|
|
Which Romance language sounds more Slavic?
those are some interesting articles...
but mari, even though i agree with your overall point, please don't ever say that last thing you said about romanians actually speaking the dacian language which just happens to be like latin or is a parent to it. that's just the kind of crazy unfounded thing that makes us look like fools and destroys any last shred of credibility we have. please don't ruin it with comments like that. ugh, i can't believe some romanians actually believe that
To franco
Substituting "Spanish" for Hispanicus or "Hispanic", or "Spain" for Hispania is anachronistic and can be misleading, since the borders of modern Spain do not coincide with those of the Roman province of Hispania, or of the Visigothic Kingdom which succeeded it, and have always shifted, not even including Portugal at present. Although the Latin term Hispania was often used during Antiquity and the High Middle Ages as a geographical name for the Iberian Peninsula, its cognates "Spain" and "Spanish" have become increasingly associated with the Kingdom of Spain alone, after the merging of the central peninsular Kingdom of Castile and the eastern one of Aragon in the 15th century under the Catholic Kings.
Occasionally it was called Hesperia, the western land, by Roman writers, or Hesperia ultima. Another theory derives the name from Ezpanna, the Basque word for "border" or "edge", thus meaning the farthest area or place.
Spain in Roman times included nowadays Portugal but the borders of all countries change in time. Nonetheless Portugal did belong to modern Spain for 60 years in the XVII century. Anyways with or without Portugal it's absolutely true that modern Spain as a nation has its deep roots in Hispania because it is the first precedent in History of an united Iberian peninsula. That Hispania or Spain is not completely united nowadays is just an accident and does not change qualitatively that modern Hispania is the legitimate sucessor to Roman Hispania. Also Spain has territories that did not belong to Hispania like Canary Islands but it's not relevant that Spain or Hispania does not match 100% the territory of Roman Hispania.
Hispania: from Greek Spania (Ἱσπανια), from Phoenician i-shaphanim, literally 'hyrax isle', as the native wild rabbits were mistaken for hyraxes.
But let's not go into that, shall we.
Anyway, about the topic of the thread: maybe it's just me, but I've noticed from footage of Romanian newscasters and interviews that the women seem to have more of a "Slavic" sound than men for some reason.
what the heck is this observation? That the women have more of a Slavic sound than men? You are awake when you are talking? What is wrong with you guys? Can't you say something intelligent when you open the mouth or you talk just for the art of talking (understand writing)? Where are you guys coming from and where are you hiding/living? My God, this is pathetic!
"but" nick , you must read more about this subject because this poin of view regarding the ancient history of roumanian people and roumanian language in enough old . There are a lot of historians generally not roumanians , excepting Desuseanu (Carpantier, Manselli, Railland etc) who consider the space between Danube , Black Sea and Carpati Mountains to be the place of european civilization was born( tha oldest human skeleton was find in Roumania as i Konw ) .
Some consider the tracian people to be the oldest people from European space . It is known that the space occuped by tracian people was very large, so it is possible in ancient times a great part of europe to speak almost the same language ( tracian- dacian language). thereare a lot of other arguments supporting this interesting hipotesis ( seek and you will find ).
Anyway I don' believe that all the dacians "the bravest and most righteous of tracians ( HERODOT)" even those un coquered by romans forgot in 150 YEARS their language , their habits, their believs for learning latin language . It is strange that roumanian people speak the same language a latin language all over roumanian teritory while italian people has so much totaly diferent dialects.
We don' t Know the truth but you must recognize that is a very interesting hipotesys.
wow... what are you talking about? the oldest human skeletons are of course from africa. you be trippin, son. i took a class on anthropology a while ago and the first anatomically modern man is around 200,000 years old, before man even left that continent. and there's still the question of whether that ancient civilization with the tartaria tablets and cernavoda sculptures on modern day romania was actually related to thracian or if they stayed in the same place for over 7000 years.
it's a fact that most of modern romanian came from vulgar latin, infused with other elements over time. the reason for the uniformity might be explained by the two theories: the ancestors of romanians, mainly shepherds, probably retreated to small enclaves within the carpathian mountains during the dark ages and migrations, and only come out as a uniform people around the 12th century or so, or if you believe the migration theory, a bunch of vlach shepherds came as one group from around albania north into romania around this same time, and then spread and populated the rest of it. i'm sorry but i don't believe in glorifying our history based off loose or non existant evidence. let's just stick to what we do know.
Yes I am speaking about the oldest european skeleton thank you Dan.
I am speaking about an hipotesys of some historians whitch seems, after me, to be interesting. It is not about glorifying or not glorifying . .. and "nick the dick " your argument for roumanian language uniformity is amazing ... sheperds hidden in the mountins from 275 a.c. till 12- th century , or ...some shepards return from Albania after almost 1000 years, speaking the same language and occupying an entire country which had probably deserted or imposing their ancient language to the new residents ?!!
Nick ( the Dick is your family name , isn't it) you can use the internet for improving your knowledge but before you must lern to accept others opinions, and to think with your own brain.
hmmm either way i doubt the people from that ancient culture you mentioned were actually dacians or thracians. since these were indo european people, who around 5000 bc were still one unified culture in the steppes of southern russia, and they didn't infiltrate into europe until like 3-2000 bc. most likely they were the "old europeans", kind of like the basques or etruscans or whatever. still interesting, though
why are you not rather inform yourself instead of talking under "doubts"? Hit the book first and then have an opinion! So many individuals here are reducing their coments just on doubst and bets. How can you develope a interesting and valuable information exchange within such condition? How could you be so superficial and let the mouth talk without any logic?
===================================
Quote from: Spartacus
There’s got to be some reason why the Latin element of the language survived for almost 2000 years when there were so many invading peoples and foreigners surrounding us; otherwise it would have just been forgotten. Why didn’t they fully adopt Slavic or Cuman or Hungarian or whatever? It’s not like any Italian, Spanish, or Portuguese people conquered Romania, so it had to have come from an ancient source. And Slavs wouldn’t have seen the “prestige” of Latin, which was largely lost in the East during the early Middle Ages, and decided to start speaking it.
===================================
There are multiple reasons that concurred in order for this linguistic evolution (maintenance of a romance language) to take place. First of all, it must be said that none of the migratory populations of that time (slavic, turkic, asian, german) intended to impose its language upon the autochtonous population. But there was also something else, related to practicality. It would have been impractical for the latinophone population to abandon its language and take another one. Even today many people have problems learning foreign languages, so one can imagine just how hard was in the old times for a whole population (hundred of thousands or several millions persons) to learn a completely new language. So, it was also about inertia, which is understandable. Aside from that, the languages of the migratory peoples were not better or more prestigious than the modified vulgar latin spoken by the autochtonous population. It would have been unreasonable to discard it in favor of these other languages. Today, it is a completely different matter, mainly because of the exhibitionistic approach to the language which was instilled by the latinists. The romanian language of today is seen by a good part of the population as being inferior to english, and there are some that say romanian should be abandoned everywhere (not only in the realm of computers) and english should be used instead, because it is considered better and more prestigious than romanian.
===================================
Quote from: Spartacus
All I’m saying is that few people from any of these countries consider Latin the center of their cultures, and neither should Romanians. Besides, I think most people acknowledge that the native non-Roman people still constitute the main bulk of the populations in places outside of Italy, like Spain and France (Iberians and Gauls, with a later Roman and Germanic addition).
===================================
Latin was never at the center of the romanian culture, because it never was the language of the state, church or of the cultural elites. However, the concept of latinity was used as the cornerstone of the new romanian identity that was fabricated in the 19th century. This latinity was used extensively in a propagandistic way to present romanians as a "latin" people, for various purposes like political gains, foreign acceptance, stupid bragging, etc. The latin language became some sort of quasi-religious icon and the romanian people and language were forced to kneel before that icon. Of course, the population never cared about latin, so there never was a significant number of speakers of latin in Romania. This linguistic icon was shattered to pieces after 1990 by the english language, so that today in Romania nobody cares anymore about latin. The mandatory study of latin in school was transformed into an optional discipline, a process that acknowledges the decreasing prestige of latin (and relatinized romanian altogether) in the eyes of the population and cultural elites. An americanized romanian language is something that is considered fashionable today. And there is no need for an americanized version of the Transylvanian School, because the population has taken the task to americanize the language.
===================================
Quote from: Spartacus
I have to admit I’m not happy about the people on here who tried making unfounded claims that we are the closest to Classical Latin and stuff like that, and it has ruined our credibility, but how dare you side with or defend those who insult us by denigrating our language to a fake. Besides, why should we be punished in this way because of what Domnu Heliade and those few people did back then (for what they believed was the best interest of the country). It’s like these foreigners think that the entire Romanian population just one day agreed to reform the language to fool outsiders. As if. If anything, we can be seen as the victims.
===================================
The propagandists are the product of an educational system that teaches historical propaganda and not true history. It must be said that the romanian language has a degree of falsehood, caused by the reromanization process from the 19th century and by the subsequent latinist modifications. The evolution of the romanian language is not an entirely natural one. And we must not even look so far away in the past, we can look at the 1993 moment, which reinstated an orthographical forgery. You cannot name it othwerwise, because the word "sunt" is completely fake in romanian and the letter  is also a fake. Both modifications were done only for fooling and bragging purposes, exactly the reason why fake objects are used in real life. These modifications are only the tip of the iceberg. In fact many of the problems of today's romanian language are caused by the pseudo-etymological writing who was established when the language was switched from the cyrillic to the latin alphabet. A fully phonetic writing (like it was when writing in cyrillic) would have been much better, but it was sabotaged by the latinists.
#####################################
Cum a arătat Philippide ("Principii", p. 257-265), românii sînt singurul popor care, deşi nu avea o tradiţie ortografică etimologică, a acceptat în secolul 19 o ortografie etimologică; firesc ar fi fost să adopte una fonetică (principiul comodităţii, adică al utilităţii, ducea la asta).
G. Ivănescu: Istoria Limbii Române (editura Junimea, 2000) - pag. 690
English translation:
Just like Philippide [a 20th century romanian linguist] showed, the romanians are the only people which, even if they did not have a tradition of etymological orthography, accepted in the 19th century an etymological orthography; more natural would have been to adopt a phonetic orthography (the principle of convenience, that is of usefulness pointed to that).
G. Ivănescu: The History of the Romanian Language (Junimea Publishing House, 2000) - pag. 690
#####################################
===================================
Quote from: Spartacus
It’s like these foreigners think that the entire Romanian population just one day agreed to reform the language to fool outsiders. As if. If anything, we can be seen as the victims.
===================================
The romanian population is majoritarily a willing accomplice in the process of its own brainwashing and in the fooling of non-romanians. If this was not true, then the population would have protested the educational brainwashing and the latinist modifications of the language (for example in 1993). However, because many romanians want to emigrate (mostly in Italy, Spain and France), it is better for them to be perceived as "latins". This is why almost nobody says anything about the historical brainwashing and the linguistic fakes ("sunt" and Â). So no, the romanians are not victims, because the victims would not profit from the fooling of others. Instead of that, the majority of the "victims" are trying to brainwash the non-romanians, which puts them in the category of perpetrators (intentional or non-intentional).
===================================
Quote from: Spartacus
Why do you have to try to convince everyone of your ideas? I’m a firm believer that ignorance is bliss. If something really bad happens that doesn’t directly affect someone, why tell them about it?
===================================
The historical truth is never a bad thing, on the contrary, it is an enriching experience on an intellectual and existential level. Anyone that considers himself romanian must know the truth about his origins in order to have a true romanian identity, not a fake identity. And about telling people the truth, I don't see where is the problem, given the fact that the history books are widely available in romanian or other languages and anybody can buy and read them. It's not a big secret, it's not something censored in Romania. It is only unfamiliar to those that do not read history books, because they consider the history taught in school as being enough for them. Which is not the case, school being in fact the institution by which the historical and linguistic propaganda is spread.
===================================
Quote from: Spartacus
It will just lower their morale and bum them out.
===================================
Sure, sure. Like the latinist propaganda from the last 200 years boosted the morale of romanians and made them do marvelous things... Where are those things? Where is the difference between Romania and the other Eastern European countries, which had no latinist propaganda? Is Romania better off than Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, Croatia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine, etc., all countries that were under communist rule? Did the latinist propaganda lead to some positive effects not seen in the countries that did not have something similar? The answer is of course, NO, there was no beneficial effect of the propaganda. On the contrary, romanians were transformed into a people that believes blindly all the propagandistic crap uttered by the cultural and political authorities. Romanians have become a people that refuses to think independently and just accepts with resignation all sorts of lies, under the guise of an hypothetical "national interest", that turns out to be only the interest of those that spread the lies.
===================================
Quote from: Spartacus
You see how these people react when they hear what you have to say about Romanians. What do you expect? If they’re content thinking they’re the descendants of Roman colonists and Latinized Dacians and that their language is an island in a Slavic sea, just let them have that if it makes them feel ore special. Why expose the “truth” and make them angry?
===================================
What? You say that the truth must be kept under wraps, because it could annoy some people? This is not an attitude for the 21st century and this is not an attitude that promotes free thinking. The communists were accused, and rightly so, of hiding the historical truth and restricting the access to information. You want now to act just like the communists did, by obscuring the truth and detering those that dare to speak it? This is not going forward in time, this is going backward. Unfortunately, by claiming that you are a romanian you are doing a disservice to all the romanians by having such a retrograde attitude. Not all romanians think like that. Many are willing to know the truth about their origins and are not angry when finding things that are opposite to those learned in school. And why should someone be angry when the historical truth just answers so many questions about the romanians? Is it better to have these questions left unanswered or answered in the propagandistic way, with lies? What does that imply for romanians, that they should be lied forever, because it's in their "own interest"? Is it better for the romanians to be ignorant and joyful, instead of knowledgeable and "angry"? How is a people progressing, by being stupid and disinformed or by being wise and informed?
But let's speak a little about the feeling of anger, presumably experienced by some romanians when learning about their true origins and history. They should be angry at those that lied to them, not at those that tell the truth. And most of all, they should be angry at themselves, because they had plenty of time to read at least one history book published after 1990, in conditions of complete freedom of expression. So, who is to blame if a romanian of today is ignorant because he is too lazy to buy or borrow a history book? Himself, of course.
===================================
Quote from: Spartacus
You said it yourself: within the country and with day to day matters, no one cares about their identity like that, and that’s how it should be. No need to contest it. Most people don’t go flaunting the whole Latinity thing to outsiders anyway. And for those who don’t care (probably most people), it doesn’t matter anyway.
===================================
No, this is not what I said, you are misinterpreting my words. I said that nobody cares about the identity of the people, but I never said that this is how it should be. On the contrary, this is NOT how it should be. A lot of bad things happened because of the latinist strategy that fabricated for the romanians a fake latin identity. As I said, this weakened the bond between the romanians and their land and language, moving the center of the people's identity from Romania to Italy, Rome being presented as a sort of Mecca for romanians.
===================================
Quote from: Spartacus
Most people don’t go flaunting the whole Latinity thing to outsiders anyway. And for those who don’t care (probably most people), it doesn’t matter anyway.
===================================
Oh, yes, many do it, this thread is a witness for this behavior. Many romanians are ashamed of being perceived as romanians when they travel abroad, so they say they are "italians". Who instilled in the mind of romanians that they are the descendants from italians, if not the latinist propagandists? It's ironic, but the latinist movement that was initiated as a nationalist movement turned out to be in the end an anti-nationalist movement, a transformation which very easy to see today. Romanians were forced to believe for 200 years that Italy was the land of their ancestors and after 1990 this made it very easy for them to abandon Romania and go settle in Italy with their families, alongside their "long lost relatives". This trend was accelerated after Romania was admitted in the European Union. Listen to what the ambassador of Italy in Romania had recently to say:
####################################
Mario Cospito [ambasadorul Italiei în România]: Cînd vorbesc depre relaţiile dintre România şi Italia, dintre cele două popoare, prefer să mă folosesc de matematică. Pentru că ne dă date exacte. Înainte de aderarea României la Uniunea Europeană [1 ianuarie 2007], comunitatea românească din Italia număra, în mod oficial, 150.000 de persoane, să zicem şi cu cei neînregistraţi, 200.000 de oameni. La 1 ianuarie 2009, comunitatea românească număra oficial 953.000 de persoane. Apreciem că numărul total al românilor s-ar ridica la 1.200.000 de persoane, fiind comunitatea cea mai numeroasă de străini din Italia. Totodată este şi comunitatea cea mai răspîndită [geografic]. Nu există regiune din Italia unde să nu fie prezentă o comunitate română.
English translation:
Mario Cospito [Italy's ambassador in Romania]: When I speak about the relationship between Romania and Italy, between the two peoples, I prefer to use mathematics. Because it gives us precise data. Before the entry of Romania in the European Union [january 1, 2007], the romanian community in Italy numbered, officially, 150.000 persons, and by counting also the non-registered ones, 200.000 persons. At january 1, 2009 the romanian community officially numbered 953.000 persons. We consider that the total number of romanians is close to 1.200.000 persons, being the largest foreign community in Italy. It is also the most [geographically] widespread community. There is no region in Italy where a community of romanians is not present.
http://tinyurl.com/romanians-italy
(shortehend URL to an article from March 15, 2010 published in the romanian newspaper "Adevărul")
####################################
So, in only 2 years, from 2007 to 2009, close to 1 000 000 romanians left Romania for Italy. Of course, the economic conditions in Romania are also to blame, but the economic situation cannot completely explain this full-scale migration. In the mind of many brainwashed romanians Italy is the country of their ancestors, and by emigrating to Italy they only "return home". This is the poisoned legacy of the latinists, namely the depopulation of Romania caused in part by the fake identity and the fabricated history inoculated for 200 years in the mind of romanians...
|