Yesterday I was listenin to a gypsy speaking Romanian and sounded like Portuguese at times.
Which Romance language sounds more Slavic?
================================
Quote from : wow
that's crazy, and obviously no one is going to just drop an entire language like that. there's one problem: the slavs weren't in romania when the vulgar latin arrived. they came like five centuries later. the place names and things just show that they became a very powerful and influential force in the region, especially as they established the dominant church in the region, so the people there adopted a lot of their names, and yes they probably did mix and assimilate with them considerably, but to say that it's an entirely slavic nation is just absurd.
=================================
Let's speak a little about the place names. They are a witness of continuity of habitation in a specific region. They tend to stay the same, transmitted from generation to generation, regardless of the main language spoken by the population that inhabits those places. Of course, if one population completely disappears (becomes extinct or migrates to another place), then the names are lost and if a new population arrives, other names will be used. The conquerors of a territory will usually not modify the place names. This was particularly the case in ancient times, when the conquerors could not coerce (oblige) the conquered population to use the new names, because there was no school, no maps, no signs on the road, no mass-media, etc. Of course, the new cities or villages that were built after the conquest would have new names, established by the conquerors. But the names of the geographical elements (mountains, valleys, rivers, etc.) and of the old cities or villages would usually stay the same, with minor modifications.
In Romania there was probably a discontinuity of population at some time, because roughly half of the toponyms [names of places] are of slavic origin, and the other half are mainly of romanian origin. So, at first glance there are too few toponyms of dacian origin and almost no toponyms of latin origin. But it's possible that some slavic toponyms are actually dacian toponyms, if indeed the dacian language was close to the balto-slavic languages, as some linguists (including romanians) say.
Below is a text from the "Encyclopaedia of the Romanian Language" about the origin of the romanian toponyms.
##################################
Stratificarea istorică a toponimelor [româneşti] este corelată cu cea a cuvintelor româneşti comune, dar are şi multe aspecte specifice.
Stratul autohton (dacic sau predacic) este reprezentat de cîteva nume de ape mari (Argeş, Buzău, Criş, Mureş, Olt, Someş, Timiş, etc.), de cîteva oiconime [nume de localităţi] (Abrud, Hîrşova) şi probabil de oronimele [numele de munţi] Carpaţi, Bucegi.
Stratul latin este aproape inexistent, spre deosebire de Romania Occidentală [partea vestică a Imperiului Roman], unde este bine reprezentat. Cauza principală o constituie decăderea civilizaţiei după retragerea armatelor şi a administraţiei romane [din Dacia], urmată de invaziile barbare succesive. Singura urmă pare a fi structura [sintactică] a unor toponime ca Rîu de Mori, Cîmpulung, Cărbunarea.
Stratul vechi slav este consistent [număr mare] şi cuprinde nume de aşezări umane şi de ape: Bistriţa, Cernavodă, Dîmboviţa, Ialomiţa, Milcov, Prahova, Putna, Snagov, Suceava, Slatina, Tîrnava, Topliţa, Vodiţa, Zlatna.
Stratul pecenego-cuman este constituit din cîteva hidronime şi oiconime: Bahlui, Bohui, Călmăţui, Covurlui, Vaslui. Ecouri ale acestei influenţe poartă probabil şi numele Comana şi Peceneaga.
Stratul maghiar acoperă aproape exclusiv partea de vest a ţării: Adjud, Aiud, Beiuş, Căptălan, Farcaşa, Firiza, Geoagiu, Hăşmaş, Hidg, Ieud, Mărăjdia, Nădaş, Racoş, Sebeş, Sighet, Trotuş. Există şi toponime aparent maghiare, dar care, fiind formate de la apelative care funcţionează şi în limba română puteau fi create de români: Berc, Borviz, Cherendeu, Chinghiş, Ciurgău, Covaci, Făgădău, Horda, Surduc, Tău, etc.
Stratul german, redus numeric şi restrîns la cîteva zone din vestul României, cuprinde îndeosebi compuse cu formanţii -garten (Bungard, Vingard), -bach (Dîrbav, Ghimbav, Porumbac, Rodbav). Cîteva pseudogermanisme pot fi formate de la apelative regionale de origine germană: Bunguriş, Hoşleaga, Obşineţ, Şnaiţ, Ştric.
Stratul neo-slav apare în zonele limitrofe cu limbile respective: sîrba (Blajovăţ, Bozovici, Domaşnea, Jitnul, Oraviţa, Tisoviţa), bulgara (Cameniţa, Dragov, Griviţa, Lişteava, Plevna, Rahova, Sadova, Studeniţa, Topliţa), ucraineana şi rusa (Bobinof, Balotina, Basău, Berezenca, Cacica, Goloviţa, Holod, Hliboca, Iama, Poleana, Zahorna).
Stratul turcesc este limitat la Dobrogea: Agigea, Altîntepe, Babadag, Caraorman, Carcaliu, Casicea, Cerchezu, Cobadin, Cuiugiuc, Hisarlîc, Mahmudia, Murighiol.
Există toponime de origine românească şi în teritoriile vecine ţării noastre: Bučum, Cipitor (Aţipitor), Durmitor, Funtura (Fîntîna), Kormatura, Maržinea, Čerčel, Bukurovič, Krnul (Cîrnul), Krecul (Creţul), Pasarel, Vacarel.
Academia Română, Institutul de Lingvistică "Iorgu Iordan": Enciclopedia Limbii Române (editura Univers Enciclopedic, 2001) - pagina 582
------------------------------
English translation:
The historical stratification of the [romanian] toponyms is correlated with those of the common romanian words, but also has some specific aspects.
The autochtonous layer (dacian or pre-dacian) is represented by some names of big watercourses (Argeş, Buzău, Criş, Mureş, Olt, Someş, Timiş, etc.), by some names of localities (Abrud, Hîrşova) and probably by the mountain names Carpaţi, Bucegi.
The latin layer is almost nonexistent, in contrast with the situation from Occidental Romania [the western part of the Roman Empire - Italy, France, Spain, etc.], where it is well represented. This is due mainly to the decay (breakup) of the roman civilization after the retreat [from Dacia] of the roman army and administration, followed by the ensuing barbarian invasions. The only traces could be in the [syntactic] structure of some toponyms like Rîu de Mori, Cîmpulung, Cărbunarea.
The old slavic layer is substantial [big number] and includes names of human habitations and waters: Bistriţa, Cernavodă, Dîmboviţa, Ialomiţa, Milcov, Prahova, Putna, Snagov, Suceava, Slatina, Tîrnava, Topliţa, Vodiţa, Zlatna.
The pecheneg-cuman layer consists of some names of waters and localities: Bahlui, Bohui, Călmăţui, Covurlui, Vaslui. Echoes of this influence are probably also present in the names Comana and Peceneaga.
The magyar (hungarian) layer encompasses almost exclusively the western part of the country: Adjud, Aiud, Beiuş, Căptălan, Farcaşa, Firiza, Geoagiu, Hăşmaş, Hidg, Ieud, Mărăjdia, Nădaş, Racoş, Sebeş, Sighet, Trotuş. There are also some toponyms that seem to be magyar, but being formed with words that exists also in romanian, could actually have been created by romanians: Berc, Borviz, Cherendeu, Chinghiş, Ciurgău, Covaci, Făgădău, Horda, Surduc, Tău, etc.
The german layer, small in number, is restricted to some areas from western Romania, and includes especially names formed with the [adapted] german suffixes of -garten (Bungard, Vingard), -bach (Dîrbav, Ghimbav, Porumbac, Rodbav). Some pseudo-germanisms could actually have been created with regional words of german origin: Bunguriş, Hoşleaga, Obşineţ, Şnaiţ, Ştric.
The neo-slavic layer appears in the neighbouring areas with those languages: serbian (Blajovăţ, Bozovici, Domaşnea, Jitnul, Oraviţa, Tisoviţa), bulgarian (Cameniţa, Dragov, Griviţa, Lişteava, Plevna, Rahova, Sadova, Studeniţa, Topliţa), ukrainian and russian (Bobinof, Balotina, Basău, Berezenca, Cacica, Goloviţa, Holod, Hliboca, Iama, Poleana, Zahorna).
The turkish layer is limited to Dobruja: Agigea, Altîntepe, Babadag, Caraorman, Carcaliu, Casicea, Cerchezu, Cobadin, Cuiugiuc, Hisarlîc, Mahmudia, Murighiol.
There are also some toponyms of romanian origin in the neigbouring regions outside Romania: Bučum, Cipitor (Aţipitor), Durmitor, Funtura (Fîntîna), Kormatura, Maržinea, Čerčel, Bukurovič, Krnul (Cîrnul), Krecul (Creţul), Pasarel, Vacarel.
Romanian Academy, Institute of Linguistics "Iorgu Iordan": Encyclopaedia of the Romanian Language (Univers Enciclopedic Publishing House, 2001) - page 582
###################################
Quote from : wow
that's crazy, and obviously no one is going to just drop an entire language like that. there's one problem: the slavs weren't in romania when the vulgar latin arrived. they came like five centuries later. the place names and things just show that they became a very powerful and influential force in the region, especially as they established the dominant church in the region, so the people there adopted a lot of their names, and yes they probably did mix and assimilate with them considerably, but to say that it's an entirely slavic nation is just absurd.
=================================
Let's speak a little about the place names. They are a witness of continuity of habitation in a specific region. They tend to stay the same, transmitted from generation to generation, regardless of the main language spoken by the population that inhabits those places. Of course, if one population completely disappears (becomes extinct or migrates to another place), then the names are lost and if a new population arrives, other names will be used. The conquerors of a territory will usually not modify the place names. This was particularly the case in ancient times, when the conquerors could not coerce (oblige) the conquered population to use the new names, because there was no school, no maps, no signs on the road, no mass-media, etc. Of course, the new cities or villages that were built after the conquest would have new names, established by the conquerors. But the names of the geographical elements (mountains, valleys, rivers, etc.) and of the old cities or villages would usually stay the same, with minor modifications.
In Romania there was probably a discontinuity of population at some time, because roughly half of the toponyms [names of places] are of slavic origin, and the other half are mainly of romanian origin. So, at first glance there are too few toponyms of dacian origin and almost no toponyms of latin origin. But it's possible that some slavic toponyms are actually dacian toponyms, if indeed the dacian language was close to the balto-slavic languages, as some linguists (including romanians) say.
Below is a text from the "Encyclopaedia of the Romanian Language" about the origin of the romanian toponyms.
##################################
Stratificarea istorică a toponimelor [româneşti] este corelată cu cea a cuvintelor româneşti comune, dar are şi multe aspecte specifice.
Stratul autohton (dacic sau predacic) este reprezentat de cîteva nume de ape mari (Argeş, Buzău, Criş, Mureş, Olt, Someş, Timiş, etc.), de cîteva oiconime [nume de localităţi] (Abrud, Hîrşova) şi probabil de oronimele [numele de munţi] Carpaţi, Bucegi.
Stratul latin este aproape inexistent, spre deosebire de Romania Occidentală [partea vestică a Imperiului Roman], unde este bine reprezentat. Cauza principală o constituie decăderea civilizaţiei după retragerea armatelor şi a administraţiei romane [din Dacia], urmată de invaziile barbare succesive. Singura urmă pare a fi structura [sintactică] a unor toponime ca Rîu de Mori, Cîmpulung, Cărbunarea.
Stratul vechi slav este consistent [număr mare] şi cuprinde nume de aşezări umane şi de ape: Bistriţa, Cernavodă, Dîmboviţa, Ialomiţa, Milcov, Prahova, Putna, Snagov, Suceava, Slatina, Tîrnava, Topliţa, Vodiţa, Zlatna.
Stratul pecenego-cuman este constituit din cîteva hidronime şi oiconime: Bahlui, Bohui, Călmăţui, Covurlui, Vaslui. Ecouri ale acestei influenţe poartă probabil şi numele Comana şi Peceneaga.
Stratul maghiar acoperă aproape exclusiv partea de vest a ţării: Adjud, Aiud, Beiuş, Căptălan, Farcaşa, Firiza, Geoagiu, Hăşmaş, Hidg, Ieud, Mărăjdia, Nădaş, Racoş, Sebeş, Sighet, Trotuş. Există şi toponime aparent maghiare, dar care, fiind formate de la apelative care funcţionează şi în limba română puteau fi create de români: Berc, Borviz, Cherendeu, Chinghiş, Ciurgău, Covaci, Făgădău, Horda, Surduc, Tău, etc.
Stratul german, redus numeric şi restrîns la cîteva zone din vestul României, cuprinde îndeosebi compuse cu formanţii -garten (Bungard, Vingard), -bach (Dîrbav, Ghimbav, Porumbac, Rodbav). Cîteva pseudogermanisme pot fi formate de la apelative regionale de origine germană: Bunguriş, Hoşleaga, Obşineţ, Şnaiţ, Ştric.
Stratul neo-slav apare în zonele limitrofe cu limbile respective: sîrba (Blajovăţ, Bozovici, Domaşnea, Jitnul, Oraviţa, Tisoviţa), bulgara (Cameniţa, Dragov, Griviţa, Lişteava, Plevna, Rahova, Sadova, Studeniţa, Topliţa), ucraineana şi rusa (Bobinof, Balotina, Basău, Berezenca, Cacica, Goloviţa, Holod, Hliboca, Iama, Poleana, Zahorna).
Stratul turcesc este limitat la Dobrogea: Agigea, Altîntepe, Babadag, Caraorman, Carcaliu, Casicea, Cerchezu, Cobadin, Cuiugiuc, Hisarlîc, Mahmudia, Murighiol.
Există toponime de origine românească şi în teritoriile vecine ţării noastre: Bučum, Cipitor (Aţipitor), Durmitor, Funtura (Fîntîna), Kormatura, Maržinea, Čerčel, Bukurovič, Krnul (Cîrnul), Krecul (Creţul), Pasarel, Vacarel.
Academia Română, Institutul de Lingvistică "Iorgu Iordan": Enciclopedia Limbii Române (editura Univers Enciclopedic, 2001) - pagina 582
------------------------------
English translation:
The historical stratification of the [romanian] toponyms is correlated with those of the common romanian words, but also has some specific aspects.
The autochtonous layer (dacian or pre-dacian) is represented by some names of big watercourses (Argeş, Buzău, Criş, Mureş, Olt, Someş, Timiş, etc.), by some names of localities (Abrud, Hîrşova) and probably by the mountain names Carpaţi, Bucegi.
The latin layer is almost nonexistent, in contrast with the situation from Occidental Romania [the western part of the Roman Empire - Italy, France, Spain, etc.], where it is well represented. This is due mainly to the decay (breakup) of the roman civilization after the retreat [from Dacia] of the roman army and administration, followed by the ensuing barbarian invasions. The only traces could be in the [syntactic] structure of some toponyms like Rîu de Mori, Cîmpulung, Cărbunarea.
The old slavic layer is substantial [big number] and includes names of human habitations and waters: Bistriţa, Cernavodă, Dîmboviţa, Ialomiţa, Milcov, Prahova, Putna, Snagov, Suceava, Slatina, Tîrnava, Topliţa, Vodiţa, Zlatna.
The pecheneg-cuman layer consists of some names of waters and localities: Bahlui, Bohui, Călmăţui, Covurlui, Vaslui. Echoes of this influence are probably also present in the names Comana and Peceneaga.
The magyar (hungarian) layer encompasses almost exclusively the western part of the country: Adjud, Aiud, Beiuş, Căptălan, Farcaşa, Firiza, Geoagiu, Hăşmaş, Hidg, Ieud, Mărăjdia, Nădaş, Racoş, Sebeş, Sighet, Trotuş. There are also some toponyms that seem to be magyar, but being formed with words that exists also in romanian, could actually have been created by romanians: Berc, Borviz, Cherendeu, Chinghiş, Ciurgău, Covaci, Făgădău, Horda, Surduc, Tău, etc.
The german layer, small in number, is restricted to some areas from western Romania, and includes especially names formed with the [adapted] german suffixes of -garten (Bungard, Vingard), -bach (Dîrbav, Ghimbav, Porumbac, Rodbav). Some pseudo-germanisms could actually have been created with regional words of german origin: Bunguriş, Hoşleaga, Obşineţ, Şnaiţ, Ştric.
The neo-slavic layer appears in the neighbouring areas with those languages: serbian (Blajovăţ, Bozovici, Domaşnea, Jitnul, Oraviţa, Tisoviţa), bulgarian (Cameniţa, Dragov, Griviţa, Lişteava, Plevna, Rahova, Sadova, Studeniţa, Topliţa), ukrainian and russian (Bobinof, Balotina, Basău, Berezenca, Cacica, Goloviţa, Holod, Hliboca, Iama, Poleana, Zahorna).
The turkish layer is limited to Dobruja: Agigea, Altîntepe, Babadag, Caraorman, Carcaliu, Casicea, Cerchezu, Cobadin, Cuiugiuc, Hisarlîc, Mahmudia, Murighiol.
There are also some toponyms of romanian origin in the neigbouring regions outside Romania: Bučum, Cipitor (Aţipitor), Durmitor, Funtura (Fîntîna), Kormatura, Maržinea, Čerčel, Bukurovič, Krnul (Cîrnul), Krecul (Creţul), Pasarel, Vacarel.
Romanian Academy, Institute of Linguistics "Iorgu Iordan": Encyclopaedia of the Romanian Language (Univers Enciclopedic Publishing House, 2001) - page 582
###################################
================================
Quote from : wow
especially as they established the dominant church in the region, so the people there adopted a lot of their names, and yes they probably did mix and assimilate with them considerably, but to say that it's an entirely slavic nation is just absurd.
=================================
The slavs did not establish the dominant church in the region, where did you get that? The christian orthodox church was created by the byzantines, who were greeks, not slavs. They also created the cyrillic alphabet (based on the greek alphabet) with the specific purpose to christianize the slavs. The orthodox church is not today and never was a slavic church, just like the catholic church is not and never was a romance church. Religions are transnational, not restricted to some ethnic groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Orthodox_Church
The names of the orthodox saints are greek, not slavic, just go and buy a romanian orthodox calendar and you will see that.
Let's see what the "Encyclopaedia of the Romanian Language" says about the history of the romanian anthroponyms (names of persons).
#####################################
[Antroponimele] alcătuiesc straturi istorice omogene prin particularităţi şi forme specifice: antroponimele medievale, premoderne, moderne. Din perioada de formare se păstrează cîteva antroponime religioase, forme greco-latine moştenite, rezultate ale evoluţiei fonetice regulate: Îndre, Îndrea, Undrea < Andreas ; Îndon, Înton < Antonius ; Barbura, Barbără, Barboră, Barbăr, Barbur, Barbu < Barbara ; Medrea, Medru < Demetrius ; Georz, Giorzu, Zorj < Georgius ; Nicoară, Necora < Nicolaus
La acestea se adaugă ulterior împrumuturi slave vechi, mai ales forme compuse bitematice: Branislav, Dragomir/Dragoslav, Negomir/Neagoslav, Radoslav/Radomir, Vladislav, etc., adesea simplificate : Bran, Drag(u), Neag(u), Radu, Vlad, etc. şi cumane : Basara(ă), Talabă, Tocsabă, Coman, etc. Influenţa slavă asupra antroponimiei româneşti, similară celei germanice în onomastica din Apusul Europei, are trei aspecte: preluarea formelor slave vechi, transmiterea numelor religioase greceşti, importul de forme neoslave din limbile învecinate.
Prime antroponime purtate de români sînt înregistrate în documentele bizantine din secolul 11, privitoare la răscoala vlahilor sud-dunăreni (1066): Verivoe Vlahul, Slavota, etc. Antroponimele medievale din Transilvania apar în secolul 12 în documentele maghiare (1138) : Iwanus, Sima, Sokol, Simeon, Wasil, cele din Ţara Românească în secolul 13 (1247) : Ioan, Farcaş, Litovoi, Seneslau, iar cele din Moldova, în secolul 14 (1384) : Petru, Mărgărita, Bîrlă, Giulă. Antroponimele medievale sînt nume unice, prenume sau supranume (porecle). Apariţia numelor duble, avînd în structura lor un prenume şi un nume complementar, atestată la românii sud-dunăreni din secolul 11, datează în Ţara Românească din 1387: Dimitrie Dăbăcescul din Dăbăceşti, iar în Moldova din 1393: Dragomir Albu. Fixarea sistemului onomastic medieval românesc se realizează treptat pe parcursul a patru veacuri, din secolul 11 pînă la sfîrşitul secolului 14. [...] Sistemului onomastic medieval se caracterizează prin unitate şi coerenţă în toate ariile locuite de români. [...] La sfîrşitul secolului 18, sistemul onomastic medieval suferă şocul modernizării, care îi marchează sfîrşitul. Modernizarea a implicat oficializarea numelor de familie, reînnoirea inventarului prin forme neogreceşti, latiniste şi occidentale, dar nu a alterat fondul onomastic transmis prin tradiţie pînă astăzi.
Academia Română, Institutul de Lingvistică "Iorgu Iordan": Enciclopedia Limbii Române (editura Univers Enciclopedic, 2001) - pag. 49-50
-------------------------------
English translation:
[The anthroponyms] compose homogenous historical layers with specific characteristics and forms: the medieval, pre-modern, modern anthroponyms. From the formation period remain a few religious anthroponyms, inherited greek-latin forms, resulting from the regular phonetical evolution: Îndre, Îndrea, Undrea < Andreas ; Îndon, Înton < Antonius ; Barbura, Barbără, Barboră, Barbăr, Barbur, Barbu < Barbara ; Medrea, Medru < Demetrius ; Georz, Giorzu, Zorj < Georgius ; Nicoară, Necora < Nicolaus
To these will be later added old slavic loans, especially forms composed from two themes: Branislav, Dragomir/Dragoslav, Negomir/Neagoslav, Radoslav/Radomir, Vladislav, etc., often simplified as : Bran, Drag(u), Neag(u), Radu, Vlad, etc. and cumans : Basara(ă), Talabă, Tocsabă, Coman, etc. The slavic influence on the romanian anthroponymy, similar to the germanic one in the anthroponymy from Westeren Europe, has three aspects: taking up of the old slavic forms, transmitting of the greek religious names, importing of neo-slavic forms from the neighbouring languages.
The first anthroponyms used by the romanians are recorded in the byzantine documents from the 11th century about the revolt of the southern-danubian vlachs (1066): "Verivoe the Vlach", "Slavota", etc. The medieval anthroponyms from Transylvania appear in the 12th century in magyar/hungarian documents (1138) : "Iwanus", "Sima", "Sokol", "Simeon", "Wasil", those from Wallachia in the 13th century (1247) : "Ioan", "Farcaş", "Litovoi", "Seneslau", and those from Moldavia in the 14th century (1384) : "Petru", "Mărgărita", "Bîrlă", "Giulă". The medieval anthroponyms are single names, first names (forenames) or surnames (nicknames). The emergence of the double names, having in their structure a first name and a complementary name, was confirmed in the romanians living south of the Danube in the 11th century, in Wallachia in 1387: "Dimitrie Dăbăcescul" from Dăbăceşti [a locality], and in Moldavia in 1393: "Dragomir Albu". The stabilization of the romanian medieval onomastics system has been done gradually in the span of four centuries, from the 11th century to the end of the 14th century. [...] The medieval onomastics system is characterized by unity and coherence in all the territories inhabited by romanians. [...] At the end of the 18th century, the medieval onomastics system suffers the shock of modernization, which brings it to its end. The modernization involved the officialization of the family names, the renewal of the inventory [of names] with neo-greek, latinist and occidental forms, but has not altered the onomastics fund [of names] transmitted by tradition to the present day.
Romanian Academy, Institute of Linguistics "Iorgu Iordan": Encyclopaedia of the Romanian Language (Univers Enciclopedic Publishing House, 2001) - pages 49-50
####################################
Quote from : wow
especially as they established the dominant church in the region, so the people there adopted a lot of their names, and yes they probably did mix and assimilate with them considerably, but to say that it's an entirely slavic nation is just absurd.
=================================
The slavs did not establish the dominant church in the region, where did you get that? The christian orthodox church was created by the byzantines, who were greeks, not slavs. They also created the cyrillic alphabet (based on the greek alphabet) with the specific purpose to christianize the slavs. The orthodox church is not today and never was a slavic church, just like the catholic church is not and never was a romance church. Religions are transnational, not restricted to some ethnic groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Orthodox_Church
The names of the orthodox saints are greek, not slavic, just go and buy a romanian orthodox calendar and you will see that.
Let's see what the "Encyclopaedia of the Romanian Language" says about the history of the romanian anthroponyms (names of persons).
#####################################
[Antroponimele] alcătuiesc straturi istorice omogene prin particularităţi şi forme specifice: antroponimele medievale, premoderne, moderne. Din perioada de formare se păstrează cîteva antroponime religioase, forme greco-latine moştenite, rezultate ale evoluţiei fonetice regulate: Îndre, Îndrea, Undrea < Andreas ; Îndon, Înton < Antonius ; Barbura, Barbără, Barboră, Barbăr, Barbur, Barbu < Barbara ; Medrea, Medru < Demetrius ; Georz, Giorzu, Zorj < Georgius ; Nicoară, Necora < Nicolaus
La acestea se adaugă ulterior împrumuturi slave vechi, mai ales forme compuse bitematice: Branislav, Dragomir/Dragoslav, Negomir/Neagoslav, Radoslav/Radomir, Vladislav, etc., adesea simplificate : Bran, Drag(u), Neag(u), Radu, Vlad, etc. şi cumane : Basara(ă), Talabă, Tocsabă, Coman, etc. Influenţa slavă asupra antroponimiei româneşti, similară celei germanice în onomastica din Apusul Europei, are trei aspecte: preluarea formelor slave vechi, transmiterea numelor religioase greceşti, importul de forme neoslave din limbile învecinate.
Prime antroponime purtate de români sînt înregistrate în documentele bizantine din secolul 11, privitoare la răscoala vlahilor sud-dunăreni (1066): Verivoe Vlahul, Slavota, etc. Antroponimele medievale din Transilvania apar în secolul 12 în documentele maghiare (1138) : Iwanus, Sima, Sokol, Simeon, Wasil, cele din Ţara Românească în secolul 13 (1247) : Ioan, Farcaş, Litovoi, Seneslau, iar cele din Moldova, în secolul 14 (1384) : Petru, Mărgărita, Bîrlă, Giulă. Antroponimele medievale sînt nume unice, prenume sau supranume (porecle). Apariţia numelor duble, avînd în structura lor un prenume şi un nume complementar, atestată la românii sud-dunăreni din secolul 11, datează în Ţara Românească din 1387: Dimitrie Dăbăcescul din Dăbăceşti, iar în Moldova din 1393: Dragomir Albu. Fixarea sistemului onomastic medieval românesc se realizează treptat pe parcursul a patru veacuri, din secolul 11 pînă la sfîrşitul secolului 14. [...] Sistemului onomastic medieval se caracterizează prin unitate şi coerenţă în toate ariile locuite de români. [...] La sfîrşitul secolului 18, sistemul onomastic medieval suferă şocul modernizării, care îi marchează sfîrşitul. Modernizarea a implicat oficializarea numelor de familie, reînnoirea inventarului prin forme neogreceşti, latiniste şi occidentale, dar nu a alterat fondul onomastic transmis prin tradiţie pînă astăzi.
Academia Română, Institutul de Lingvistică "Iorgu Iordan": Enciclopedia Limbii Române (editura Univers Enciclopedic, 2001) - pag. 49-50
-------------------------------
English translation:
[The anthroponyms] compose homogenous historical layers with specific characteristics and forms: the medieval, pre-modern, modern anthroponyms. From the formation period remain a few religious anthroponyms, inherited greek-latin forms, resulting from the regular phonetical evolution: Îndre, Îndrea, Undrea < Andreas ; Îndon, Înton < Antonius ; Barbura, Barbără, Barboră, Barbăr, Barbur, Barbu < Barbara ; Medrea, Medru < Demetrius ; Georz, Giorzu, Zorj < Georgius ; Nicoară, Necora < Nicolaus
To these will be later added old slavic loans, especially forms composed from two themes: Branislav, Dragomir/Dragoslav, Negomir/Neagoslav, Radoslav/Radomir, Vladislav, etc., often simplified as : Bran, Drag(u), Neag(u), Radu, Vlad, etc. and cumans : Basara(ă), Talabă, Tocsabă, Coman, etc. The slavic influence on the romanian anthroponymy, similar to the germanic one in the anthroponymy from Westeren Europe, has three aspects: taking up of the old slavic forms, transmitting of the greek religious names, importing of neo-slavic forms from the neighbouring languages.
The first anthroponyms used by the romanians are recorded in the byzantine documents from the 11th century about the revolt of the southern-danubian vlachs (1066): "Verivoe the Vlach", "Slavota", etc. The medieval anthroponyms from Transylvania appear in the 12th century in magyar/hungarian documents (1138) : "Iwanus", "Sima", "Sokol", "Simeon", "Wasil", those from Wallachia in the 13th century (1247) : "Ioan", "Farcaş", "Litovoi", "Seneslau", and those from Moldavia in the 14th century (1384) : "Petru", "Mărgărita", "Bîrlă", "Giulă". The medieval anthroponyms are single names, first names (forenames) or surnames (nicknames). The emergence of the double names, having in their structure a first name and a complementary name, was confirmed in the romanians living south of the Danube in the 11th century, in Wallachia in 1387: "Dimitrie Dăbăcescul" from Dăbăceşti [a locality], and in Moldavia in 1393: "Dragomir Albu". The stabilization of the romanian medieval onomastics system has been done gradually in the span of four centuries, from the 11th century to the end of the 14th century. [...] The medieval onomastics system is characterized by unity and coherence in all the territories inhabited by romanians. [...] At the end of the 18th century, the medieval onomastics system suffers the shock of modernization, which brings it to its end. The modernization involved the officialization of the family names, the renewal of the inventory [of names] with neo-greek, latinist and occidental forms, but has not altered the onomastics fund [of names] transmitted by tradition to the present day.
Romanian Academy, Institute of Linguistics "Iorgu Iordan": Encyclopaedia of the Romanian Language (Univers Enciclopedic Publishing House, 2001) - pages 49-50
####################################
================================
Quote from : frate
anyway, if you actually read through his posts, even ravinescu isn't trying to make the case that romania is totally slavic, he's just saying that they had a large influence on it, culturally and ethnically, and that the artificial relatinization of the 19th century might not have been the best thing. overall, it's a blend of many peoples and cultural and linguistic elements that all came together over time
================================
I never said that Romania is a slavic country or the romanian civilization is a slavic one. I only said that the romanians have slavic ancestors and that's why the romanian language has a strong slavic influence. Just like the romanian civilization and psychology ("soul") of the people has slavic traits (characteristics) alongside other traits, for example balkan ones. From a genetic point of view, the slavic contribution to the formation of the romanian people is much more important than the roman contribution, which actually was not even homogenous or latin/italian, but was ethnically diverse, from a mix of mainly eastern/oriental populations brought as latinophone colonists in the roman province of Dacia. Let's see what some contemporary french historians are saying about the conquest and colonization of Dacia.
###################################
Cucerirea Daciei (actuala Transilvanie) a fost foarte dură. Decebal, regele dacilor, om dibaci şi îndărătnic, folosise transfugi romani pentru a-şi organiza armata. Au fost necesare două războaie succesive, în 101-102 şi 105-106 pentru ca el să se recunoască învins şi să se sinucidă. Un trădător a dezvăluit locul unde se afla tezaurul, cel care a asigurat finanţelor romane, împreună cu prada, suma fabuloasă de 500 000 livre de aur. Imediat, regiunea a fost transformată în provincie: o reţea rutieră a transportat spre Roma aurul, argintul, fierul şi sarea din minele din Carpaţi, peste un pod de piatră cu 17 piloni, construit pe Dunăre în apropiere de Porţile de Fier. Orientali şi africani au implantat în provincia romană limba latină. Ea a fost romanizată în aşa măsură încît i-a rămas numele de România.
Istoria Universală, volumul 1 (editura Univers Enciclopedic Gold, 2009) - pagina 619
(Cartea este o traducere în română a versiunii originale franţuzeşti publicate în 1999 la editura Larousse)
English translation:
The conquest of Dacia (present-day Transylvania) was very tough. Decebal, the king of the dacians, a skillful and obstinate man, used roman turncoats/deserters in order to organize his army. Two succesive wars, in 101-102 and 105-106 were necessary for him to recognize the defeat and commit suicide. A traitor unveiled the place where the [dacian] treasure was located, which added to the roman finances, together with the loot, the fabulous sum of 500 000 pounds of gold. Immediately, the region was transformed in a [roman] province: a road network transported toward Rome the gold, silver, iron and salt extracted from the Carpathian mines, using a stone bridge with 17 pylons, built on the Danube in the vicinity of the Iron Gates [a natural gorge at the romanian-serbian border]. Oriental and african [colonists] implanted the latin language in the roman province to such extent that its name remained Romania.
Universal History, volume 1 (Univers Enciclopedic Gold Publishing House) - page 619
(The book is a romanian translation of the original french version, published in 1999 by the Larousse Publishing House)
###################################
So, it's not a secret for any historian that the colonists brought by the romans in Dacia were not italians, but mainly from the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire (Asia Minor, Middle East) and from northern Africa. They were also from the regions situated south of the Danube (Thracia, Moesia, Illyria) and from other parts of the empire. These are, from the roman side, the ancestors of the present-day romanians, those that brought with them the latin language learned in their native lands, which were longtime roman provinces.
The problem with the romanian identity was caused by the lies concocted in the 19th century and the subsequent propaganda. If the romanians were not brainwashed for 200 years into thinking they are descendants exclusively from italian colonists and dacians, they would have accepted the slavs as ancestors from a long time ago, because the romanians have an obsession with them being true europeans. The slavs that settled in the 5th-9th century AD in what is now Romania were europeans, whereas many of the roman colonists who arrived in Dacia between 106-270 AD were not europeans. The slavs actually strenghtened the european genetic roots of the present-day romanian population. Romanians are a people with genetic ancestry not only from Europe, but also from Asia and Africa. This is an advantage, not a disadvantage. The americans of today are a much ethnically diverse population and they don't care, actually they encourage this diversity with their official immigration program. If the romanians of today admire the americans so much, they should also adopt the american view regarding their ethnic origin, that diversity is better. The strenght of a country is not dependent on the ethnic origin of the population, but on its desire to work toward building a powerful civilization.
The romanians were taught to reject their true ancestors and to love some fictional ancestors, invented by the latinist propagandists from the 19th century. This was a completely stupid thing to do, and the alienation of today's romanians is a result of this wretched strategy.
================================
Quote from: OriginalGuest
In the 19th Century there was massive emigration from Russia to Romania, mainly people seeking higher economic and political freedom. Mihai Eminescu (the most important national poet of Romania) was born in fact Eminovich from Russian family that were political refugees and that adopted a Romanian identity.
=======================================
Are there some sources (books or internet sites) that support such a claim, of a massive emigration from Russia to Romania in the 19th century? In my opinion it was probably some emigration, but far from massive, otherwise today many romanians would have russian names, which is not the case, at least not in Bucharest. There are a lot of names of slavic origin in Romania, but true russian names are very few.
As for Eminescu, I have already explained the situation on page 28 of this discussion, based on the most comprehensive book about his life, the one written by George Călinescu. Eminescu had a russian ancestor (the grandfather of his mother), but otherwise on the slavic side he seemed to be more of rusyn (ruthenian) origin.
However, Eminescu is not the only romanian poet with a russian ancestry. Nichita Stănescu (1933-1983), which is considered by many to be the greatest romanian poet from the 2nd half of the 20th century, was half-russian. His mother (Tatiana Cereaciukin) was born in Voronej (Russia) in a family that would later come to Romania as refugees after the Russian Revolution of 1917. One can see here the difference between a romanian name of slavic origin (Stănescu) and a russian name (Cereaciukin). The romanian name Stănescu derives from "Stan", a once very common romanian first name in rural areas, created many centuries ago by the shortening of the slavic first name "Stanislav". But the name "Stănescu" looks completely romanian, whereas "Cereaciukin" looks, of course, russian.
http://tinyurl.com/nichita-stanescu
(shortened URL to the Wikipedia article in english about the romanian poet)
Quote from : frate
anyway, if you actually read through his posts, even ravinescu isn't trying to make the case that romania is totally slavic, he's just saying that they had a large influence on it, culturally and ethnically, and that the artificial relatinization of the 19th century might not have been the best thing. overall, it's a blend of many peoples and cultural and linguistic elements that all came together over time
================================
I never said that Romania is a slavic country or the romanian civilization is a slavic one. I only said that the romanians have slavic ancestors and that's why the romanian language has a strong slavic influence. Just like the romanian civilization and psychology ("soul") of the people has slavic traits (characteristics) alongside other traits, for example balkan ones. From a genetic point of view, the slavic contribution to the formation of the romanian people is much more important than the roman contribution, which actually was not even homogenous or latin/italian, but was ethnically diverse, from a mix of mainly eastern/oriental populations brought as latinophone colonists in the roman province of Dacia. Let's see what some contemporary french historians are saying about the conquest and colonization of Dacia.
###################################
Cucerirea Daciei (actuala Transilvanie) a fost foarte dură. Decebal, regele dacilor, om dibaci şi îndărătnic, folosise transfugi romani pentru a-şi organiza armata. Au fost necesare două războaie succesive, în 101-102 şi 105-106 pentru ca el să se recunoască învins şi să se sinucidă. Un trădător a dezvăluit locul unde se afla tezaurul, cel care a asigurat finanţelor romane, împreună cu prada, suma fabuloasă de 500 000 livre de aur. Imediat, regiunea a fost transformată în provincie: o reţea rutieră a transportat spre Roma aurul, argintul, fierul şi sarea din minele din Carpaţi, peste un pod de piatră cu 17 piloni, construit pe Dunăre în apropiere de Porţile de Fier. Orientali şi africani au implantat în provincia romană limba latină. Ea a fost romanizată în aşa măsură încît i-a rămas numele de România.
Istoria Universală, volumul 1 (editura Univers Enciclopedic Gold, 2009) - pagina 619
(Cartea este o traducere în română a versiunii originale franţuzeşti publicate în 1999 la editura Larousse)
English translation:
The conquest of Dacia (present-day Transylvania) was very tough. Decebal, the king of the dacians, a skillful and obstinate man, used roman turncoats/deserters in order to organize his army. Two succesive wars, in 101-102 and 105-106 were necessary for him to recognize the defeat and commit suicide. A traitor unveiled the place where the [dacian] treasure was located, which added to the roman finances, together with the loot, the fabulous sum of 500 000 pounds of gold. Immediately, the region was transformed in a [roman] province: a road network transported toward Rome the gold, silver, iron and salt extracted from the Carpathian mines, using a stone bridge with 17 pylons, built on the Danube in the vicinity of the Iron Gates [a natural gorge at the romanian-serbian border]. Oriental and african [colonists] implanted the latin language in the roman province to such extent that its name remained Romania.
Universal History, volume 1 (Univers Enciclopedic Gold Publishing House) - page 619
(The book is a romanian translation of the original french version, published in 1999 by the Larousse Publishing House)
###################################
So, it's not a secret for any historian that the colonists brought by the romans in Dacia were not italians, but mainly from the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire (Asia Minor, Middle East) and from northern Africa. They were also from the regions situated south of the Danube (Thracia, Moesia, Illyria) and from other parts of the empire. These are, from the roman side, the ancestors of the present-day romanians, those that brought with them the latin language learned in their native lands, which were longtime roman provinces.
The problem with the romanian identity was caused by the lies concocted in the 19th century and the subsequent propaganda. If the romanians were not brainwashed for 200 years into thinking they are descendants exclusively from italian colonists and dacians, they would have accepted the slavs as ancestors from a long time ago, because the romanians have an obsession with them being true europeans. The slavs that settled in the 5th-9th century AD in what is now Romania were europeans, whereas many of the roman colonists who arrived in Dacia between 106-270 AD were not europeans. The slavs actually strenghtened the european genetic roots of the present-day romanian population. Romanians are a people with genetic ancestry not only from Europe, but also from Asia and Africa. This is an advantage, not a disadvantage. The americans of today are a much ethnically diverse population and they don't care, actually they encourage this diversity with their official immigration program. If the romanians of today admire the americans so much, they should also adopt the american view regarding their ethnic origin, that diversity is better. The strenght of a country is not dependent on the ethnic origin of the population, but on its desire to work toward building a powerful civilization.
The romanians were taught to reject their true ancestors and to love some fictional ancestors, invented by the latinist propagandists from the 19th century. This was a completely stupid thing to do, and the alienation of today's romanians is a result of this wretched strategy.
================================
Quote from: OriginalGuest
In the 19th Century there was massive emigration from Russia to Romania, mainly people seeking higher economic and political freedom. Mihai Eminescu (the most important national poet of Romania) was born in fact Eminovich from Russian family that were political refugees and that adopted a Romanian identity.
=======================================
Are there some sources (books or internet sites) that support such a claim, of a massive emigration from Russia to Romania in the 19th century? In my opinion it was probably some emigration, but far from massive, otherwise today many romanians would have russian names, which is not the case, at least not in Bucharest. There are a lot of names of slavic origin in Romania, but true russian names are very few.
As for Eminescu, I have already explained the situation on page 28 of this discussion, based on the most comprehensive book about his life, the one written by George Călinescu. Eminescu had a russian ancestor (the grandfather of his mother), but otherwise on the slavic side he seemed to be more of rusyn (ruthenian) origin.
However, Eminescu is not the only romanian poet with a russian ancestry. Nichita Stănescu (1933-1983), which is considered by many to be the greatest romanian poet from the 2nd half of the 20th century, was half-russian. His mother (Tatiana Cereaciukin) was born in Voronej (Russia) in a family that would later come to Romania as refugees after the Russian Revolution of 1917. One can see here the difference between a romanian name of slavic origin (Stănescu) and a russian name (Cereaciukin). The romanian name Stănescu derives from "Stan", a once very common romanian first name in rural areas, created many centuries ago by the shortening of the slavic first name "Stanislav". But the name "Stănescu" looks completely romanian, whereas "Cereaciukin" looks, of course, russian.
http://tinyurl.com/nichita-stanescu
(shortened URL to the Wikipedia article in english about the romanian poet)
================================
Quote from : Sandu
Ravinescu, you have the nerve to go around spreading crap like that?! What's wrong with you? The events of the 19th century relatinization are known as an "awakening" for a reason: because we rediscovered some of our ancient roots. I don't blame them at all for doing what they did. They can do what they want with their language. Besides, it helped make overall communication easier as many of those new French words are also international words to an extent, with many being similar in English. It was a way of opening up to the outside and western world. I don't think their main objective was to "fool" people, as you say.
======================================
Could you be more specific about the "crap"? What are the things that you consider false? I have provided numerous quotes from books written by historians and linguists in support of my opinions. The relatinization from the 19th century was not part of a process of "awakening", but of a process of hypnosis by creating a fake romanian identity based on a heavily modified language and a modified history. So, you think it was worth having a relatinized language and at the same time a hypnotized (brainwashed) population who doesn't know who are his true ancestors? It never pays to brainwash an entire population, the side effects are huge. One of the results of this process applied for 200 years in Romania is the present-day depopulation to the benefit of Italy, France and Spain, because the romanians were made to believe that their genetic roots are in Western Europe, so by emigrating there, aside from the economic benefits, they wrongly think that they are returning to the land of their ancestors, the roman colonists.
================================
Quote from : Sandu
Maybe you have some points, but luckily I am from Oltenia, a.k.a. the most Roman part of Romania (the part that was directly colonized by our noble ancestors). Our accent and speech is genuine and natural, unlike Bucharest, and pure, unlike that of Moldova.
================================
Oltenia was part of the roman province of Dacia, but it is far from the "most roman part of Romania". This title belongs without any doubt to Transylvania, which was the true center of the roman province. Oltenia was not as developed as Transylvania in roman times, which is perfectly normal, because the riches wanted by the romans were mainly in Transylvania.
================================
Quote from : Sandu
Our accent and speech is genuine and natural, unlike Bucharest, and pure, unlike that of Moldova.
================================
In Bucharest there is no accent at all. The language spoken in Bucharest is much more similar to the one spoken in Oltenia than to the one spoken in Moldavia or Transylvania, because both Muntenia and Oltenia are southern romanian provinces, and in Bucharest there are a lot of descendants of people arrived from Oltenia in the 20th century.
================================
Quote from : Sandu
In fact, my hometown of Caracal was named after the emperor Caracalla, who extended citizenship to all in the empire at the time Dacia was still a province.
================================
That's probably not true, because the first mention of the name "Caracal" was in 1538 AD, a very long time after the romans had left (270 AD). The name "caracal" is not so uncommon, as the disambiguation page from Wikipedia testifies to that:
http://tinyurl.com/caracal-disambiguation
The etymology of the romanian town name Caracal is not known, but it could more probably be of cuman (turkic) origin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracal,_Romania
================================
Quote from : Sandu
Noi suntem români! Şi daci!
================================
Nobody said otherwise, except the propagandists which insist to say that romanians are of latin descent, which is not true, the italian genetic contribution in the formation of the romanian people being minimal, if at all.
================================
Quote from : Sandu
Seriously, why is our history so contested and why do we have to have so much outside interference about our background? I don't get why it's so hard to accept the simplest explanations (I guess just the idea of a nation like that existing in Eastern Europe makes people uncomfortable); no, instead people have to make corrections, thinking they know better, and concoct convoluted theories. Even if you are right, it's not going to change anything; the perceptions we have today are here to stay, and people are going to believe what they feel like, aight? I don't see Romania moving any closer to the East and Russia in the future, regardless of how close you said we were in the past.
======================================
The romanian history is not contested. The problem is that the romanians are brainwashed from early childhood, so they don't know their true history and as adults they do not read history books in order to learn it. Sure, people could continue to believe what they want about the romanian history, but they will appear as ignorants, which is not a good image for them and for the romanian people as a whole. Past history has no relation with the present-day political alliances on the world stage, because ethnicity is not important when forging alliances, what is important are the practical benefits gained from such an alliance, not the strenghtening of an ethnic kinship. The british are a germanic people and have a ruling dinasty of german origin, but this did not stop them to fight against Germany in two world wars. There are a lot of examples like that in the history of the world.
================================
Quote from : Simion
Nu inteleg de ce nu ignori imbecili ca ravinescu, original guest ,etc? Tu nu vezi ca zic numia idiotenii, nu le ma da importanta! Sunt niste frustrati, niste creaturi nefericite care au vin pe acest forum pentru ca este singurul loc unde din cand in cand, mai sunt si ei bagati in seama.
================================
Nu înţeleg de ce nu scrii corect în română, cu diacritice, aşa cum ai învăţat la şcoală. Şi nu înţeleg de ce într-o discuţie purtată în engleză nu scrii şi tu în engleză, ca să înţeleagă toată lumea.
English translation:
I don't understand why you don't write correctly in romanian, with diacritics. And I don't understand why in a discussion in english you do not write in english, so that anybody could understand.
Quote from : Sandu
Ravinescu, you have the nerve to go around spreading crap like that?! What's wrong with you? The events of the 19th century relatinization are known as an "awakening" for a reason: because we rediscovered some of our ancient roots. I don't blame them at all for doing what they did. They can do what they want with their language. Besides, it helped make overall communication easier as many of those new French words are also international words to an extent, with many being similar in English. It was a way of opening up to the outside and western world. I don't think their main objective was to "fool" people, as you say.
======================================
Could you be more specific about the "crap"? What are the things that you consider false? I have provided numerous quotes from books written by historians and linguists in support of my opinions. The relatinization from the 19th century was not part of a process of "awakening", but of a process of hypnosis by creating a fake romanian identity based on a heavily modified language and a modified history. So, you think it was worth having a relatinized language and at the same time a hypnotized (brainwashed) population who doesn't know who are his true ancestors? It never pays to brainwash an entire population, the side effects are huge. One of the results of this process applied for 200 years in Romania is the present-day depopulation to the benefit of Italy, France and Spain, because the romanians were made to believe that their genetic roots are in Western Europe, so by emigrating there, aside from the economic benefits, they wrongly think that they are returning to the land of their ancestors, the roman colonists.
================================
Quote from : Sandu
Maybe you have some points, but luckily I am from Oltenia, a.k.a. the most Roman part of Romania (the part that was directly colonized by our noble ancestors). Our accent and speech is genuine and natural, unlike Bucharest, and pure, unlike that of Moldova.
================================
Oltenia was part of the roman province of Dacia, but it is far from the "most roman part of Romania". This title belongs without any doubt to Transylvania, which was the true center of the roman province. Oltenia was not as developed as Transylvania in roman times, which is perfectly normal, because the riches wanted by the romans were mainly in Transylvania.
================================
Quote from : Sandu
Our accent and speech is genuine and natural, unlike Bucharest, and pure, unlike that of Moldova.
================================
In Bucharest there is no accent at all. The language spoken in Bucharest is much more similar to the one spoken in Oltenia than to the one spoken in Moldavia or Transylvania, because both Muntenia and Oltenia are southern romanian provinces, and in Bucharest there are a lot of descendants of people arrived from Oltenia in the 20th century.
================================
Quote from : Sandu
In fact, my hometown of Caracal was named after the emperor Caracalla, who extended citizenship to all in the empire at the time Dacia was still a province.
================================
That's probably not true, because the first mention of the name "Caracal" was in 1538 AD, a very long time after the romans had left (270 AD). The name "caracal" is not so uncommon, as the disambiguation page from Wikipedia testifies to that:
http://tinyurl.com/caracal-disambiguation
The etymology of the romanian town name Caracal is not known, but it could more probably be of cuman (turkic) origin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracal,_Romania
================================
Quote from : Sandu
Noi suntem români! Şi daci!
================================
Nobody said otherwise, except the propagandists which insist to say that romanians are of latin descent, which is not true, the italian genetic contribution in the formation of the romanian people being minimal, if at all.
================================
Quote from : Sandu
Seriously, why is our history so contested and why do we have to have so much outside interference about our background? I don't get why it's so hard to accept the simplest explanations (I guess just the idea of a nation like that existing in Eastern Europe makes people uncomfortable); no, instead people have to make corrections, thinking they know better, and concoct convoluted theories. Even if you are right, it's not going to change anything; the perceptions we have today are here to stay, and people are going to believe what they feel like, aight? I don't see Romania moving any closer to the East and Russia in the future, regardless of how close you said we were in the past.
======================================
The romanian history is not contested. The problem is that the romanians are brainwashed from early childhood, so they don't know their true history and as adults they do not read history books in order to learn it. Sure, people could continue to believe what they want about the romanian history, but they will appear as ignorants, which is not a good image for them and for the romanian people as a whole. Past history has no relation with the present-day political alliances on the world stage, because ethnicity is not important when forging alliances, what is important are the practical benefits gained from such an alliance, not the strenghtening of an ethnic kinship. The british are a germanic people and have a ruling dinasty of german origin, but this did not stop them to fight against Germany in two world wars. There are a lot of examples like that in the history of the world.
================================
Quote from : Simion
Nu inteleg de ce nu ignori imbecili ca ravinescu, original guest ,etc? Tu nu vezi ca zic numia idiotenii, nu le ma da importanta! Sunt niste frustrati, niste creaturi nefericite care au vin pe acest forum pentru ca este singurul loc unde din cand in cand, mai sunt si ei bagati in seama.
================================
Nu înţeleg de ce nu scrii corect în română, cu diacritice, aşa cum ai învăţat la şcoală. Şi nu înţeleg de ce într-o discuţie purtată în engleză nu scrii şi tu în engleză, ca să înţeleagă toată lumea.
English translation:
I don't understand why you don't write correctly in romanian, with diacritics. And I don't understand why in a discussion in english you do not write in english, so that anybody could understand.
================================
Quote from : Robert
As regarding you, the very 'smart" posts of ravinescu, (alias Breno, ...."is my religion" etc), I recommend to learn first about how any other language (in Europe and not only), have evolved during the time. To present Romanian as an unique case under an unique aspect of evolution you should be not just ignorant, but totally disrespectful across the other participants on this forum who might want to learn about languages evolution and their problematic. Spreading lies, incomplete information, or bringing up into discussion only aspects which are not defining the language as an integer, it is shameless, stupid and dirty. There is nothing more to add on this. It is sad though to see this bunch of semi-docs giving to the less important aspects of a subject the appearance of the MAIN one. That's outrageous!
For whoever is not advised, this forum is not a scientific forum at all. It is used either by kids, or by people with a poor knowledge of languages and history of languages. They are ready to absorb anybody's aberration put in here and that's a pity. Ravinescu, (alias Breno, alias ..myreligion) and originalguest, if they are so good in other nations history (Romanian history, for example) or history in general I recommend them some easy (but just History), forums, :http://www.forumjar.com/forums/Nation .
There is nobody in. Ravinescu and originalguest...come only here to speculate the ignorance of other people and playing smart behind absurd and nonsense stories.
===============================
You have no credibility when all you do on this thread is to slander. I have never insulted the other participants like you do, all I did was to present my opinions backed up by countless quotes from history and linguistics books, the majority of which were written by romanians and published after 1990. And I have never used on this thread any other nickname than "ravinescu". Alos, I never insulted the Antimoon forum audience, but you seem to do it on a regular basis. You give a bad image of the romanian people, which will be seen as a vulgar (gross) people, always inclined to insult the other participants in a discussion. Do you think that your decision to not participate in a civilized and meaningful manner to the discussion is something that will make others believe your badmouthing? Think again.
================================
Quote from : Robert
Guys,
don't expect any other intervention from me, who ever is thinking of any. It won't be! I did say what I had to say after I red some of the posts placed here by those pathetic guys mentioned above and I have no time to waste discussing about all this bullshit with you.
===========================================
Sure, what is this, the third or the fourth time that you announce to leave the forum, only to come back later with the same whining? Of course this time people will take your word on it...
================================
Quote from : George
I'm interested in learning some more of the Romanian language and culture. I know some of the basics, but I hear that some people like to learn by immersing themselves in the language through books, songs and movies. One of the things I'm trying to get used to is the almost silent -i ending for plurals. Does anyone recommend anything good?
==================================
You have below a page that lists many resorces related to learning about Romania and the romanian language:
http://www.seelrc.org/webliography/romanian.ptml
You can also browse Wikipedia in romanian:
http://ro.wikipedia.org/
And last but not least, you have a grammar book written in english which will answer your questions about the subtleties of the romanian language (for example there is a paragraph about "The letter [i] in final postion"). You can dowload it for free and read it in any PDF reader.
http://tinyurl.com/romanian-grammar
(shortened URL to a romanian grammar book)
Quote from : Robert
As regarding you, the very 'smart" posts of ravinescu, (alias Breno, ...."is my religion" etc), I recommend to learn first about how any other language (in Europe and not only), have evolved during the time. To present Romanian as an unique case under an unique aspect of evolution you should be not just ignorant, but totally disrespectful across the other participants on this forum who might want to learn about languages evolution and their problematic. Spreading lies, incomplete information, or bringing up into discussion only aspects which are not defining the language as an integer, it is shameless, stupid and dirty. There is nothing more to add on this. It is sad though to see this bunch of semi-docs giving to the less important aspects of a subject the appearance of the MAIN one. That's outrageous!
For whoever is not advised, this forum is not a scientific forum at all. It is used either by kids, or by people with a poor knowledge of languages and history of languages. They are ready to absorb anybody's aberration put in here and that's a pity. Ravinescu, (alias Breno, alias ..myreligion) and originalguest, if they are so good in other nations history (Romanian history, for example) or history in general I recommend them some easy (but just History), forums, :http://www.forumjar.com/forums/Nation .
There is nobody in. Ravinescu and originalguest...come only here to speculate the ignorance of other people and playing smart behind absurd and nonsense stories.
===============================
You have no credibility when all you do on this thread is to slander. I have never insulted the other participants like you do, all I did was to present my opinions backed up by countless quotes from history and linguistics books, the majority of which were written by romanians and published after 1990. And I have never used on this thread any other nickname than "ravinescu". Alos, I never insulted the Antimoon forum audience, but you seem to do it on a regular basis. You give a bad image of the romanian people, which will be seen as a vulgar (gross) people, always inclined to insult the other participants in a discussion. Do you think that your decision to not participate in a civilized and meaningful manner to the discussion is something that will make others believe your badmouthing? Think again.
================================
Quote from : Robert
Guys,
don't expect any other intervention from me, who ever is thinking of any. It won't be! I did say what I had to say after I red some of the posts placed here by those pathetic guys mentioned above and I have no time to waste discussing about all this bullshit with you.
===========================================
Sure, what is this, the third or the fourth time that you announce to leave the forum, only to come back later with the same whining? Of course this time people will take your word on it...
================================
Quote from : George
I'm interested in learning some more of the Romanian language and culture. I know some of the basics, but I hear that some people like to learn by immersing themselves in the language through books, songs and movies. One of the things I'm trying to get used to is the almost silent -i ending for plurals. Does anyone recommend anything good?
==================================
You have below a page that lists many resorces related to learning about Romania and the romanian language:
http://www.seelrc.org/webliography/romanian.ptml
You can also browse Wikipedia in romanian:
http://ro.wikipedia.org/
And last but not least, you have a grammar book written in english which will answer your questions about the subtleties of the romanian language (for example there is a paragraph about "The letter [i] in final postion"). You can dowload it for free and read it in any PDF reader.
http://tinyurl.com/romanian-grammar
(shortened URL to a romanian grammar book)
Thanks ravinescu for your contributions. I'm learning more from you than the screaming rabid yahoos that come here foaming at the mouth just because you're posting here.
BTW To all the others, I am NOT a sockpuppet of ravinescu. I am a different poster than the individual who signs his/her name as "ravinescu".
BTW To all the others, I am NOT a sockpuppet of ravinescu. I am a different poster than the individual who signs his/her name as "ravinescu".
Wow, this is some heavy stuff. I don't fully agree with everything you say, ravinescu, but some things make sense. You can imagine, however, how much of a shock this comes to me, especially the way I was raised. My dad, being half Italian himself, was therefore very much Latin-oriented as far as Romanians go, and I know he wouldn't listen to a word of what you have to say. But nonetheless, it is interesting.
On the other hand, I can't really take Original seriously, as it seems every post he's had on here deals with obsession with everything Slavic and Russian. No one's going to switch to Cyrillic again, even Slavic countries, lol. I somehow doubt this guy is fully Romanian.
Anyhow, I've grew up in a very Western style upbringing, not caring much at all for Eastern European countries, other than Greece and Romania to an extent, instead being used French and classical literature and all that. But I may begin to look into the Eastern Bloc more now.
On the other hand, I can't really take Original seriously, as it seems every post he's had on here deals with obsession with everything Slavic and Russian. No one's going to switch to Cyrillic again, even Slavic countries, lol. I somehow doubt this guy is fully Romanian.
Anyhow, I've grew up in a very Western style upbringing, not caring much at all for Eastern European countries, other than Greece and Romania to an extent, instead being used French and classical literature and all that. But I may begin to look into the Eastern Bloc more now.
Well, I'm glad to see someone taking an interest in the language. The -i plural ending can be a bit tricky for non native speakers. With some sounds, like ci ('ch' in English), it's essentially silent or you can't tell the difference, because a c at the end of a word by itself has a hard sound like k. But, for example with -ni, as in români, there is a very subtle difference from the singular, român, almost a half breath. Anyway good luck. Those resources posted above look pretty good.
Oh you mentioned songs and movies. Some people earlier on this thread posted some songs if you think that will help. Hmmm and for the movies, if you're into historical movies, there were a series of films made during the Communist era, especially by Sergiu Nicolaescu, about Romanian heroes and kings over time, some of which aren't too bad for their time and place. It'll give you a little look into major figures of Romanian culture and history. They can be a bit corny and propagandistic though. The language is also spoken fairly clearly, if sometimes rapidly, so that might help. Here's some sample clips I found.
Dacii- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvJKPNDbuYM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhyzyfFBnfY
Vlad Tepes (Dracula) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5ag5H2t2Vg&feature=related
Stefan cel Mare- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXx7Ybj7f1U&feature=related
Mihai Viteazul- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RakueZAlipo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3Gq-SJaImY&feature=related
Regia (Burebista)- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT3uRG0KaDA
Some more modern ones- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5n0PxqiMoM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcniZdkR6Dw&feature=related
However, of course I recommend actual learning tutorials, or even slowly read poetry. These are just for curiosity's sake.
Oh you mentioned songs and movies. Some people earlier on this thread posted some songs if you think that will help. Hmmm and for the movies, if you're into historical movies, there were a series of films made during the Communist era, especially by Sergiu Nicolaescu, about Romanian heroes and kings over time, some of which aren't too bad for their time and place. It'll give you a little look into major figures of Romanian culture and history. They can be a bit corny and propagandistic though. The language is also spoken fairly clearly, if sometimes rapidly, so that might help. Here's some sample clips I found.
Dacii- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvJKPNDbuYM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhyzyfFBnfY
Vlad Tepes (Dracula) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5ag5H2t2Vg&feature=related
Stefan cel Mare- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXx7Ybj7f1U&feature=related
Mihai Viteazul- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RakueZAlipo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3Gq-SJaImY&feature=related
Regia (Burebista)- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT3uRG0KaDA
Some more modern ones- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5n0PxqiMoM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcniZdkR6Dw&feature=related
However, of course I recommend actual learning tutorials, or even slowly read poetry. These are just for curiosity's sake.
@Alex
What OriginalGuest was trying to say was that the Cyrillic alphabet represented romanian orthography more accurately than the Latin alphabet.
What OriginalGuest was trying to say was that the Cyrillic alphabet represented romanian orthography more accurately than the Latin alphabet.
Reason Is My Religion said
'What OriginalGuest was trying to say was that the Cyrillic alphabet represented romanian orthography more accurately than the Latin alphabet.'
-------------
.. which is of course a nonsense. The Cyrillic alphabet used in Romania was needlessly complicated, had almost 50 letters and used accents. It included many diphthongs as single letters and because of that, over a long period of time, it distorted the Romanian language.
One strong characteristic of the Romanian language is that it tends to shorten the words, as long as there is no danger of confusing them with other words in the Romanian vocabulary. The Cyrillic alphabet, and the influence of the Old Slavonic used in administration of the former Romanian kingdoms, reversed this trend, by replacing vowels with diphthongs, simply because this alphabet could capture/represent them easily.
For instance the pronunciation of e/este changed over a long period of time and under the influence of OCS with ie/ieste, just because the Cyrillic alphabet could represent these words with the same number of letters. This trend was reversed in the past 150 years since the reintroduction of the Latin alphabet, and the pronunciation of many words has changed/simplified and was reverted to a more latinate version.
The Cyrillic alphabet was unnatural for the Romanian language and it helped introduce many Slavic artifacts, foreign and hard to ingest for the Romanian language. The reintroduction of the Latin alphabet was necessary for the Romanian language.
'What OriginalGuest was trying to say was that the Cyrillic alphabet represented romanian orthography more accurately than the Latin alphabet.'
-------------
.. which is of course a nonsense. The Cyrillic alphabet used in Romania was needlessly complicated, had almost 50 letters and used accents. It included many diphthongs as single letters and because of that, over a long period of time, it distorted the Romanian language.
One strong characteristic of the Romanian language is that it tends to shorten the words, as long as there is no danger of confusing them with other words in the Romanian vocabulary. The Cyrillic alphabet, and the influence of the Old Slavonic used in administration of the former Romanian kingdoms, reversed this trend, by replacing vowels with diphthongs, simply because this alphabet could capture/represent them easily.
For instance the pronunciation of e/este changed over a long period of time and under the influence of OCS with ie/ieste, just because the Cyrillic alphabet could represent these words with the same number of letters. This trend was reversed in the past 150 years since the reintroduction of the Latin alphabet, and the pronunciation of many words has changed/simplified and was reverted to a more latinate version.
The Cyrillic alphabet was unnatural for the Romanian language and it helped introduce many Slavic artifacts, foreign and hard to ingest for the Romanian language. The reintroduction of the Latin alphabet was necessary for the Romanian language.
@Dan said:
". which is of course a nonsense. The Cyrillic alphabet used in Romania was needlessly complicated, had almost 50 letters and used accents. It included many diphthongs as single letters and because of that, over a long period of time, it distorted the Romanian language."
I doubt that a bunch of illiterate peasants whose ancestors are half Slavs got their language "distorted" because of the complicated Cyrillic alphabet.
"One strong characteristic of the Romanian language is that it tends to shorten the words, as long as there is no danger of confusing them with other words in the Romanian vocabulary. The Cyrillic alphabet, and the influence of the Old Slavonic used in administration of the former Romanian kingdoms, reversed this trend, by replacing vowels with diphthongs, simply because this alphabet could capture/represent them easily."
The same rebuttal as above.
"This trend was reversed in the past 150 years since the reintroduction of the Latin alphabet, and the pronunciation of many words has changed/simplified and was reverted to a more Latinate version."
Which is exactly my point. Pedantic people insist pronouncing the words using the written "Latinate" version even thought that is not the historically correct rendering of the word in oral speech. And this happens because the spelling was simplified and made intentionally to look less like a Slavic language and replacing every single word that is Slavic with the "superior" Latin neologism.
"The Cyrillic alphabet was unnatural for the Romanian language and it helped introduce many Slavic artifacts, foreign and hard to ingest for the Romanian language. The reintroduction of the Latin alphabet was necessary for the Romanian language. "
There is nothing unnatural with an alphabet that can be used to accurately render a spoken language which is part Slavic. Slavic words abound in Romanian and the Romanian people are in part originating from Latinized Slavs. You can't possibly call those things just "an influence" because it's just too much of it. It's part of the genesis of the language and the genesis of the ethnic group. The Romanians are ethnically Daco-Slavs, culturally Daco-Slavs and linguistically Latino-Slavs.
By analogy it's like the English would start one day to deny the contribution of the "barbarian" Anglo-Saxons to their nation and would get obsessed with proving that they are really a "superior" Latinate nation because their language (and implicitly their nation) became half French following the Norman conquest and that they have nothing to do with the "unwashed" Germans or Celts.
The linguistic and cultural influences are caused not by the Church as some claim but because of widespread BILINGUALISM. At one point (almost) everyone spoke both Latin and some Slavic language, in the end the two ethnic groups merged and created a new ethnic group and a new language that is a mix of both.
Culturally you can even say that the Slavs have "won" because the Romanians are largely culturally similar to the surrounding Slavs but this might also have happened because the original "Latins" weren't so much Romans after all but just a partially Latinized Eastern European barbarian nation. The full cultural assimilation of the Dacians never happened because the Roman period was too short.
Basically according to the official propaganda, the Romanians were true Latins until one day when they have been invaded by the Barbarians. Then they somehow "forgot" everything about the Latin culture and just the language partially stayed behind. Then !!!1600!!! years later the Romanians suddenly "broke the chains of barbarian oppression" (among the "uncivilized": Hungarians, Austrians, Poles, Germans, imperial Ottomans, imperial Russians) and suddenly "rediscovered" that in fact they are supposed to be a civilized Latin nation and not an uncivilized barbarian one.
1600 years of "cultural sleep" as the propagandists claim. For God's sake, this is absolutely blatantly ridiculous!! It took the Romanians nearly about as much time as long as since Jesus supposedly walked on Earth to discover their "true" cultural roots, incidentally in the 19th century during the period of Romantic Nationalism [sic]!
". which is of course a nonsense. The Cyrillic alphabet used in Romania was needlessly complicated, had almost 50 letters and used accents. It included many diphthongs as single letters and because of that, over a long period of time, it distorted the Romanian language."
I doubt that a bunch of illiterate peasants whose ancestors are half Slavs got their language "distorted" because of the complicated Cyrillic alphabet.
"One strong characteristic of the Romanian language is that it tends to shorten the words, as long as there is no danger of confusing them with other words in the Romanian vocabulary. The Cyrillic alphabet, and the influence of the Old Slavonic used in administration of the former Romanian kingdoms, reversed this trend, by replacing vowels with diphthongs, simply because this alphabet could capture/represent them easily."
The same rebuttal as above.
"This trend was reversed in the past 150 years since the reintroduction of the Latin alphabet, and the pronunciation of many words has changed/simplified and was reverted to a more Latinate version."
Which is exactly my point. Pedantic people insist pronouncing the words using the written "Latinate" version even thought that is not the historically correct rendering of the word in oral speech. And this happens because the spelling was simplified and made intentionally to look less like a Slavic language and replacing every single word that is Slavic with the "superior" Latin neologism.
"The Cyrillic alphabet was unnatural for the Romanian language and it helped introduce many Slavic artifacts, foreign and hard to ingest for the Romanian language. The reintroduction of the Latin alphabet was necessary for the Romanian language. "
There is nothing unnatural with an alphabet that can be used to accurately render a spoken language which is part Slavic. Slavic words abound in Romanian and the Romanian people are in part originating from Latinized Slavs. You can't possibly call those things just "an influence" because it's just too much of it. It's part of the genesis of the language and the genesis of the ethnic group. The Romanians are ethnically Daco-Slavs, culturally Daco-Slavs and linguistically Latino-Slavs.
By analogy it's like the English would start one day to deny the contribution of the "barbarian" Anglo-Saxons to their nation and would get obsessed with proving that they are really a "superior" Latinate nation because their language (and implicitly their nation) became half French following the Norman conquest and that they have nothing to do with the "unwashed" Germans or Celts.
The linguistic and cultural influences are caused not by the Church as some claim but because of widespread BILINGUALISM. At one point (almost) everyone spoke both Latin and some Slavic language, in the end the two ethnic groups merged and created a new ethnic group and a new language that is a mix of both.
Culturally you can even say that the Slavs have "won" because the Romanians are largely culturally similar to the surrounding Slavs but this might also have happened because the original "Latins" weren't so much Romans after all but just a partially Latinized Eastern European barbarian nation. The full cultural assimilation of the Dacians never happened because the Roman period was too short.
Basically according to the official propaganda, the Romanians were true Latins until one day when they have been invaded by the Barbarians. Then they somehow "forgot" everything about the Latin culture and just the language partially stayed behind. Then !!!1600!!! years later the Romanians suddenly "broke the chains of barbarian oppression" (among the "uncivilized": Hungarians, Austrians, Poles, Germans, imperial Ottomans, imperial Russians) and suddenly "rediscovered" that in fact they are supposed to be a civilized Latin nation and not an uncivilized barbarian one.
1600 years of "cultural sleep" as the propagandists claim. For God's sake, this is absolutely blatantly ridiculous!! It took the Romanians nearly about as much time as long as since Jesus supposedly walked on Earth to discover their "true" cultural roots, incidentally in the 19th century during the period of Romantic Nationalism [sic]!
Hey dude, thanks for that. I was actually kind of looking for some things like that. And I don't know what the rest of these guys are talking about, but I'll stay out of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_81l4DXlwM&feature=player_embedded
Who'd sing like this? Please give me Eurovision clips and match closely.
Who'd sing like this? Please give me Eurovision clips and match closely.
http://dodona.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theworldoflanguageethnolinguisticsandlinguisticpaleontology&action=print&thread=11284
Chink mistook the Portuguese language from mine!
Chink mistook the Portuguese language from mine!