. The romanians were not formed as a people until the arrival of the slavs. It is also the situation of the romanian language, which was not fully diferrentiated from vulgar latin until the appearance of the slavic language, which heavily influenced romanian.
An excerpt from a very recent romanian history book about the contribution of the slavs to the genesis of the romanian people:
######################################
Florin Constantiniu: O Istorie sinceră a poporului român (Editura Univers Enciclopedic, 2008) => page 58
În formarea poporului român, ei [slavii] au îndeplinit o funcţie de desăvîrşire sau încheiere. Etnogeneza românilor apare astfel ca avînd trei componente fundamentale: substratul geto-dac, stratul roman, adstratul slav.
--------------------------------------------
In the genesis of the romanian people they [the slavs] accomplished a function of finalization or closure. The ethnogenesis [formation as a people] of romanians appears thus to have three fundamental elements (parts/layers): geto-dacian substratum, roman stratum, slavic adstratum.
######################################
There was no need for the "romanic" (daco-romanian) peasant to have relations with the "surrounding" slavic populations, because the slavic populations were present for 700 years on the same territory as the daco-romanian peasant. So there was no surrounding by slavs, but mixing with slavs, and from that mixing resulted the romanian people. There are no "difficult-to-cross natural borders with the Slavic populations", anyone can see that from a geographical map. There are no mountains between Romania and Ukraine, Bulgaria, Serbia or between Republic of Moldova and Ukraine. There are however mountains between the romanian provinces of Transylvania and Muntenia or Moldova, but this geographical fact never stopped the romanian population from the three provinces to mix by migration or marriage. Speaking of geography, the slavic names of the romanian geographical elements (regions, rivers, mountains, hills, villages, towns) are probably close to 50%, which again demonstrates that the slavs settled on all the present-day romanian territory and gave name to the places they have encountered, names that were transmitted through the centuries and are in use today. Slavic names have many romanian regions (Moldova, Ilfov, Prahova, Dîmboviţa, Dolj, etc.), rivers (Neajlov, Bistriţa, Putna, Milcov, Cerna, etc.), towns (Craiova, Braşov, Tîrgovişte, Slatina, Rîmnicu-Vîlcea, etc.) and other geographical elements.
=======================================
Quote from: AI
I still believe that Romanians are descended, in large part, from Roman colonists who settled the province of Dacia. Yes the Slavic contributions to the language, culture, and gene pool are very notable, but nevertheless Romance speech prevailed. This could not have been achieved had a sizable Romance-speaking population not already inhabited the Carpathian basin. BTW, I never claimed that the Roman colonists were from Rome or Italy, but they were Roman in the sense that they were culturally Romanized, Latin-speaking, and citizens of the Roman Empire. "Roman" had by this time largely lost its original ethnic meaning by which Roman had to equal Italian. In fact, even Italy itself was ethnically/linguistically diverse prior to the entire peninsula's conquest by the Romans.
=======================================
The truth is that no one can at this time say in which proportion dacians, roman colonists, slavs, etc. contributed to the formation of the romanian people. There is a period of 1000 years (named the "dark millenium" by romanian historians) between the departure of the romans and the mention of the first little states (voievodates / principalities) that can be considered romanian. In those 1000 years there are very few mentions in the historical texts (from that time) of a romanic people north of the danube. It's like the romanic population left in Dacia disappeared from the face of the earth only to resurface a thousand years later. And when this happened, that romanic population was associated with the slavs, because the names of the first romanian rulers were mostly slavic (Litovoi, Seneslau/Seneslav, Sestlav, etc.). The first romanian military hero, a ruler that gave his life in 1273 in a battle with the hungarians, had the name of Litovoi, a slavic name. It is worth mentioning that the brother of Litovoi was named Bărbat, a romanian name, which is actually the word used for "man (male human)" in romanian.
Of course the survival of the romanian language must be tied to the survival of a romanized population north of the Danube. But were it not for the slavs that left themselves to be assimilated and helped the romanic population to survive (and increase in number) in those "dark" years, maybe we would not speak of a romanian people today.
=======================================
Quote from: AI
175 or so years of occupation is relatively brief, but one must also understand the powerful influence of Roman civilization in those days.
=======================================
There are also problems with that "Roman civilization". In Romania the remains (architectural, etc.) of the roman empire civilization are not as many or as important as in other parts of the roman world which were not romanized in the end. For example there are no inscriptions in latin that can be dated after the roman retreat from Dacia and can be attributed to the romanic population that stayed in Dacia. The roman culture likely did not survive for long in Dacia, because probably all those that could maintain it (mainly the urban population) left with the roman army in 275. The language was the only cultural element that survived the roman retreat.
The comparison with the american situation cannot be sustained. The descendants of the roman settlers from Dacia never ruled the territory, because they didn't have a state, unlike the dacians, which had a state before it was destroyed by the romans. The americans could impose the english language for the immigrants, but the same is not true for the romanic population of Dacia, which could not impose anything to the migratory populations that came on to live on the same territory.
Of course the romanians are descendants of the dacians, roman colonists, slavs and other populations that settled for more or less time in the territory inhabited by the romanian people today. The problem is that most of today's romanians (like Dan) do not know the true romanian history and think they are descending from roman colonists of italian origin and to a lesser extent from dacians intermixed with the former, which is not true. The theory of the "latin island in a slavic sea" is completely false, and no romanian historian or linguist will use it.
=======================================
Quote from: AI
Lastly, I wouldn't try to push the argument that Romanians are as Latin as Italians, Spaniards, or Frenchmen, but the Latin imprint on their language and identity cannot be ignored, and it does differentiate them from their Slavic and Hungarian ancestors.
=======================================
The imprint of latin on the romanian language is undeniable, although the reromanization from the 19th century greatly increased it. As for the identity, the romanians are much more balcanic than latin. On a side note, the romanians have no hungarian ancestors, because in the old times all the hungarians were catholic and all the romanians were orthodox (like the slavs), so there was little intermixing between these two populations that lived in Transylvania. Also the romanians were in Transylvania a population that had no rights, because the romanian people was not recognized by the hungarian rulers, although it formed the majority of the transylvanians. Intermarriage between romanians and hungarians in Transylvania (part of Romania from 1918) is even today rarely encountered.
=======================================
Quote from: AI
BTW I'm not Romanian at all ethnically, so please don't think that I'm trying to push any type of political agenda or anything, I just have an interest in its culture and history.
=======================================
Well, in this case you should learn romanian, otherwise you cannot have access to more advanced books on the romanian history and language.
******************************************************
P.S. Those that want to learn more about the slavic influence in romanian can read also the following article written in english:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_superstratum_in_Romanian
^Sorry I meant to say Slavic and Hungarian "neighbors," not "ancestors," that was a typo. I still maintain that the comparison with America is sustainable because the Roman settlers were living in a territory that was under Roman rule, so how can anyone say that they were not the rulers of Dacia during the 175 or so years that it was under Roman occupation. Dacia was a colony of Rome, just as the 13 colonies of what became the U.S. were colonies of Britain. Furthermore, English-speaking colonists from around Britain flocked to those colonies in that relatively brief period of British rule, and it ensured the imprint of British culture and the English language in what became the United States of America. Although of course America did not undergo wave after wave of invasion after the end of British rule (unlike Roman Dacia), but what I'm talking about is the relatively short time that it may take to impose a language and culture in a new area.
Secondly, new immigrants were also assimilated into the dominant Anglo-American culture and language over time, which would be somewhat analogous to the Slavs and other groups being assimilated into the Daco-Roman population in that millenium or so after Roman withdrawal. The difference is that the Slavic influence on the Latin spoken in Dacia was more substantial than the linguistic influence of newer immigrants on American English (or the linguistic influence of the preexisting Native American tribes). Therefore, if Romanians descend in part from Slavs and other migratory peoples of the Dark Ages while at the same time having preserved an essentially Romance language, then surely that means that there was in fact assimilation of these peoples into the Daco-Roman population.
Lastly, although Romanians are culturally and genetically a Balkan Eastern European people, they are still the only ones who are able to trace part of their ancestry and language back to Ancient Roman civilization. This is why people see them as a "Latin island" if you will, even if they're not as mainstream as the Latin countries of Western Europe. They've preserved a memory of Roman influence in the region that other peoples have not. Analogous to this would be the Hungarians, who are the only Eastern Europeans who trace part of their ancestry and language back to the Finno-Ugric Magyar civilization, making them also unique from the mainly Slavic peoples of the region.
Secondly, new immigrants were also assimilated into the dominant Anglo-American culture and language over time, which would be somewhat analogous to the Slavs and other groups being assimilated into the Daco-Roman population in that millenium or so after Roman withdrawal. The difference is that the Slavic influence on the Latin spoken in Dacia was more substantial than the linguistic influence of newer immigrants on American English (or the linguistic influence of the preexisting Native American tribes). Therefore, if Romanians descend in part from Slavs and other migratory peoples of the Dark Ages while at the same time having preserved an essentially Romance language, then surely that means that there was in fact assimilation of these peoples into the Daco-Roman population.
Lastly, although Romanians are culturally and genetically a Balkan Eastern European people, they are still the only ones who are able to trace part of their ancestry and language back to Ancient Roman civilization. This is why people see them as a "Latin island" if you will, even if they're not as mainstream as the Latin countries of Western Europe. They've preserved a memory of Roman influence in the region that other peoples have not. Analogous to this would be the Hungarians, who are the only Eastern Europeans who trace part of their ancestry and language back to the Finno-Ugric Magyar civilization, making them also unique from the mainly Slavic peoples of the region.
@ravinescu
The only fact regarding the Slavic influence on the Romanian language is that currently less than 20% of the Romanian vocabulary is of Slavic origin. The description of the processes on how these Slavic words got into Romanian are solely HYPOTHESES, and unfortunatelly they will remain just that, because history has not preserved the way spoken Romanian really was 500 or 1000 years ago.
When we are faced with such a reality the scientific way of chosing between these hypotheses is to use Occam's razor. The hypotheses that require the fewest assumptions is to be chosen as preferred explanation of the phenomenon. The reason I prefer the hypothesis that says that "most of the Slavic word imports were from the use of OCS in church and administration" as opposed to the one that claims that "the Slavic words entered the Romanian language because Slavic and latinized Dacian populations mixed together in roughly equal percentages and formed the Romanian people speaking the Romanian language" is because the latter is inconsistent with too many historical facts and requires huge leaps of faith.
In the limits of the time I have available I will compare these two hypotheses.
The only fact regarding the Slavic influence on the Romanian language is that currently less than 20% of the Romanian vocabulary is of Slavic origin. The description of the processes on how these Slavic words got into Romanian are solely HYPOTHESES, and unfortunatelly they will remain just that, because history has not preserved the way spoken Romanian really was 500 or 1000 years ago.
When we are faced with such a reality the scientific way of chosing between these hypotheses is to use Occam's razor. The hypotheses that require the fewest assumptions is to be chosen as preferred explanation of the phenomenon. The reason I prefer the hypothesis that says that "most of the Slavic word imports were from the use of OCS in church and administration" as opposed to the one that claims that "the Slavic words entered the Romanian language because Slavic and latinized Dacian populations mixed together in roughly equal percentages and formed the Romanian people speaking the Romanian language" is because the latter is inconsistent with too many historical facts and requires huge leaps of faith.
In the limits of the time I have available I will compare these two hypotheses.
Italian sounds like Romanian and since Romanian is half Slavonic, then Italian's too
Italian sounds like Romanian
Italian sounds much more melodic than Romanian to my ears...
Italian sounds much more melodic than Romanian to my ears...
Romanian sounds ugly. Maybe I'm a bit biased because I only hear Romanian to gyspies who are ugly themselves.
^I'm just gonna stick with my original statement and say that Romanian sounds like a somewhat Slavic-influenced version of Italian. The key word there is Italian though because Romanian is fundamentally a Romance language. Why it sounds closer to Italian than the other Romance languages I don't know, but perhaps it's simply because Italy is geographically the closest Romance-speaking country to Romania. Some historians have hypothesized that some of the Vlachs (and hence some of the ancestors of today's Romanians) had crossed the Danube into the southwestern Balkans with the Roman legions/administration upon evacuation from Dacia, where there may have been contacts with Italy during the developmental years of the Romanian language, directly across the Adriatic Sea. Centuries later, when these Vlachs migrated northward (to merge with the Vlachs who stayed behind in modern Romania), they took this Italo-Latin linguistic influence back across the Danube. Furthermore, the Slavic influence on Romanian vocabulary is predominantly South Slavic if I'm not mistaken.
«Romanian sounds ugly. Maybe I'm a bit biased because I only hear Romanian to gyspies who are ugly themselves.»
Franco, nobody cares about what you think.
Franco, nobody cares about what you think.
Congratulations Italy :
Un pueblo de Italia quiere expulsar a todos los "sin papeles" antes de Navidad
La policía irá casa por casa para detener inmigrantes ilegales
"Si no demuestran que han iniciado esos trámites, el permiso de residencia será revocado automáticamente", dijo el alcalde de Coccaglio, Franco Claretti, del partido Liga Norte
Encuesta¿Después de esta clara muestra de racismo visitaría Coccaglio?
No. Sí. Es lo más surrealista e inhumano que he leído. No, y tendrían que destituir a su alcalde.
Coccaglio, en el norte de Italia y con 7.000 habitantes de los que cerca de 1.500 son inmigrantes, inició una operación municipal para expulsar, antes de la Navidad, a los "extracomunitarios" (de países que no son de la Comunidad Europea) que no tengan papeles en regla.
La operación, bautizada como Blanca Navidad, ordena que la Policía Municipal acuda a los hogares de 400 inmigrantes para verificar que tienen sus permisos de residencia en regla y, en caso de que estos hayan caducado, estén tramitando su renovación. En Italia residen unos 70 mil ecuatorianos.
"Si no demuestran que han iniciado esos trámites, el permiso de residencia será revocado automáticamente", dijo el alcalde de Coccaglio, Franco Claretti, del partido Liga Norte, conocido por sus tintes racistas. Precisó que lo único que se pretende con esta operación "es empezar a hacer limpieza". Existen localidades vecinas que quieren imitar su ejemplo.
http://www.periodistadigital.com/inmigrantes/vida-cotidiana/2009/11/19/un-publo-de-italia-quiere-expulsar-a-todos-los-sin-papeles-antes-de-navidad-racismo-inmigrantes-coccaglio.shtml
Un pueblo de Italia quiere expulsar a todos los "sin papeles" antes de Navidad
La policía irá casa por casa para detener inmigrantes ilegales
"Si no demuestran que han iniciado esos trámites, el permiso de residencia será revocado automáticamente", dijo el alcalde de Coccaglio, Franco Claretti, del partido Liga Norte
Encuesta¿Después de esta clara muestra de racismo visitaría Coccaglio?
No. Sí. Es lo más surrealista e inhumano que he leído. No, y tendrían que destituir a su alcalde.
Coccaglio, en el norte de Italia y con 7.000 habitantes de los que cerca de 1.500 son inmigrantes, inició una operación municipal para expulsar, antes de la Navidad, a los "extracomunitarios" (de países que no son de la Comunidad Europea) que no tengan papeles en regla.
La operación, bautizada como Blanca Navidad, ordena que la Policía Municipal acuda a los hogares de 400 inmigrantes para verificar que tienen sus permisos de residencia en regla y, en caso de que estos hayan caducado, estén tramitando su renovación. En Italia residen unos 70 mil ecuatorianos.
"Si no demuestran que han iniciado esos trámites, el permiso de residencia será revocado automáticamente", dijo el alcalde de Coccaglio, Franco Claretti, del partido Liga Norte, conocido por sus tintes racistas. Precisó que lo único que se pretende con esta operación "es empezar a hacer limpieza". Existen localidades vecinas que quieren imitar su ejemplo.
http://www.periodistadigital.com/inmigrantes/vida-cotidiana/2009/11/19/un-publo-de-italia-quiere-expulsar-a-todos-los-sin-papeles-antes-de-navidad-racismo-inmigrantes-coccaglio.shtml
There is BIG difference between European immigrants, let's say Spanish immigrants to Venezuela , and the scum that is invading Spain. First off, first Spanish settlers in Americas were the people who built the Latin American nations themselves, so the Spanish gained perpetual right to migrate to the countries that they shaped by giving their culture, religion, language and so on. On the other hand Amerindians, Moroccoans, Blacks, Romanian gypsies and other subraces did not create the Spanish nation, they did nothing to make Spain what is nowadays. Also more recent waves of Spanish immigrants to Latin America after the Spanish Civil War were made up by decent people, hard workers who integrated into the societies that hosted them and they contributed a lot to the local economies. They did not commit crimes unlike immigrants in Spain who account for 40% of people in Spanish prisons. What are the contributions of migrants who despite the big crisis Spain is facing nowadays still keep on coming here? Zero, nothing, nada. They are nasty leechers who live on welfare. It's time for drastic decissions like gas chambers for these undesirables.