|
|
Which Romance language sounds more Slavic?
A Lithuanian speaker with a thick accent:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeonBFJ-85c A Portuguese speaker with a thick accent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QunwHZrVRyA How similar do they sound?
Undistinguishable I would say if you don't speak Portuguese or Lithuanian.
Lithuanian isn't technically Slavic. It's actually part of the Baltic family of languages, along with Latvian, though they are pretty close to Slavic. They do sound similar to the untrained ear though. Pretty thick accent.
Here's an Aromanian song, one of the minor Eastern Romance languages in the Balkans and northern Greece related to regular, or Daco-Romanian.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKOQ8c3-m-U
=============================
Quote from: Anonymous If you are black and your brain is big, I would like to meet you for some history lessons. My current level of knowledge is small, but my desire to learn is large. ============================= I have "slightly" modified the above quote from page 45 of the thread to make it more appropriate for the Antimoon forum. But the "black" reference just made me remember an anecdote about the Cold War, which is appropriate for this thread: <<The americans trained a super-spy who was infiltrated in the Soviet Union and was posing as a russian. But the soviets captured him and he was interrogated about his true identity. However, the spy continued to say that he was russian, not american, so the soviets tested him to see if he was truly a what he said. He was questioned thoroughly about Russia (language, history, customs) and he was of course tested with regard to the resistance to heavily drinking vodka. The spy passed all the tests wonderfully, which made the baffled soviet commissar to tell him: You seem to be a genuine russian, but then why are you black?>> This describes somewhat the situation of the romanians, who pose as latins, but have a lot of slavic names. However, the romanian situation is not identical with that described in the anecdote, because if the romanians are asked about the history or civilization of the Roman Empire or about the latin language, most of them are not prepared to answer. The level of knowledge about these topics is very low or even absent in the general population, a thing that contrasts heavily with the assumed latin identity. Anyway, the uncensored message posted by the anonymous user on page 45 implied also something about homosexuality, which gives me the opportunity to speak about something that is not widely known in Romania, namely the sexual preferences of the emperor Trajan, who conquered Dacia and transformed it into a roman province. When the latinist propaganda was created in the 19th century, a big place in it was reserved for Trajan's cult of personality, the roman emperor being presented as the "father" of the romanian people. Later, when the dacians were also introduced into the official ethnogenesis picture, Decebal was also presented as the father of the romanian people, alongside Trajan. Thus, the romanian people appears to be born from two fathers, although neither of them ever wanted to participate in the creation of a new people. This is funny, considering the sexuality of Trajan, as reported by the ancient historians. I remember reading a novel about Trajan published in romanian five years ago. This book ("Eu, Marcus Ulpius Traianus") was written by a spanish author (Jesús Pardo), and at one time he described in detail a homosexual intercourse between Trajan and a young prisoner of war. Not a pleasant read and generally not a good novel, but it seems that this was the truth about Trajan's sexuality. I will present some quotes from a monography written not by a novelist, but by Julian Benett, a british historian specialized in the history of the Roman Empire. ################################# Demnitatea austeră [a lui Traian] de care dădea dovadă în faţa supuşilor săi, pe care ne-a descris-o atît de exact Plinius, era contrabalansată de o moralitate cam liberă. Lui Traian îi plăceau vinul tare şi băieţii. [...] Preferinţele sexuale ale lui Traian erau la fel de bine cunoscute, chiar dacă au fost trecute sub tăcere de laudele lui Plinius. Pînă şi Iulian, ultimul împărat păgîn al Romei, care-i critica pe cei care-şi permiteau o asemenea "plăcere de cel mai josnic şi neruşinat fel", insinua că Zeus ar trebui să fie grijuliu cu cochetul Ganimede atîta vreme cît Traian era prin preajmă. Printre iubiţii lui putem să-i numărăm pe Hadrian şi pe pajii casei imperiale, ba pentru scurtă vreme a avut relaţii cu un actor, Pylades, şi cu un dansator pe nume Apolaustus. [...] Nu ştim dacă Traian era homosexual în adevăratul sens al cuvîntului. Se pare că toţi bărbaţii latini, mai ales cei din clasele care se bucurau de timp liber, erau bisexuali şi practicau contacte sexuale anale, orale şi intracrurale. În Antichitate se glumea pe faţă despre aceste obiceiuri, ba chiar şi despre cei care avansau în carierele lor prin sodomie. Obiceiul era destul de larg răspîndit, iar regina iceniană Boadicca, i-a batjocorit pe romani, aşa cum ne spune [Cassius] Dio, ca pe unii care dormeau în culcuşuri moi cu băieţeii. [...] Mulţi dintre conducătorii Romei de dinainte şi de după Traian au fost bisexuali sau aşa se credea în popor, ceea ce echivalează cu acelaşi lucru. Această desfrînare era considerată marca unei clase sociale, un aspect al dezmăţului şi nu o simplă înclinare către activităţi homosexuale. [...] Aşa se face că Traian, care putea să fi devenit homosexual în timpul serviciului militar, unde relaţiile sexuale între partenerii dispuşi la aşa ceva erau obişnuite, nu şi-a atras deloc oprobriul contemporanilor pentru preferinţele lui sexuale. Julian Bennett: Traian (editura ALL, 2006) - pag. 89-90 English version: Yet the austere dignity [of Trajan] projected to his subjects and so faithfully communicated by Pliny was balanced by what others might see as culpable moral laxity: Trajan's predisposition for strong wine and his predilection for young boys. [...] Trajan's sexual preferences were equally well-known, if also overlooked in Pliny's extollment: even Julian, the last pagan emperor of Rome, not noted for this commendation of those who indulged in "pleasure of the vilest and most infamous sort", suggested that Zeus should be careful of the coquettish Ganymede while Trajan was in the vicinity. Among his identified catamites we can certainly include Hadrian and the pageboys of the imperial household, and he was shortly to effect a liaison with an actor, Pylades, and a dancer by the name of Apolaustus. [...] But whether or not Trajan was actively predisposed towards homosexuality is impossible to establish. Bisexuality, involving anal, oral, or intracrural sexual congress seems an inherent condition among Latin males, especially among those of the leisured classes. It was openly joked about in antiquity, not least by those who advanced their carrers through sodomy, and the practice was common enough for the Icenian Queen Boudicca, [Cassius] Dio tells us, to lambast the Romans as men who slept on soft couches with boys as bedfellows. [...] Indeed, many of Rome's rulers before or after Trajan were patently bisexual; or at least, were popularly believed to have bisexual inclinations, which amounts to the same thing. Such rakishness was generally considered an attribute of social class, an aspect of dissoluteness rather than a singular predisposition to same-sex activities. [...] Consequently, Trajan -- who might well been homosexually initiated during his military service, where sexual relationships between willing partners were not considered exceptional -- attracted no reproof for his sexuality from his contemporary observers. Julian Bennett: Trajan. Optimus princeps. A life and times (Routledge, 1997) - pag. 58-60 The text in english was taken from the original version, that can be previewed on Google Books http://tinyurl.com/bennett-trajan (shortened URL to the preview of the book) ################################## Trajan was married to Pompeia Plotina, a very respected woman of that time, but they did not have any children. It was most probably a marriage of convenience, concluded for political reasons, in order to help with the advancement of Trajan's political career. Julian Bennett says that bisexuality was widespread among the roman upper class, which is probably true, a good example being the emperor Nero, well-known for his many lovers of both sexes. But Nero, like many other roman emperors, had a lot of woman mistresses, a thing that is never mentioned about Trajan, so it seems that his true sexual inclination was toward homosexuality. This, of course, does not affect in any way his reputation as one of the best roman emperors. I have told this story because it demonstrates once again that knowing history can be sometimes a big advantage. In Romania, homosexuality was for a long time considered a crime punishable by prison. Even after the fall of the communist regime, homosexuality was not decriminalized for another ten years, although the gay and lesbian organizations protested against this situation. Had they knew that Trajan, considered one of the founding fathers of Romania, was a homosexual, they could have presented their point of view more efficiently. But the romanian homosexuals, just like their straight counterparts, do not like to read history books. However they had an enormous luck, because homosexual activity in Romania was eventually decriminalized in 2001, when the European Union made clear the fact that Romania would not be accepted as a member if there are still in effect laws that punish this behavior.
=============================
Quote from: Pete I heard Xenopol was the one who stressed the Roman origins above all anyway, at least according to Wikipedia. ============================= A.D. Xenopol (1847-1920) went to school in the 1850-1870s, a period when the latinist propaganda (especially in the educational system) was at its peak. And it must not be forgotten that he was of course influenced by the romanian intellectual climate from his time, an environment that accepted indiscriminately and promoted heavily the fake romanian identity created at the beginning of the 19th century. But A.D. Xenopol was a true historian, not a propagandist, like the members of the Transylvanian School. However, he could not completely avoid the latinist bias, who is clearly present in his work, but is not at all comparable in intensity and scope with the blatant latinist lies spread by the masters of propaganda, the members of the Transylvanian School. Like all the romanian professional historians before and after him, A.D. Xenopol stated that the slavs played a big role in the formation of the romanian people, an idea that was rejected by the Transylvanian School. I provide below a little quote from the treaty of romanian history written by A.D. Xenopol. ############################### Slavii, care ajungeau cu aşezările lor pînă la baza munţilor Carpaţi, vor fi căutat în ei o adăpostire mai statornică. Astfel se întinseră asupra întregii Dacii neamurile slavone, care veneau însă peste români nu mai mult ca năvălitori, ci ca fugari ei înşişi înainte unei năvăliri, căutînd nu pradă, ci mîntuire. Din această aşezare a slavonilor alăturea cu românii în munţii Daciei se explică singur, elementul destul de bogat slav, reprezentat în topografia muntelui. Caracterul cu totul deosebit al năvălirii slavone, care făcea din neamurile ei nişte tovarăşi în nenorocire ai neamului românesc, explică relaţiile mai intime în care dînşii intrară cu populaţia daco-romană. Pe cînd atingerea acesteia cu celelalte feluri de barbari fusese duşmănească, întîlnindu-se totdeauna cu arma în mînă, cu slavonii este dimpotrivă de o natură mai blîndă, ca aceea care uneşte între ei pe doi osîndiţi la aceeaşi pedeapsă. [...] A trebuit deci ca slavonii să stea alături cu românii, să-şi ducă viaţa împreună cu ei, nu să vină numai într-o trecătoare atingere, precum o făcură popoarele germane şi mongole, spre a putea lăsa urme atît de însemnate în sînul poporului românesc. [...] Cu totul altfel stau lucrurile despre slavi [faţă de celelalte popoare migratoare]. Aici înrîurirea [influenţa] înscrisă în munte, imprimată în valurile fugătoare ale apelor îi înconjură pe români mult mai de aproape. [...] Dacă am fi putut studia şi numeroasele pîraie de tot mici, care contribuie la formarea rîurilor enumerate, ne-am fi convins încă şi mai mult despre adevărul că nomenclatura obştească a tuturor regiunilor în care locuiesc astăzi românii este în o bună parte de origine slavonă. Această răspîndire atît de însemnată a denumirilor slavone în terminologia geografică a ţărilor române se întinde nu numai la rîuri, ci şi la munţi şi la numirile aşezărilor omeneşti, care toate înfăţişează aproape aceeaşi proporţie între numirile slavone şi acele române [...]. Această întindere a denumirilor geografice de origine slavă în ţările române dovedeşte într-un mod neîndoielnic că aceste ţări au trebuit într-un timp să fi adăpostit pe toată întinderea lor o populaţie destul de numeroasă din acest neam, care a fost absorbită de elementul românesc, ceea ce reiese învederat din faptul că astăzi nu se mai întîlneşte populaţie de gintă slavonă în ţările românilor şi că denumirile lăsate de ea se regăsesc toate în gura acestora din urmă. Istoria, care este menită tocmai de a explica prezentul prin trecutul unui popor, ne arată ce a fost acea populaţie întinsă de obîrşie slavonă, care a trăiat cîtva timp alături cu românii pe pămîntul Daciei, anume popoarele sclavine [sclavenii] care au invadat Dacia pe timpul ambelor năvăliri hunice [pentru a se pune la adăpost de acestea]. [...] Elementul slav a înrîurit însă nu numai asupra numirii locurilor în care se mişcau românii. Aşezarea lui între dînşii a însoţit totodată o schimbare petrecută în forma viţei lor, anume întărirea îndeletnicirilor agricole şi prefacerea poporului român din unul mai păstoresc în unul cu deosebire agricol. A.D. Xenopol: Istoria Românilor din Dacia Traiană (capitolele 3.2.1 - 3.2.2) http://www.unibuc.ro/CLASSICA/Xenopol-vol1/cuprins.htm English translation: The slavs, whose settlements attained the foothills of the Carpathian mountains, probably viewed the mountains as a more lasting shelter. In this way the slavic tribes spread over all of Dacia, but they were not coming as invaders, but more like fugitives themselves in the face of another invasion, searching not for loot, but for salvation. This settling of the slavs alongside the romanians in the mountains of Dacia explains by itself the rather large slavic element found in the toponymy of the mountains. The distinct character of the slavic invasion, which made of those tribes companions of misfortune together with the romanian people, explains the more intimate relationship between the slavs and the daco-roman population. In contrast with the relationship between the daco-roman population and the other barbarian ones, which was of an adverse nature, always with the weapon in hand, the relationship with the slavs was of a more mild nature, like the one that brings together two persons sentenced to the same punishment. [...] It was necessary for the slavs to stay alongside the romanians, to live together with them, and not only to have a brief encounter, like was the case with the german and mongol peoples, in order to leave so significant traces in the core of the romanian people. [...] With the slavs the things are completely different [than with the other migratory peoples]. In this case, the influence that is inscribed in the mountains and imprinted in the waves of the waters surrounds the romanians more closely. [...] If we could study also the numerous little brooks, which contribute to the formation of the afore-mentioned rivers, we would even more be convinced of the truth that the popular nomenclature of all the regions in which romanians live today is in great part of slavic origin. This so large spreading of the slavic names in the geographical terminology of the romanian territories extends not only to rivers, but also to the mountains and to the names of the human habitations, which all display the same proportion between romanian and slavic names [...]. This spreading of the geographical names of slavic origin in the romanian territories proves without a doubt that these territories must have been sheltered on all their extent a rather numerous population of this people, which was absorbed by the romanian element, which results from the fact that today there are no populations of slavic origin on the romanian territories and the names left by the slavs can be found today in the language used by the romanians. The history, whose purpose is to explain the present of a people with the help of its past, shows us who was that large population of slavic origin, which lived for some time alongside the romanians on the territory of Dacia, namely the tribes of the Sclaveni who came to Dacia before both hunic invasions [in order to found a shelter]. [...] The slavic element influenced not only the names of the places where the romanians live. The establishment of the slavs among the romanians produced also a modification in the race of the latter, namely the strenghtening of the agricultural activities and the transformation of the romanian people from one of shepherds into one composed mainly of farmers. A.D. Xenopol: The History of the Romanians from Trajan's Dacia (chapters 3.2.1 - 3.2.2) ############################## ============================= Quote from: Pete 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. ============================= The article "Origin of the Romanians" from Wikipedia may be interesting, but it's a mess of epic proportions, that fails to properly address its own subject. The article has become a battleground for the supporters of the daco-roman continuity theory and their adversaries. Simply put, it's a fight mainly between romanians and hungarians as to which people, romanian or hungarian, was the first in Transylvania, the core of the former province of Dacia, who was ruled from 1000-1918 by the hungarians and from 1918 on by the romanians. The transylvanian population was always majoritarily romanian, but the hungarians say that those romanians were not the descendants of a daco-roman population, instead they migrated sometimes in the 13-14 century from the territories situated south of the river Danube. Of course that the romanian point of view is completely opposite, supporting a continuity of the population from the time when Dacia was part of the Roman Empire and was populated with roman colonists that mixed with the local dacian population. My viewpoint exposed in this thread is also the viewpoint of the professional romanian historians from the past and present, as I demonstrated by providing numerous quotes from their works. Unfortunately, Wikipedia, although extremely useful, does not have all the articles written at a professional level. In the article about the origin of the romanians there is not a single reference to the works of the most well-known romanian historians: A.D. Xenopol, Nicolae Iorga, C.C. Giurescu. It's as they never existed. This speaks volumes about the overall quality of the article.
=============================
Quote from: Anonymous romanian propagandist Dammit, man, why are you doing this?? Leave us alone. ============================= I am only telling the truth about the romanian history and language, with support from the best romanian history and linguistics books. I have no idea who are those "us" that want to be left alone. Are you a spokeperson for the group of romanian propagandists that are active on the internet? As for leaving you alone, i cannot understand your pathetic plea, because I do not hack into your computer, I am only posting on a public forum which you can choose to visit or not. This forum is not your property, you are free to read it or not, but you cannot decide who should write on it. ============================= Quote from: Anonymous romanian propagandist You just have to shoot down everything anyone says on here. You're killing me, man! ============================= I shoot down only the propagandistic baloons that are full of hot air and nothing else. If you are an airhead when it comes to romanian history, it is not recommended to expose your ignorant opinions ("baloons"), if you do not want them to be debunked ("deflated") easily. As for killing you, let me laugh at that. If you were not killed by the propagandistic infection, then the truth will do you no harm, actually it will cure your severe lack of knowledge about history, who made you vulnerable to the propaganda in the first place. ============================= Quote from: Anonymous romanian propagandist Just please stop posting here. Get off my internet! ============================= Just stop reading this forum. The internet is not a private property of anyone. But if you want your own internet, it is easy to get it. Buy a router and make your personal local area network (LAN), separated from the big network that is the true internet. You can do anything you want on your own LAN, without fearing that I will post messages there. ============================= Quote from: Anonymous romanian propagandist I demand an immediate ban. I don't like the things this ravinescu guy is saying. ============================= If you want to be banned from this forum, just tell the administrator to ban your IP address and you're done. You will not be capable anymore to read my messages. ============================= Quote from: Chosroes Ravinescu, it's time for you to stop your interminable show of ignorance. ============================= Tell that to the guest stars of "my show", the biggest romanian historians and linguists, who participated with numerous quotes from their works. In stark contrast with that, you have participated to "the show" only with guest black holes, by quoting the worst romanian propaganda that has ever been spewed from ignorant minds. ============================= Quote from: Chosroes Did you ever read what Cantemir says in his "Descriptio Moldaviae" about the alphabet used by the Moldovans? ============================= I will quote below what Dimitrie Cantemir said: ################################# Înainte de soborul bisericesc de la Florenţa, moldovenii foloseau litere latineşti, după pilda tuturor celorlalte neamuri al căror grai se trage din cel roman. Dar cînd mitropolitul moldovean a trecut la acest sinod de partea papistaşilor, atunci urmaşul său, cu numele Theoctist -- diacon al lui Marcu din Efes, bulgar de neam, ca să stîrpească aluatul papistaşilor din biserica moldovenească şi să taie celor tineri vicleşugul de a citi vicleşugurile papistaşilor -- l-a sfătuit pe Alexandru cel Bun să izgonească din ţară, nu numai pe oamenii de altă lege, ci şi literele latineşti şi să pună în locul lor pe cele slavoneşti. English translation: Before the Ecumenical Council of Florence, the moldavians used latin letters, just like the other people whose language derives from latin. But when at this council the moldavian metropolitan passed to the catholic side, then the next metropolitan, named Theoctist -- a deacon of Marc from Efes, of bulgarian origin, in order to eliminate the catholic influence from the moldavian church and to prohibit the youngsters to read the wiles of the catholics -- advised Alexander the Good to banish from the country, not only the persons of other religion, but also the latin letters and replace them with slavic letters. ################################## Dimitrie Cantemir (1673-1723) was the ruler of Moldavia for one year, between 1710-1711. His biography is very interesting. He was of tatar origin from the paternal side and proud of it. He spent much of his youth in Istanbul, technically as a hostage (but free to circulate wherever he wanted), while his father and after that older brother were the rulers of Moldavia, who was then under Ottoman (Turkish) suzerainty. He was so much trusted by the turks, where he lived his young life and completed his education, that he was made himself ruler of Moldavia in 1710. But Dimitrie Cantemir knew that the Ottoman Empire will eventually lose its status of regional power, so he immediately switched sides and allied himself (and Moldavia) with the Tsarist (Russian) Empire, on the condition that only his descendants would rule Moldavia from then on. The turks were not pleased by this turn of events and in the battle of Stănileşti (a place in Moldavia), they defeated the united russian and moldavian armies. In that battle, the tsar Peter the Great himself could have been captured by the turks, but escaped by using a stratagem when the armistice was signed. Dimitrie Cantemir, badly wanted by the turks to punish him for treason, also escaped, hidden in a russian coach. He was then forced to leave Moldavia for ever, living subsequently in a golden exile in Russia, where he was extremely appreciated for his scientific knowledge in many areas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimitrie_Cantemir But back to the romanian language and its writing. It must be said that Dimitrie Cantemir was a latinist, a true one, who even wrote books in latin. He loved latin to the point that he wanted to change the romanian language to make it seem more latin. Some of his texts written in romanian are for this reason very difficult to read, because he used a syntax very similar to the latin one, with the verb at the end of the sentence. He has introduced in the language some latin neologisms that have remained in use until today. He was thus a precursor (forerunner) of the Transylvanian School, the politico-cultural movement that had latinism at its core. Of course Dimitrie Cantemir was not truthful when he said that at one time the moldavian (romanian) language was written with latin letters. His lie is so easy to debunk that nobody uses it today, with the exception of the most ignorant romanian propagandists. The Ecumenical Council of Florence, mentioned by Dimitrie Cantemir, took part in 1439. There is no way that Alexander the Good (the ruler of Moldavia between 1400-1432) could have been advised to replace the latin alphabet with the cyrillic alphabet, because in 1439 he was dead for 7 years already. And after his death in 1432 ensued a period of 25 years of extreme turmoil when his sons (both legitimate and illegitimate) battled each other for the moldavian throne, so the changing of the alphabet was the least important preoccupation from that time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Good But there is another problem with the assumption that the latin alphabet was used in Moldavia at one time. Moldavia (eastern Romania) was never a part of the roman province of Dacia, so there was no roman colonist that settled in Moldavia. Only Transylvania (central and western Romania) and Oltenia (south-western romania) were part of the roman province of Dacia and there is no writing in latin alphabet that could be dated after the year 250 A.D. in those former parts of the roman province. The writing in latin was quickly forgotten after the romans left Dacia because all the intellectuals left alongside the roman army and administration. In the western provinces of the Roman Empire there was no retreat of the army and administration like in Dacia, and that's why the writing in latin alphabet was used for the western romance languages. And finally, what is truly ironic about Dimitrie Cantemir, was that although he despised the cyrillic alphabet, he was forced to live in Russia until his death. And not only that, actually one of his sons, Antioh Cantemir, became a russian poet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiochus_Kantemir
=============================
Quote from: Chosroes 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. ============================= You seem to have not the slightest idea about what you are talking. I already told you not to consider the Antimoon audience as being composed of ignorants, but you don't seem to care and so you make a fool of yourself on every occasion. The european languages could be written either with the latin, slavic or greek alphabet, because these languages are related, just like their alphabets. They are all indo-european languages. You could for example write italian in cyrillic alphabet if you wanted, and you could write bulgarian in latin alphabet. There are no linguistic barriers in doing just that, for example serbian is written currently both with latin and cyrillic alphabet. The sounds from the european languages are mostly the same, there are no sounds specific to the romance languages and other sounds specific to the slavic or germanic languages. The romanian language is the most easy example. The sound Ă is encountered not only in romanian, but also in english and german (written differently, of course), the sound Î is also encountered in english, the sound Ş (CH/SH/SCH) is widely used in french, german, italian and english, the sound Ţ (TZ) is used in german, english, italian. And I didn't even mentioned the slavic languages where Ă,Î,Ş,Ţ are encountered. But you can use the Wikipedia pages linked below to see how many languages use the sounds that many romanians think they are specific to their language. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwa (Ă) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_central_unrounded_vowel (Î = Â) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_postalveolar_fricative (Ş) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_alveolar_affricate (Ţ) ============================= Quote from: Chosroes Romanian is a Romance language and consequently it must be written using Latin alphabet, if you think otherwise, "show the proofs". =========================== This is like saying that polish, czech, slovakian, slovenian, croatian are Slavic languages and because of that they should be written with the cyrillic alphabet. The reality demonstrates that they can be written with the latin alphabet, just like romanian can be written with the cyrillic alphabet, as it was written for close to 400 years. What better proof you want other than the fact that it took for the romanian language 100 years of writing in latin alphabet to come close to the precision of writing in the cyrillic alphabet? Even today the writing of romanian in latin alphabet is less precise than writing it in cyrillic alphabet. ============================= Quote from: Chosroes Ravinescule, pune mana pe carti si citeste! ============================= Actually I think that I already demonstrated that I have read books, a situation that cannot be said about you, who are not even capable of writing correctly in romanian. mana => articulated word that designates in romanian a disease of the plants mîna / mâna => is the correct writing (means "the hand" in english) carti => word that does not exist in romanian cărţi => is the correct writing (means "books" in english) si => word that designates the musical note "si" in romanian şi => is the correct writing (means "and" in english) citeste => word that does not exist in romanian citeşte => is the correct writing (means "read" in english) So, there are 4 spelling errors in a sentence composed of only 7 words. Way to go, Chosroes, just smile for the photo, you're looking like a half-illiterate person for the language lovers that compose the Antimoon audience! It is very strange that the majority of romanians are too lazy to use diacritical marks, while all the other europeans are doing it for their maternal languages. If the romanian language was written today in cyrillic alphabet the romanians would have the advantage of not appearing in the eyes of the whole Europe like a half-illiterate people who cannot write correctly its own language. The funny (or not) thing is that I was suspended temporarily from the Softedia forum because I have promoted the writing with diacritics, the only correct one. A moderator was not pleased when I told him that by writing without diacritics he looks like a half-illiterate person. But this is the truth, romanians are situating themselves outside the civilized Europe with this sloppy and incorrect style of writing. http://forum.softpedia.com/index.php?showtopic=661911 (URL to a discussion about the image of those romanians that do not use diacritics)
Ravinescu, be so good and listen what some people are asking you to do, please! It is not polite to force these forummists to read your endless stories, don't you realize that? Answer the MAIN question if you can and stick on that. It is not nice to insist on subjects what only Romanians might be interested in...
Thank you for understanding!
First of all, what do you mean by "sounds more Slavic" ? "Slavic" is not a language by itself. I , for instance don't find too many similarities between Czech and Bulgarian or Serbian. This is a type of question without sense!
Every language in the world has borrowed and loaned words, expression from and to its neighbored language; that's a fact! Take what ever language you want and study it in detail. You'll be amazed to see how much reciprocal influences exists between the neighbors. The very conservative German (Deutsch) has a huge number of words of French origin, zum Beispiel! by having said that, I find this topic pretty senseless. You just have wasted you time with senseless and general valuable observations! It didn't bring anything knew except what anybody with a bit of knowledge knows: the modern languages (and the ancient/old ones as well), are influencing each other trough the people contacts and motion! The language of the Goths for example cannot be understand today by a person who speaks the modern German (Deutsch).
to NonItalian:
We are aware that there is not one Slavic sound. However, the archetypal Slavic languages are Russian and Polish, the Northern Slavic languages. To our ears, we might mistake Lithuanian and Albanian for those 2 archetypal languages. This is our reference in comparison to Portuguese and Romanian. |