http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4IBSuGIFE8&feature=related
Anyone from a certain nation speaking like this in thick accent?
Anyone from a certain nation speaking like this in thick accent?
Which Romance language sounds more Slavic?
Here is Walter Zenga speaking Romanian with an Italian accent:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03bOHo_dmZ8&fmt=18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03bOHo_dmZ8&fmt=18
Ha, that was interesting. Outside of a few more obvious words here and there, it didn't really sound that different from standard Romanian. He learned it pretty well, I think because his wife is Romanian.
Roumanian language that we are using today was "adopted" by the indigen population in Romania via educational sistem. The most of the differences that occur in the modern spoken romanian language are due to regional accent. But unreaded old romanian language was obvious different in historical province (territoryes) Moldova, Transilvania and Tara Romaneasca (Wallachia). Also the writhing was very different because in Moldova and Tara Romaneasca (Wallachia) was used the chirilic (slavonic or russian) alphabet. The endless discussions about Romanian language (like a close relative of latin or slavonic) is just propaganda for nationalists and unitarists. Actually in the three major provincess of modern Romania, even the antropologic features of the population are not the same. The skin pigmentation, the eye colour or the hair colour are in different procents in that three provinces. So is the language too. Fixing clearly the ancestors of the language or of the populations in Romania, will affect directly the politycal orientation of the state (like allways in our history). So that Romania could be in the future a russian "nephew" (like Ukraine), a hungarian "province" (like was Transilvania until 1918) or a proud european nation (like romanians hope). We, romanians, still fight each other about who was first in the Carpathyan basin: romanians or huns? So that the problem is more complex and "deep" like the "sound" of the pronunciation.
@romanian said:
"Fixing clearly the ancestors of the language or of the populations in Romania, will affect directly the politycal orientation of the state (like allways in our history). So that Romania could be in the future a russian "nephew" (like Ukraine), a hungarian "province" (like was Transilvania until 1918) or a proud european nation (like romanians hope). "
You forgot the 4th option, often advanced by some Wallachians, that Romania would form a political alliance with the slavic Balkan states, but that won't happen because they don't like Romania much. Because they strongly identify as Slavs and they feel threatened by the Romanian claims to their history as they spoke Romanian respectivelly Greek (the Macedonians) before they changed their language to a Slavic one. :)
"Fixing clearly the ancestors of the language or of the populations in Romania, will affect directly the politycal orientation of the state (like allways in our history). So that Romania could be in the future a russian "nephew" (like Ukraine), a hungarian "province" (like was Transilvania until 1918) or a proud european nation (like romanians hope). "
You forgot the 4th option, often advanced by some Wallachians, that Romania would form a political alliance with the slavic Balkan states, but that won't happen because they don't like Romania much. Because they strongly identify as Slavs and they feel threatened by the Romanian claims to their history as they spoke Romanian respectivelly Greek (the Macedonians) before they changed their language to a Slavic one. :)
I doubt it will ever become a "province" of Hungary. That's hilarious. Maybe the Russian thing is possible, but the trend generally seems to be going toward the west and integration into the rest of Europe.
Oh and if Eminescu knew he was of mostly Russian heritage, why was he such a patriotic Romanian then?
Oh and if Eminescu knew he was of mostly Russian heritage, why was he such a patriotic Romanian then?
It was not about being a province of Hungary, at least not the whole Romania.
But for the Wallachia and Moldova during the 19th century it wasn't immediatly clear if they are going to be a standalone country or they are going to join into a political union with Austro-Hungary. During the persecution of the Transylvanian Romanians by the Hungarians during the second half of the 19th century, many visible Transylvanian Romanians who moved to Bucharest were instead persecuted by the local authorities because they dared to "complicate" the relation with Austro-Hungary. So it wasn't as clear cut initially
Eminescu was one of those who criticized the Wallachian and Moldavian politicians for their pro-Austrian stance and supported the cause of the Romanians living in Austro-Hungary. This might have been one of the reasons why he was killed by the Wallachian politicians.
But for the Wallachia and Moldova during the 19th century it wasn't immediatly clear if they are going to be a standalone country or they are going to join into a political union with Austro-Hungary. During the persecution of the Transylvanian Romanians by the Hungarians during the second half of the 19th century, many visible Transylvanian Romanians who moved to Bucharest were instead persecuted by the local authorities because they dared to "complicate" the relation with Austro-Hungary. So it wasn't as clear cut initially
Eminescu was one of those who criticized the Wallachian and Moldavian politicians for their pro-Austrian stance and supported the cause of the Romanians living in Austro-Hungary. This might have been one of the reasons why he was killed by the Wallachian politicians.
=================================
Quote from: Alex
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.
=================================
This lack of desire to listen about the historical truth is indeed a big problem, being caused by 200 years of aggressive latinist propaganda that partially succeeded to fool romanians and non-romanians alike. But it succeeded to fool only those persons that did not read history books. It must be said that the romanian population is composed of two parts: a (tiny) minority that has gained knowledge about the national history from specialized books and a (vast) majority that has gained a pseudo-knowledge of national history from the courses taught in school, the mass-media and the movies. This (vast) majority of mostly ignorant people about history matters is very sensitive to propaganda and will take for granted any propagandistic idea that is repeated over and over in school or mass-media.
The romanian historical propaganda is clearly associated with ignorant persons or with persons that have a political/religious agenda. And this was true from the very beginning. The first romanian propagandists were the members of the politico-cultural movement named "Şcoala Ardeleană" ["Transylvanian School"]. They were mainly catholic priests, but with a lot of preoccupations in domains like history, language, religion, philosophy, etc. It must be said that they were not true specialists, they were not historians or linguists. This lack of advanced knowledge was in part the cause of them becoming propagandists who didn't care at all about the scientific truth concerning romanian history or language. Another cause was their will to modify the romanian history and language in order to suit their political and religious purposes. They actually invented their own version of the romanian history and language, which subsequently, by means of an aggressive propaganda taught in schools, was imposed upon all the population, continuing to this day.
This is what an american historian of today said in a recent book (published in Romania) about the activity of the members of the "Transylvanian School":
###############################
The members of a new intellectual elite, who were active between the 1770s and 1820s, were polymaths who produced an amazing variety of works -- histories, grammars, theological and philosophical tracts, church sermons and schoolbooks -- all intended, as they themselves put it, to promote the "general welfare". Their wide-ranging preocuppations were illustrative of a new trend in Romanian society -- the secularization of the elite, a process well underway, in spite of the fact that the majority of of the elite were priests. They also had gretaer commerce with European currents of thought than previous generations, a circumstance reflected in their elaboration of an idea of community approaching modern nationhood.
This generation was mainly responsible for laying the historical and linguistic foundations of the concept of the modern Romanian nation. In so doing, they also sharpened the contours of an emerging national ideology. At the forefront of these endeavors stood three men, Samuil Micu (1745-1806), Gheorghe Şincai (1754-1816) and Petru Maior (1760-1821), members of teh so-called "Transylvanian School", who in masterly histories and pioneering grammars defined the uniqueness of the Romanian ethnic community and thereby justified its demands for a place in the estates system.
At the heart of the matter was the theory, or, many would say, the myth of Daco-Roman continuity. Samuil Micu gave full expression to it in a long series of historical works, beginning with "De ortu progressu conversione Valachorum episcopis item archiepiscopis et mitropolitis eorum" in 1774 and ending with his four-volume "Istoria şi lucrurile şi întîmplările Românilor", which he completed toward the end of his life. He was at pains to prove the direct descent of the Romanians of the 18th century from the Romans that settled in Dacia in the 2nd century. In his four-volume history he went even further, dating the beginnings of Romanian history from the founding of Rome by Romulus and Remus and claiming that the romanians were the pure descendants of the Romans, since, in his viwe, Trajan's struggle with the Dacians had been one of attrition, in which the latter had been exterminated. He also argued that with the Roman colonization of the now "deserted" realm of the Dacians came Christianity. When, after a century and a half of Romanization and Christianization, the Emperor Aurelian withdrew the [Roman] army and administration from the province Micu insisted that "all farmers and others who had taken up agriculture and work at home... stayed behind".
In the following centuries, so Micu's argument ran, when Dacia was overrun by one barbarian people after another, its Roman inhabitants survived by taking refuge in the mountains. It was their descendants whom the Magyars found when they entered Transylvania in the 10th century.
[...]
Gheorghe Şincai in "Cronica Românilor" (1808) and Petru Maior "Istoria pentru începutul Românilor în Dachia" (1812), one of the most influential Romanian books of the time and for a number of decades to come, offered their own versions of the Roman descent of the Romanians and their uninterrupted presence in Dacia.
Micu and his colleagues eagerly turned to language to support their theory of Romanian nationhood. They were motivated in part by a desire to refine the language and thereby render it capable of expressing new ideas and introducing new generations to advances in learning. But mainly they sought evidence to reinforce their historical arguments about the noble ancestry and the ethnic distinctiveness of teh Romanians. Most of what they wrote was intended primarily to demonstrate the Latinity of teh Romanian language, and, by extension, prove the Roman origins of teh Romanian people. These works ranged from Micu's and Şincai's "Elementa linguae Daco-Romanae sive Valachicae", published in Vienna in 1780, in which they replaced the traditional Cyrillic alphabet with the Latin and introduced an orthography that was etymological rather than phonetic, to Petru Maior's preface to the so-called "Lexicon de Buda", published in Buda in 1825, in which he argued that Romanian was derived from Vulgar Latin and appealed to all patriots for help in restoring their language to its original form by replacing Turkish, Slavic and other "foreign" words by words of Latin origin.
Keith Hitchins : The Identity of Romania (The Encyclopaedic Publishing House, Bucharest, 2009) - pages 70-73
####################################
Quote from: Alex
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.
=================================
This lack of desire to listen about the historical truth is indeed a big problem, being caused by 200 years of aggressive latinist propaganda that partially succeeded to fool romanians and non-romanians alike. But it succeeded to fool only those persons that did not read history books. It must be said that the romanian population is composed of two parts: a (tiny) minority that has gained knowledge about the national history from specialized books and a (vast) majority that has gained a pseudo-knowledge of national history from the courses taught in school, the mass-media and the movies. This (vast) majority of mostly ignorant people about history matters is very sensitive to propaganda and will take for granted any propagandistic idea that is repeated over and over in school or mass-media.
The romanian historical propaganda is clearly associated with ignorant persons or with persons that have a political/religious agenda. And this was true from the very beginning. The first romanian propagandists were the members of the politico-cultural movement named "Şcoala Ardeleană" ["Transylvanian School"]. They were mainly catholic priests, but with a lot of preoccupations in domains like history, language, religion, philosophy, etc. It must be said that they were not true specialists, they were not historians or linguists. This lack of advanced knowledge was in part the cause of them becoming propagandists who didn't care at all about the scientific truth concerning romanian history or language. Another cause was their will to modify the romanian history and language in order to suit their political and religious purposes. They actually invented their own version of the romanian history and language, which subsequently, by means of an aggressive propaganda taught in schools, was imposed upon all the population, continuing to this day.
This is what an american historian of today said in a recent book (published in Romania) about the activity of the members of the "Transylvanian School":
###############################
The members of a new intellectual elite, who were active between the 1770s and 1820s, were polymaths who produced an amazing variety of works -- histories, grammars, theological and philosophical tracts, church sermons and schoolbooks -- all intended, as they themselves put it, to promote the "general welfare". Their wide-ranging preocuppations were illustrative of a new trend in Romanian society -- the secularization of the elite, a process well underway, in spite of the fact that the majority of of the elite were priests. They also had gretaer commerce with European currents of thought than previous generations, a circumstance reflected in their elaboration of an idea of community approaching modern nationhood.
This generation was mainly responsible for laying the historical and linguistic foundations of the concept of the modern Romanian nation. In so doing, they also sharpened the contours of an emerging national ideology. At the forefront of these endeavors stood three men, Samuil Micu (1745-1806), Gheorghe Şincai (1754-1816) and Petru Maior (1760-1821), members of teh so-called "Transylvanian School", who in masterly histories and pioneering grammars defined the uniqueness of the Romanian ethnic community and thereby justified its demands for a place in the estates system.
At the heart of the matter was the theory, or, many would say, the myth of Daco-Roman continuity. Samuil Micu gave full expression to it in a long series of historical works, beginning with "De ortu progressu conversione Valachorum episcopis item archiepiscopis et mitropolitis eorum" in 1774 and ending with his four-volume "Istoria şi lucrurile şi întîmplările Românilor", which he completed toward the end of his life. He was at pains to prove the direct descent of the Romanians of the 18th century from the Romans that settled in Dacia in the 2nd century. In his four-volume history he went even further, dating the beginnings of Romanian history from the founding of Rome by Romulus and Remus and claiming that the romanians were the pure descendants of the Romans, since, in his viwe, Trajan's struggle with the Dacians had been one of attrition, in which the latter had been exterminated. He also argued that with the Roman colonization of the now "deserted" realm of the Dacians came Christianity. When, after a century and a half of Romanization and Christianization, the Emperor Aurelian withdrew the [Roman] army and administration from the province Micu insisted that "all farmers and others who had taken up agriculture and work at home... stayed behind".
In the following centuries, so Micu's argument ran, when Dacia was overrun by one barbarian people after another, its Roman inhabitants survived by taking refuge in the mountains. It was their descendants whom the Magyars found when they entered Transylvania in the 10th century.
[...]
Gheorghe Şincai in "Cronica Românilor" (1808) and Petru Maior "Istoria pentru începutul Românilor în Dachia" (1812), one of the most influential Romanian books of the time and for a number of decades to come, offered their own versions of the Roman descent of the Romanians and their uninterrupted presence in Dacia.
Micu and his colleagues eagerly turned to language to support their theory of Romanian nationhood. They were motivated in part by a desire to refine the language and thereby render it capable of expressing new ideas and introducing new generations to advances in learning. But mainly they sought evidence to reinforce their historical arguments about the noble ancestry and the ethnic distinctiveness of teh Romanians. Most of what they wrote was intended primarily to demonstrate the Latinity of teh Romanian language, and, by extension, prove the Roman origins of teh Romanian people. These works ranged from Micu's and Şincai's "Elementa linguae Daco-Romanae sive Valachicae", published in Vienna in 1780, in which they replaced the traditional Cyrillic alphabet with the Latin and introduced an orthography that was etymological rather than phonetic, to Petru Maior's preface to the so-called "Lexicon de Buda", published in Buda in 1825, in which he argued that Romanian was derived from Vulgar Latin and appealed to all patriots for help in restoring their language to its original form by replacing Turkish, Slavic and other "foreign" words by words of Latin origin.
Keith Hitchins : The Identity of Romania (The Encyclopaedic Publishing House, Bucharest, 2009) - pages 70-73
####################################
Of course, as the time passed and the romanian society evolved, the true specialists in history and linguistics appeared and began publishing books, which were written having in mind scientifical principles, not propagandistic ones as was the case for the "Transylvanian School".
Anyone can read online the book published in 1888 by A. D. Xenopol, who is considered one of the greatest romanian historians from all time. The chapters "Colonizarea Daciei" [Colonization of Dacia] and "Înrîurirea Slavonă" [Slavic Influence] deal with the roman and slavic influence in the formation of the romanian people. The approach is much different than the one used by the members of the "Transylvanian School". For example he speaks at large about the non-italic origin of the roman colonists arrived in Dacia (as revealed by the inscriptions they have left) and about the huge number of slavic toponyms (names of places, mountains, rivers, etc.) existing in Romania, testimony of a big population of slavs that settled everywhere on the current territory where romanian language is spoken.
http://www.unibuc.ro/CLASSICA/Xenopol-vol1/cuprins.htm
(page with links to PDF files containing the book of A.D. Xenopol - in romanian)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandru_Dimitrie_Xenopol
(Wikipedia page in english about the romanian historian)
So, we have on one side the propagandists, who are either ignorant or animated by political/religious purposes, and on the other side the specialists, who want to present the truth about romanian history and language. Unfortunately, the propagandists together with the politicians took hold of the public educational system in the 19th century, and with the "helping hand" offerred by the mass-media, the propagandistic view became ingrained in the mind of the majority of romanians. The cure for this "propagandistic infection" is, and always was, to read history and linguistics books written by true specialists who are respected personalities in their field of work.
The romanian historical and linguistic propaganda, derived from the works of the Transylvanian School, was always present inside and outside Romania from the 19th century until today. This does not mean that it was always welcomed. Many romanian personalities raised their voice against it, and in favor of an objective approach toward the identity and language of romanians.
There is a very interesting book about the making of the national identity of transylvanians (and by extension, of all romanians), written by Sorin Mitu, a professor of history at the University "Babeş-Bolyai" from Cluj, Romania. The author is himself a romanian born and raised in Transylvania, where he now teaches at the highest level, so nobody can accuse him of being anti-romanian, anti-transylvanian or unknowledgeable about history. His book named "Geneza identităţii naţionale la românii ardeleni" was published in romanian in 1997 and in english ("National identity of Romanians in Transylvania") in 2001. In the book there is a chapter named "Latin Origins", that deals specifically with the latinist propaganda from the 19th century. In it we can witness Mihail Kogălniceanu, an important romanian politician from the 19th century, who decries the methods used by the latinist propagandists from that time.
##############################
The critique of Latinism, coming also as a reaction to the Transylvanians' ex-
aggerations, was obviously much more astute in the principalities. Kogălniceanu,
for instance, in his 1843 lecture, rises against the “Romano-mania, or the mania of
calling ourselves Romans, a passion that today has taken hold of Transylvania in
particular and some of the writers in Wallachia". The champions of that ten-
dency, "without bringing facts to uphold their words, believe that they will thus
gain the world's respect and, when they proclaim they are Romans, they truly be-
lieve they are Romans and therefore the leading people in the whole world
Let us beware, gentlemen, of emulating this mania, which makes us subject to
foreign ridicule [...|; otherwise, it might be that we well deserve Mr. Eliad's
words, who says that it is only bankrupt nations that will not cease talking of their
ancestors."
Sorin Mitu : National identity of Romanians in Transylvania (Central European University Press, 2001) - page 194
http://tinyurl.com/mitu-latinist-propaganda
(shortened URL to the chapter "Latin Origins", previewed on Google Books)
############################
=================================
Quote from: Dan
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 could also say that the cyrillic alphabet was perfectly adapted to the romanian language, having signs (letters) for all the romanian sounds and then some more. This could not be said at that time about the latin alphabet and cannot be said even today. I don't see what was the problem with diphtongs written as single letters, because the pronounciation was the same as if they were written with two letters. And those diphtongs written with different letters were not "many", because a count of 4 surely does not mean many. There was no distortion of the romanian language by these diphtongs, remember, the language was written in cyrillic, so all the writing was "distorted" if you consider latin alphabet as the only way to write romanian. But it's not, romanian language written in cyrillic alphabet is perfectly understandable and usable, as was demonstrated by the writing used in Romania until 1860 and in the Republic of Moldova until 1990.
As for the cyrillic alphabet having accents, this is because the writing in cyrillic alphabet was a truthful one, respecting all the particularities of the romanian phonology. In contrast with this approach, the writing in latin alphabet was devised from the beginning to be a propagandistic one, its main purpose being to modify the romanian language in order to look more latin than it truly is. This is why the affricate consonants /tʃ/ and /dʒ/, who had specific letters in the cyrillic alphabet (Ч and Џ), are written in the romanian latin alphabet as ci/ce and gi/ge, like in the italian language. Writing them as č and ğ like in the slavic languages was not considered an option, although this writing is more precise than the existing one borrowed from italian. It's a complication of the writing, a minor one, but it adds to the other complications brought by the writing in latin alphabet, who was not adapted perfectly to the phonology romanian language, because that would make romanian look less latin. This is why there are no accents in romanian written with latin alphabet, as opposed to romanian written with cyrillic alphabet. This is why semivowels are not indicated in romanian written with latin alphabet, a thing that causes a lot of spelling errors.
The use of diacritics was sabotaged in any way possible in the 19th century, but when it had become clear that they cannot be leaved out of the written language, they were drastically limited (no č or ğ), because by using diacritics the romanian language is distancing itself from written latin, which had no diacritics. In the process of passing from the cyrillic alphabet to the latin alphabet, the ease of writing was the least important thing had in mind by the latinists. Their main goal was to make romanian look as much similar to latin as possible, even if this would complicate the writing and pronounciation. Only because of the resistance from the Wallachian and Moldavian cultural elites, the latinists from Transylvania could not destroy completely the romanian language with their stupid mimicking of latin. This has not finished, however, because the linguistic stupidity and exhibitionism is persistent in the romanian cultural environment, and it made a reappearance in 1993, when the romanian words "sînt, sîntem, sînteţi" were replaced with the latinist copycats "sunt, suntem, sunteţi", harder to pronounce than their romanian counterparts, but more latin in looks. And at the same time reappeared also the redundant letter Â, used exclusively in the middle of words instead of the usual letter Î, who designates exactly the same sound. No people should let the exhibitionists rule the language, otherwise it will get the mess that is romanian spelling today.
Anyone can read online the book published in 1888 by A. D. Xenopol, who is considered one of the greatest romanian historians from all time. The chapters "Colonizarea Daciei" [Colonization of Dacia] and "Înrîurirea Slavonă" [Slavic Influence] deal with the roman and slavic influence in the formation of the romanian people. The approach is much different than the one used by the members of the "Transylvanian School". For example he speaks at large about the non-italic origin of the roman colonists arrived in Dacia (as revealed by the inscriptions they have left) and about the huge number of slavic toponyms (names of places, mountains, rivers, etc.) existing in Romania, testimony of a big population of slavs that settled everywhere on the current territory where romanian language is spoken.
http://www.unibuc.ro/CLASSICA/Xenopol-vol1/cuprins.htm
(page with links to PDF files containing the book of A.D. Xenopol - in romanian)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandru_Dimitrie_Xenopol
(Wikipedia page in english about the romanian historian)
So, we have on one side the propagandists, who are either ignorant or animated by political/religious purposes, and on the other side the specialists, who want to present the truth about romanian history and language. Unfortunately, the propagandists together with the politicians took hold of the public educational system in the 19th century, and with the "helping hand" offerred by the mass-media, the propagandistic view became ingrained in the mind of the majority of romanians. The cure for this "propagandistic infection" is, and always was, to read history and linguistics books written by true specialists who are respected personalities in their field of work.
The romanian historical and linguistic propaganda, derived from the works of the Transylvanian School, was always present inside and outside Romania from the 19th century until today. This does not mean that it was always welcomed. Many romanian personalities raised their voice against it, and in favor of an objective approach toward the identity and language of romanians.
There is a very interesting book about the making of the national identity of transylvanians (and by extension, of all romanians), written by Sorin Mitu, a professor of history at the University "Babeş-Bolyai" from Cluj, Romania. The author is himself a romanian born and raised in Transylvania, where he now teaches at the highest level, so nobody can accuse him of being anti-romanian, anti-transylvanian or unknowledgeable about history. His book named "Geneza identităţii naţionale la românii ardeleni" was published in romanian in 1997 and in english ("National identity of Romanians in Transylvania") in 2001. In the book there is a chapter named "Latin Origins", that deals specifically with the latinist propaganda from the 19th century. In it we can witness Mihail Kogălniceanu, an important romanian politician from the 19th century, who decries the methods used by the latinist propagandists from that time.
##############################
The critique of Latinism, coming also as a reaction to the Transylvanians' ex-
aggerations, was obviously much more astute in the principalities. Kogălniceanu,
for instance, in his 1843 lecture, rises against the “Romano-mania, or the mania of
calling ourselves Romans, a passion that today has taken hold of Transylvania in
particular and some of the writers in Wallachia". The champions of that ten-
dency, "without bringing facts to uphold their words, believe that they will thus
gain the world's respect and, when they proclaim they are Romans, they truly be-
lieve they are Romans and therefore the leading people in the whole world
Let us beware, gentlemen, of emulating this mania, which makes us subject to
foreign ridicule [...|; otherwise, it might be that we well deserve Mr. Eliad's
words, who says that it is only bankrupt nations that will not cease talking of their
ancestors."
Sorin Mitu : National identity of Romanians in Transylvania (Central European University Press, 2001) - page 194
http://tinyurl.com/mitu-latinist-propaganda
(shortened URL to the chapter "Latin Origins", previewed on Google Books)
############################
=================================
Quote from: Dan
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 could also say that the cyrillic alphabet was perfectly adapted to the romanian language, having signs (letters) for all the romanian sounds and then some more. This could not be said at that time about the latin alphabet and cannot be said even today. I don't see what was the problem with diphtongs written as single letters, because the pronounciation was the same as if they were written with two letters. And those diphtongs written with different letters were not "many", because a count of 4 surely does not mean many. There was no distortion of the romanian language by these diphtongs, remember, the language was written in cyrillic, so all the writing was "distorted" if you consider latin alphabet as the only way to write romanian. But it's not, romanian language written in cyrillic alphabet is perfectly understandable and usable, as was demonstrated by the writing used in Romania until 1860 and in the Republic of Moldova until 1990.
As for the cyrillic alphabet having accents, this is because the writing in cyrillic alphabet was a truthful one, respecting all the particularities of the romanian phonology. In contrast with this approach, the writing in latin alphabet was devised from the beginning to be a propagandistic one, its main purpose being to modify the romanian language in order to look more latin than it truly is. This is why the affricate consonants /tʃ/ and /dʒ/, who had specific letters in the cyrillic alphabet (Ч and Џ), are written in the romanian latin alphabet as ci/ce and gi/ge, like in the italian language. Writing them as č and ğ like in the slavic languages was not considered an option, although this writing is more precise than the existing one borrowed from italian. It's a complication of the writing, a minor one, but it adds to the other complications brought by the writing in latin alphabet, who was not adapted perfectly to the phonology romanian language, because that would make romanian look less latin. This is why there are no accents in romanian written with latin alphabet, as opposed to romanian written with cyrillic alphabet. This is why semivowels are not indicated in romanian written with latin alphabet, a thing that causes a lot of spelling errors.
The use of diacritics was sabotaged in any way possible in the 19th century, but when it had become clear that they cannot be leaved out of the written language, they were drastically limited (no č or ğ), because by using diacritics the romanian language is distancing itself from written latin, which had no diacritics. In the process of passing from the cyrillic alphabet to the latin alphabet, the ease of writing was the least important thing had in mind by the latinists. Their main goal was to make romanian look as much similar to latin as possible, even if this would complicate the writing and pronounciation. Only because of the resistance from the Wallachian and Moldavian cultural elites, the latinists from Transylvania could not destroy completely the romanian language with their stupid mimicking of latin. This has not finished, however, because the linguistic stupidity and exhibitionism is persistent in the romanian cultural environment, and it made a reappearance in 1993, when the romanian words "sînt, sîntem, sînteţi" were replaced with the latinist copycats "sunt, suntem, sunteţi", harder to pronounce than their romanian counterparts, but more latin in looks. And at the same time reappeared also the redundant letter Â, used exclusively in the middle of words instead of the usual letter Î, who designates exactly the same sound. No people should let the exhibitionists rule the language, otherwise it will get the mess that is romanian spelling today.
=================================
Quote from: Dan
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.
=================================
Wow, another proof of Dan's complete ignorance in linguistics problems. And another proof that the propagandists think in political terms, not in scientific ones, so all they do is to invent hypotheses that have nothing to do with the reality, being nothing more than ridiculous elucubrations with a strong propagandistic touch.
The cyrillic alphabet has not influenced the pronounciation in romanian, it is the other way around, the pronounciation has influenced the writing in cyrillic alphabet! How could the writing influence the pronounciation when the population was mostly illiterate? Before the advent of the public education system in the 19th century, only a handful (probably no more than 5% of all the romanian population) knew how to write. This big percentage of illiteracy continued to exist well into the 20th century, and disappeared only after the communists deemed mandatory a primary education of 8 years (before that only 4 years of school were mandatory).
Now about the diphtongs used in some pronouns when they are spoken. Iotacism was not caused by the cyrillic alphabet, like Dan wants to fool the audience, it is a natural process that appeared in the pronounciation of some languages (including romanian), well before they were written. There is no consensus among the romanian linguists as to which process has caused this natural evolution of the language. Let's see what the "Encyclopaedia of the Romanian Language" says:
###########################
Preiotare (iodizare, proteza lui iot)
Apariţia (dezvoltarea, proteza) semiconsoanei ḭ înaintea unei vocale anterioare aflate la început de cuvînt şi de silabă; în mod special, diftongarea de acest tip (numită uneori falsă, spre deosebire de diftongarea romanică spontană a latinescului ě) a lui e>ḭe. Este considerată un fenomen specific limbii române, în care se întîlneşte în toate dialectele, mai puţin în dialectul aromân:
[latină] => illu, escis
[română] => ḭel, ḭeşti => scrise ca: el, eşti
[meglenoromână] => ḭăl/ḭel, ḭes
[istroromână] => ḭe, (v.) jestĭ/ješti
[aromână] => elu, eşt/ştî
Preiotarea este înregistrată totuşi dialectal şi pentru alte limbi romanice: dalmată (dialectul vegliot), italiană (dialectele din sud), catalană şi spaniolă. Pentru limba română, preiotarea a fost explicată de cei mai mulţi cercetători (H. Tiktin, A. Philippide, Al. Rosetti, E. Petrovici, V. Pisani, Em. Vasiliu) prin influenţă slavă, pronunţarea lui [e-] ca [ ḭe ] fiind caracteristică pentru dialectele de nord ale limbii bulgare, spre deosebire de cele de sud; această explicaţie este contestată de alţi cercetători (S. Puşcariu, O. Nandriş, Fr. Schürr, M. Sala), care dau preiotării o explicaţie internă, bazată atît pe paralele romanice cît şi pe existenţa în limba română a preiotării vocalei i- (varianta populară ḭinimă) şi a protezei realizate la alte vocale iniţiale cu diverse semiconsoane: ṷ (ṷos).
Institutul de Lingvistică "Iorgu Iordan": Enciclopedia Limbii Române (editura Univers Enciclopedic, 2001) - pag. 454
ḭ = should be seen as an i with an inverted breve diacritical mark below.
-------------------------------
English translation:
Preiotacism
The appearance (development, prosthesis) of the semi-consonant ḭ before an anterior vowel situated at the beginning of a word or syllable; especially the diphtongization of this type (sometimes named false, as opposed to the romance diphtongization of the latin ě) of e>ḭe. It is considered a phenomenon that is specific to the romanian language, encountered in all its dialects, with the exception of the aromanian one:
[latin] => illu, escis
[romanian] => ḭel, ḭeşti => written as: el, eşti
[meglenoromanian] => ḭăl/ḭel, ḭes
[istroromanian] => ḭe, (v.) jestĭ/ješti
[aromanian] => elu, eşt/ştî
Preiotacism is present also in some dialects of other romance languages: dalmatian (vegliot dialect), italian (southern dialects), catalan and spanish. For the romanian language, preiotacism was explained by most researchers (H. Tiktin, A. Philippide, Al. Rosetti, E. Petrovici, V. Pisani, Em. Vasiliu) as a slavic influence, the pronounciation of [e-] as [ ḭe ] being characteristic for the northern dialects of the bulgarian language, as opposed to the southern ones; this explanation is disputed by other researchers (S. Puşcariu, O. Nandriş, Fr. Schürr, M. Sala), which offer an internal explanation, based both on parralel evolutions in other romance languages and on the existence in romanian of the preiotacism of the vowel i- (the popular variant ḭinimă [of the word inimă]) and of the prosthesis existing in other initial vowels with various semi-consonants: ṷ (ṷos).
Institutul de Lingvistică "Iorgu Iordan": Enciclopedia Limbii Române (editura Univers Enciclopedic, 2001) - pag. 454
ḭ = ar trebui văzut ca litera i cu o căciuliţă ca la ă, dar inversată, dedesubt
###########################
So, even if the preiotacism is of slavic origin in romanian, it was not caused by the cyrillic alphabet, he appeared well before the writing, from the influence of the spoken bulgarian northern dialects on the romanian language.
But the fact that in romanian the pronoun "eu" is actually pronounced "ieu" should not be a surprise for other speakers of romance languages. In italian the pronoun is "io", in spanish it is "yo", in french it is "je" and in portuguese it is "eu". As anyone can see, the latin form with "e" ("ego") has not survived in most modern romance languages, the "e" sound from "ego" being replaced with "i", "y" or "j".
My opinion is that the romanian pronounciation with an added "i" (ieu, iel, ia, iele, iei) has developed like that because it is much easier to pronounce with an "i" at the beginning than with "e" at the beginning (eu, el, ea, ele, ei).
Anyway, the correct pronunciation in romanian is with "i", not with "e", although the "i" is not written.
#############################
În pronumele personale şi în formele verbului "a fi" se scrie "e", dar se pronunţă [ ǐe ] : eu, el, ei, ele, eşti, este, e, eram, erai, era, eraţi, erau [aceste cuvinte sînt pronunţate : ieu, iel, iei, iele, ieşti, ieste, ie, ieram, ierai, iera, ieraţi, ierau]. Rostirea hipercorectă [ e ] în loc de [ ǐe ] în aceste forme -- practicată în special în învăţămînt pentru a fixa la elevi deprinderea de scriere -- este GREŞITĂ.
Dicţionar Ortografic, Ortoepic şi Morfologic al Limbii Române (editura Univers Enciclopedic, 2005) - pag. XLVI
-----------------------
English translation:
In the personal pronouns and in the forms of the verb "a fi" [to be] the writing is "e", but the pronounciation is [ ǐe ] : eu, el, ei, ele, eşti, este, e, eram, erai, era, eraţi, erau [these words are pronunced : ieu, iel, iei, iele, ieşti, ieste, ie, ieram, ierai, iera, ieraţi, ierau]. The hypercorrect pronounciation [ e ] instead of [ ǐe ] in this forms -- done especially to teach schoolchildrens how these words should be written -- is WRONG.
Orthographic, Orthoepic and Morphological Dictionary of the Romanian Language (Univers Enciclopedic Publishing House, 2005) - pag. XLVI
#############################
So, the "trend" to pronunce the written forms [eu, el, ei, este...] like [ieu, iel, iei, ieste...] was never reversed, because it would be impractical to reverse a natural trend that eases the pronunciation. On the contrary, this pronunciation with [i] is the only correct one, the other pronounciation (without an initial [i]) being wrong.
Quote from: Dan
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.
=================================
Wow, another proof of Dan's complete ignorance in linguistics problems. And another proof that the propagandists think in political terms, not in scientific ones, so all they do is to invent hypotheses that have nothing to do with the reality, being nothing more than ridiculous elucubrations with a strong propagandistic touch.
The cyrillic alphabet has not influenced the pronounciation in romanian, it is the other way around, the pronounciation has influenced the writing in cyrillic alphabet! How could the writing influence the pronounciation when the population was mostly illiterate? Before the advent of the public education system in the 19th century, only a handful (probably no more than 5% of all the romanian population) knew how to write. This big percentage of illiteracy continued to exist well into the 20th century, and disappeared only after the communists deemed mandatory a primary education of 8 years (before that only 4 years of school were mandatory).
Now about the diphtongs used in some pronouns when they are spoken. Iotacism was not caused by the cyrillic alphabet, like Dan wants to fool the audience, it is a natural process that appeared in the pronounciation of some languages (including romanian), well before they were written. There is no consensus among the romanian linguists as to which process has caused this natural evolution of the language. Let's see what the "Encyclopaedia of the Romanian Language" says:
###########################
Preiotare (iodizare, proteza lui iot)
Apariţia (dezvoltarea, proteza) semiconsoanei ḭ înaintea unei vocale anterioare aflate la început de cuvînt şi de silabă; în mod special, diftongarea de acest tip (numită uneori falsă, spre deosebire de diftongarea romanică spontană a latinescului ě) a lui e>ḭe. Este considerată un fenomen specific limbii române, în care se întîlneşte în toate dialectele, mai puţin în dialectul aromân:
[latină] => illu, escis
[română] => ḭel, ḭeşti => scrise ca: el, eşti
[meglenoromână] => ḭăl/ḭel, ḭes
[istroromână] => ḭe, (v.) jestĭ/ješti
[aromână] => elu, eşt/ştî
Preiotarea este înregistrată totuşi dialectal şi pentru alte limbi romanice: dalmată (dialectul vegliot), italiană (dialectele din sud), catalană şi spaniolă. Pentru limba română, preiotarea a fost explicată de cei mai mulţi cercetători (H. Tiktin, A. Philippide, Al. Rosetti, E. Petrovici, V. Pisani, Em. Vasiliu) prin influenţă slavă, pronunţarea lui [e-] ca [ ḭe ] fiind caracteristică pentru dialectele de nord ale limbii bulgare, spre deosebire de cele de sud; această explicaţie este contestată de alţi cercetători (S. Puşcariu, O. Nandriş, Fr. Schürr, M. Sala), care dau preiotării o explicaţie internă, bazată atît pe paralele romanice cît şi pe existenţa în limba română a preiotării vocalei i- (varianta populară ḭinimă) şi a protezei realizate la alte vocale iniţiale cu diverse semiconsoane: ṷ (ṷos).
Institutul de Lingvistică "Iorgu Iordan": Enciclopedia Limbii Române (editura Univers Enciclopedic, 2001) - pag. 454
ḭ = should be seen as an i with an inverted breve diacritical mark below.
-------------------------------
English translation:
Preiotacism
The appearance (development, prosthesis) of the semi-consonant ḭ before an anterior vowel situated at the beginning of a word or syllable; especially the diphtongization of this type (sometimes named false, as opposed to the romance diphtongization of the latin ě) of e>ḭe. It is considered a phenomenon that is specific to the romanian language, encountered in all its dialects, with the exception of the aromanian one:
[latin] => illu, escis
[romanian] => ḭel, ḭeşti => written as: el, eşti
[meglenoromanian] => ḭăl/ḭel, ḭes
[istroromanian] => ḭe, (v.) jestĭ/ješti
[aromanian] => elu, eşt/ştî
Preiotacism is present also in some dialects of other romance languages: dalmatian (vegliot dialect), italian (southern dialects), catalan and spanish. For the romanian language, preiotacism was explained by most researchers (H. Tiktin, A. Philippide, Al. Rosetti, E. Petrovici, V. Pisani, Em. Vasiliu) as a slavic influence, the pronounciation of [e-] as [ ḭe ] being characteristic for the northern dialects of the bulgarian language, as opposed to the southern ones; this explanation is disputed by other researchers (S. Puşcariu, O. Nandriş, Fr. Schürr, M. Sala), which offer an internal explanation, based both on parralel evolutions in other romance languages and on the existence in romanian of the preiotacism of the vowel i- (the popular variant ḭinimă [of the word inimă]) and of the prosthesis existing in other initial vowels with various semi-consonants: ṷ (ṷos).
Institutul de Lingvistică "Iorgu Iordan": Enciclopedia Limbii Române (editura Univers Enciclopedic, 2001) - pag. 454
ḭ = ar trebui văzut ca litera i cu o căciuliţă ca la ă, dar inversată, dedesubt
###########################
So, even if the preiotacism is of slavic origin in romanian, it was not caused by the cyrillic alphabet, he appeared well before the writing, from the influence of the spoken bulgarian northern dialects on the romanian language.
But the fact that in romanian the pronoun "eu" is actually pronounced "ieu" should not be a surprise for other speakers of romance languages. In italian the pronoun is "io", in spanish it is "yo", in french it is "je" and in portuguese it is "eu". As anyone can see, the latin form with "e" ("ego") has not survived in most modern romance languages, the "e" sound from "ego" being replaced with "i", "y" or "j".
My opinion is that the romanian pronounciation with an added "i" (ieu, iel, ia, iele, iei) has developed like that because it is much easier to pronounce with an "i" at the beginning than with "e" at the beginning (eu, el, ea, ele, ei).
Anyway, the correct pronunciation in romanian is with "i", not with "e", although the "i" is not written.
#############################
În pronumele personale şi în formele verbului "a fi" se scrie "e", dar se pronunţă [ ǐe ] : eu, el, ei, ele, eşti, este, e, eram, erai, era, eraţi, erau [aceste cuvinte sînt pronunţate : ieu, iel, iei, iele, ieşti, ieste, ie, ieram, ierai, iera, ieraţi, ierau]. Rostirea hipercorectă [ e ] în loc de [ ǐe ] în aceste forme -- practicată în special în învăţămînt pentru a fixa la elevi deprinderea de scriere -- este GREŞITĂ.
Dicţionar Ortografic, Ortoepic şi Morfologic al Limbii Române (editura Univers Enciclopedic, 2005) - pag. XLVI
-----------------------
English translation:
In the personal pronouns and in the forms of the verb "a fi" [to be] the writing is "e", but the pronounciation is [ ǐe ] : eu, el, ei, ele, eşti, este, e, eram, erai, era, eraţi, erau [these words are pronunced : ieu, iel, iei, iele, ieşti, ieste, ie, ieram, ierai, iera, ieraţi, ierau]. The hypercorrect pronounciation [ e ] instead of [ ǐe ] in this forms -- done especially to teach schoolchildrens how these words should be written -- is WRONG.
Orthographic, Orthoepic and Morphological Dictionary of the Romanian Language (Univers Enciclopedic Publishing House, 2005) - pag. XLVI
#############################
So, the "trend" to pronunce the written forms [eu, el, ei, este...] like [ieu, iel, iei, ieste...] was never reversed, because it would be impractical to reverse a natural trend that eases the pronunciation. On the contrary, this pronunciation with [i] is the only correct one, the other pronounciation (without an initial [i]) being wrong.
=================================
Quote from: Dan
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.
=================================
The recurring problem that Dan has, is that he believes the Antimoon audience as being composed from persons that trust him in everything he says, without asking for proofs. It's not the case, this is a linguistics forum used by adults, not on a cartoon forum used by children. Every time that Dan makes an assumption he should support it with examples and quotes from specialized books, a thing which he never does. So, his assumptions are not to be trusted, because they are simple opinions of an anonymous forum poster. For example Dan says that "the reintroduction of the latin alphabet was necessary". The problem is that it was not a "reintroduction", but an "introduction", because the romanian language was never written before with a latin alphabet. The last inscriptions in latin found on the territory of ancient Dacia were written in the year 250 and the first text written in romanian (with the cyrillic alphabet) is from the year 1521, so there are almost 1300 years between the two events. The romanian language is not the same with the latin language spoken and written by the romans in Dacia, this can be observed easily by comparing romanian and latin texts. The two languages are not mutually intelligible, nobody must confuse them.
As for the cyrillic alphabet being unnatural for the romanian language, this is a big lie. So big, that it was not used by the latinists from the 19th century, because it is so easy to be debunked (they said that cyrillic script was not appropriate, because romanian is a romance language, not a slavic one). Even today the cyrillic alphabet is more natural for the romanian language than the current latin alphabet, but of course nobody wants to revert the romanian writing to the cyrillic alphabet. The introduction of the latin alphabet in the 19th century was not necessary for the romanian language, actually it messed the spelling for more than 100 years, until the latinists finally understood that romanian cannot be changed into a latin-italian dialect without destroying it completely.
===============================
Quote from: Pete
Oh and if Eminescu knew he was of mostly Russian heritage, why was he such a patriotic Romanian then?
===============================
Because the Eminovici family was a romanian family, not a ruthenian or russian family. Gheorge Eminovici and Raluca Eminovici (neé Juraşcu), who were the parents of Mihai Eminescu, considered themselves romanians, regardless of their genetic heritage, more or less ruthenian/russian. They lived in Romania and spoke romanian with their children, who received only a romanian education and considered themselves romanians.
That's something similar with a person who is born in the USA in a family of italian or german descent. There is nothing strange in that person becoming an american patriot, not an italian or german patriot. There were many italo-americans that fought against fascist Italy in the second world war, just as there were many americans of german origin that fought in the same war against nazi Germany.
But Eminescu is not an exception, far from that. Other romanians who were true patriots had a similar mixed genetic background. For example Mihai Viteazul [Michael the Brave] and Alexandru Ioan Cuza [Alexander John Cuza] were both half-greek, from their maternal lineage.
##############################
Very little is known about his childhood and early years as an adult. He [Michael the Brave] is argued by most historians to have been the illegitimate son of Wallachian Prince Pătraşcu cel Bun, while others believe he merely invented his descent in order to justify his rule. His mother was named Teodora, of Oraşul de Floci, and was a member of the Greek Cantacuzino family.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_the_Brave
Born in Bîrlad, [Alexandru Ioan] Cuza belonged to the traditional boyar class in Moldavia, being the son of ispravnic Ioan Cuza (who was also a landowner in Fălciu County) and his wife Sultana (or Soltana), a member of the Cozadini family of Phanariote [Greek] origins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandru_Ioan_Cuza
#############################
Quote from: Dan
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.
=================================
The recurring problem that Dan has, is that he believes the Antimoon audience as being composed from persons that trust him in everything he says, without asking for proofs. It's not the case, this is a linguistics forum used by adults, not on a cartoon forum used by children. Every time that Dan makes an assumption he should support it with examples and quotes from specialized books, a thing which he never does. So, his assumptions are not to be trusted, because they are simple opinions of an anonymous forum poster. For example Dan says that "the reintroduction of the latin alphabet was necessary". The problem is that it was not a "reintroduction", but an "introduction", because the romanian language was never written before with a latin alphabet. The last inscriptions in latin found on the territory of ancient Dacia were written in the year 250 and the first text written in romanian (with the cyrillic alphabet) is from the year 1521, so there are almost 1300 years between the two events. The romanian language is not the same with the latin language spoken and written by the romans in Dacia, this can be observed easily by comparing romanian and latin texts. The two languages are not mutually intelligible, nobody must confuse them.
As for the cyrillic alphabet being unnatural for the romanian language, this is a big lie. So big, that it was not used by the latinists from the 19th century, because it is so easy to be debunked (they said that cyrillic script was not appropriate, because romanian is a romance language, not a slavic one). Even today the cyrillic alphabet is more natural for the romanian language than the current latin alphabet, but of course nobody wants to revert the romanian writing to the cyrillic alphabet. The introduction of the latin alphabet in the 19th century was not necessary for the romanian language, actually it messed the spelling for more than 100 years, until the latinists finally understood that romanian cannot be changed into a latin-italian dialect without destroying it completely.
===============================
Quote from: Pete
Oh and if Eminescu knew he was of mostly Russian heritage, why was he such a patriotic Romanian then?
===============================
Because the Eminovici family was a romanian family, not a ruthenian or russian family. Gheorge Eminovici and Raluca Eminovici (neé Juraşcu), who were the parents of Mihai Eminescu, considered themselves romanians, regardless of their genetic heritage, more or less ruthenian/russian. They lived in Romania and spoke romanian with their children, who received only a romanian education and considered themselves romanians.
That's something similar with a person who is born in the USA in a family of italian or german descent. There is nothing strange in that person becoming an american patriot, not an italian or german patriot. There were many italo-americans that fought against fascist Italy in the second world war, just as there were many americans of german origin that fought in the same war against nazi Germany.
But Eminescu is not an exception, far from that. Other romanians who were true patriots had a similar mixed genetic background. For example Mihai Viteazul [Michael the Brave] and Alexandru Ioan Cuza [Alexander John Cuza] were both half-greek, from their maternal lineage.
##############################
Very little is known about his childhood and early years as an adult. He [Michael the Brave] is argued by most historians to have been the illegitimate son of Wallachian Prince Pătraşcu cel Bun, while others believe he merely invented his descent in order to justify his rule. His mother was named Teodora, of Oraşul de Floci, and was a member of the Greek Cantacuzino family.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_the_Brave
Born in Bîrlad, [Alexandru Ioan] Cuza belonged to the traditional boyar class in Moldavia, being the son of ispravnic Ioan Cuza (who was also a landowner in Fălciu County) and his wife Sultana (or Soltana), a member of the Cozadini family of Phanariote [Greek] origins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandru_Ioan_Cuza
#############################
If you are black and your dick is big I would like to meet you for some history lessons. My dick is small but my anus is large.
I heard Xenopol was the one who stressed the Roman origins above all anyway, at least according to Wikipedia. And the article for the origin of the people has also become a little more sophisticated and expanded lately; it's pretty interesting. I don't see much of your viewpoint in there.
Oh yeah, I'm curious as to how the Portuguese 'eu' is pronounced? Is there an i/y sound before it?
Oh yeah, I'm curious as to how the Portuguese 'eu' is pronounced? Is there an i/y sound before it?
Dammit, man, why are you doing this?? Leave us alone. You just have to shoot down everything anyone says on here. You're killing me, man! Just please stop posting here. Get off my internet! I demand an immediate ban. I don't like the things this ravinescu guy is saying.
@Ravinescu
Ravinescu, it's time for you to stop your interminable show of ignorance.
Did you ever read what Cantemir says in his "Descriptio Moldaviae" about the alphabet used by the Moldovans?
Neither is Romanian mutually intelligible with Middle Bulgarian, the language you like so much. I know that you believe, as a convinced and deluded Pravoslavnic (Orthodox), that the unnaturally Slavicised language used in the Church is in fact the true Romanian language, and you would want to have big a Pravoslavnic Empire, with the Third Rome as its Spiritual Center.
The Cyrillic alphabet used in the first Romanian language writings was NOT fitted for Romanian language, and you would know this very well if you would have ever read some books written in it. The MODERN Romanian Cyrillic alphabet was a MODIFIED Cyrillic alphabet, ADAPTED to the non-Slavic character of the Romanian language. Romanian is a Romance language and consequently it must be written using Latin alphabet, if you think otherwise, "show the proofs".
Ravinescule, pune mana pe carti si citeste!
Ravinescu, it's time for you to stop your interminable show of ignorance.
Did you ever read what Cantemir says in his "Descriptio Moldaviae" about the alphabet used by the Moldovans?
Neither is Romanian mutually intelligible with Middle Bulgarian, the language you like so much. I know that you believe, as a convinced and deluded Pravoslavnic (Orthodox), that the unnaturally Slavicised language used in the Church is in fact the true Romanian language, and you would want to have big a Pravoslavnic Empire, with the Third Rome as its Spiritual Center.
The Cyrillic alphabet used in the first Romanian language writings was NOT fitted for Romanian language, and you would know this very well if you would have ever read some books written in it. The MODERN Romanian Cyrillic alphabet was a MODIFIED Cyrillic alphabet, ADAPTED to the non-Slavic character of the Romanian language. Romanian is a Romance language and consequently it must be written using Latin alphabet, if you think otherwise, "show the proofs".
Ravinescule, pune mana pe carti si citeste!