Ceau Sigma, E o placere sa te cunosc ! Se vede ca tu esti o persoana educata si inteligenta.
Apreciez foarte mult intentia ta!
gracias !
Apreciez foarte mult intentia ta!
gracias !
Romanian a MADE up language
Sorin:
Multumesc la fel.
Cu placere
Îmi place la Limba Rômana
Imi pare bine de cunos'tint'ã
La revedere
Multumesc la fel.
Cu placere
Îmi place la Limba Rômana
Imi pare bine de cunos'tint'ã
La revedere
Ok It is RoMENIAN GUYS TRANSLATE IT! I think that a spanish person can handle better the problem. QUOTE
I'm a Spanish person (Mexican).
I'm a Spanish person (Mexican).
Just to let you know what is consecutio temporum:
Ignoro quid ags
Ignorbam quid egeres
Ignoro quid egerid
ignorabam quid egessis
Translation: I do not know what you are doin
i didn't know what you did.
Ignoro cosa faccia
ignoravo cosa facessi
ignoro cosa abbia fatto
ignoravo cosa avessi fatto....
Ignoro quid ags
Ignorbam quid egeres
Ignoro quid egerid
ignorabam quid egessis
Translation: I do not know what you are doin
i didn't know what you did.
Ignoro cosa faccia
ignoravo cosa facessi
ignoro cosa abbia fatto
ignoravo cosa avessi fatto....
No language is like Classical Latin. Or mutually intelligible, without considerable effort. I have only stated that among all the Romance languages, the closest to Classical Latin are Romanian and Sardinian.
Why do you keep ignoring
Declensions,
Neuter Gender,
“au” diphthongs,
“U” endings
Conjugation types
The synthetic Genitive and Dative
some archaic vocabulary
Only present in Classical Latin and Romanian and NON-EXISTENT in other Romance.
Why ?
Why don’t you answer me ? because you said you don’t care about it ? Is that an intelligent answer ?
I am wasting my time with you…Bye !
Argumentum ad ignorantiam ! Absit invidia !
La revedere !
Why do you keep ignoring
Declensions,
Neuter Gender,
“au” diphthongs,
“U” endings
Conjugation types
The synthetic Genitive and Dative
some archaic vocabulary
Only present in Classical Latin and Romanian and NON-EXISTENT in other Romance.
Why ?
Why don’t you answer me ? because you said you don’t care about it ? Is that an intelligent answer ?
I am wasting my time with you…Bye !
Argumentum ad ignorantiam ! Absit invidia !
La revedere !
@ Sorin
I asked you to answer my question on romanian syntax, you didn't. As you may note the fondamentum of a language is the syntax not the morphology. You say that you waste your words with me , i say to you in proper,non google , latin. I answer you: Romanian has retained the declension system,but lost the syntax, does this make romanain closer to latin?
Ignorans ego sum, sed sine dubio ullo, ignorando discor. Tu doctus es. imbueris ab quo, nullo? Vale ut possis.
I asked you to answer my question on romanian syntax, you didn't. As you may note the fondamentum of a language is the syntax not the morphology. You say that you waste your words with me , i say to you in proper,non google , latin. I answer you: Romanian has retained the declension system,but lost the syntax, does this make romanain closer to latin?
Ignorans ego sum, sed sine dubio ullo, ignorando discor. Tu doctus es. imbueris ab quo, nullo? Vale ut possis.
S.P.Q.R What you don’t understand is that Classical Latin was a synthetic language and Clasical Latin moved from being a synthetic language to an analytic language Vulgar Latin , where word order is a necessary a element of syntax.
Syntax was not so important in Classical Latin only in Vulgar Latin.
You studied Vulgar Latin or Late Latin. That is why you support a strong syntax of an analytic Latin. Vulgar Latin.
Remember that word order is not a necessary element in Synthetic Latin. Therefore the syntax is very flexible. That is the reason you ignore the morphology of Romanian and Romanian syntax is non-conforming with Vulgar Latin.
Classical Latin and vulgar Latin were two different languages. Analytic and synthetic.
Romanian is nonconforming with Vulgar Latin, having a different syntax. But is closer to Classical Latin in morphology, declensions, noun cases ,etc being more of a synthetic language.
Syntax was not so important in Classical Latin only in Vulgar Latin.
You studied Vulgar Latin or Late Latin. That is why you support a strong syntax of an analytic Latin. Vulgar Latin.
Remember that word order is not a necessary element in Synthetic Latin. Therefore the syntax is very flexible. That is the reason you ignore the morphology of Romanian and Romanian syntax is non-conforming with Vulgar Latin.
Classical Latin and vulgar Latin were two different languages. Analytic and synthetic.
Romanian is nonconforming with Vulgar Latin, having a different syntax. But is closer to Classical Latin in morphology, declensions, noun cases ,etc being more of a synthetic language.
I for one agree with S.P.Q.R, it takes a "dominus" to teach.
Brennus told his two cents about this subject; while I'm completely in accord with. Sardinian nonetheless is number one by all accounts. Italian is second. Spanish is Third. Romanian (believe it or not) is fourth.
The truth hurts.
Brennus told his two cents about this subject; while I'm completely in accord with. Sardinian nonetheless is number one by all accounts. Italian is second. Spanish is Third. Romanian (believe it or not) is fourth.
The truth hurts.
¿El Español es el TERCER idioma más cercano al Latín?... ¡Ja! ¿Qué otra cosa van a sacar?
Cicero : « Syntax was not so important in Classical Latin only in Vulgar Latin. »
Il faut remplacer « syntaxe » par « place des mots » sinon ta phrase n'a aucun sens : le fait que l'agencement des mots ne soit pas important est en soi une propriété syntaxique. Par ailleurs il est faux de dire que l'ordre des mots n'a aucune importance en scriptolatin classique : l'ordre était plus libre qu'en scriptolatin tardif, mais il n'était pas inexistant et avait un sens.
Il faut remplacer « syntaxe » par « place des mots » sinon ta phrase n'a aucun sens : le fait que l'agencement des mots ne soit pas important est en soi une propriété syntaxique. Par ailleurs il est faux de dire que l'ordre des mots n'a aucune importance en scriptolatin classique : l'ordre était plus libre qu'en scriptolatin tardif, mais il n'était pas inexistant et avait un sens.
Romanians are a joke.
That they had to re-do their language (almost entirely) and country for 200 years of "Roman rule in that region" Which was relatively in the 200a.d-400a.d. millennia. I now understand what "Brennus,S.P.Q.R & Luis Zalot" said about it being an Esperanto type of language." Romania is not a country is a PROFESSION; nicely professed.
Sardinian is the most conversative of them all. (it has all the elements of the other romance languages, spanish,italian,romanian-which they ripped off and Catalan.
That they had to re-do their language (almost entirely) and country for 200 years of "Roman rule in that region" Which was relatively in the 200a.d-400a.d. millennia. I now understand what "Brennus,S.P.Q.R & Luis Zalot" said about it being an Esperanto type of language." Romania is not a country is a PROFESSION; nicely professed.
Sardinian is the most conversative of them all. (it has all the elements of the other romance languages, spanish,italian,romanian-which they ripped off and Catalan.
@ Cicero
Syntax isn't only the disposition of the word in the sentences, it is the usage of the verbs, the period construction, the rules of subordordinations, and in these rules, romanian differ too much form either classical and vulgar latin. Italian French Spanish and the other languages lost the declension system but preseved the syntactic system of latin. I mean in french and spanish there are traces of consecutio modorum, italian conserved the rule more strongly, in spanish there are still synthetic perfect and plusperfect, in all romance languages, gerund behaves as a noun( this mostly in italian but also in the other languages can) Participles is still a participles and so on.
It is like english, germanic syntax = germanic language, even with all the latinate words.
Syntax isn't only the disposition of the word in the sentences, it is the usage of the verbs, the period construction, the rules of subordordinations, and in these rules, romanian differ too much form either classical and vulgar latin. Italian French Spanish and the other languages lost the declension system but preseved the syntactic system of latin. I mean in french and spanish there are traces of consecutio modorum, italian conserved the rule more strongly, in spanish there are still synthetic perfect and plusperfect, in all romance languages, gerund behaves as a noun( this mostly in italian but also in the other languages can) Participles is still a participles and so on.
It is like english, germanic syntax = germanic language, even with all the latinate words.
>Italian French Spanish and the other languages lost the declension system but preseved the syntactic system of latin. <
Of what Latin ? Vulgar Latin ?
Luis Zalot and Athena , your vocabulary is pretty much trollish. If I were you, I would keep my mouth shut. I are both just a TABULA RASA.
Stop Trolling here and keep your insults for your future children.
Your intellectual contribution here Is equal with ZERO
Of what Latin ? Vulgar Latin ?
Luis Zalot and Athena , your vocabulary is pretty much trollish. If I were you, I would keep my mouth shut. I are both just a TABULA RASA.
Stop Trolling here and keep your insults for your future children.
Your intellectual contribution here Is equal with ZERO
Is so that hurting for your sensibility sorin?
Romeanian ain't so close to classicla latin it seems reading some books....
How can you explain that? Are you so blind?
Romeanian ain't so close to classicla latin it seems reading some books....
How can you explain that? Are you so blind?
then you go and read this:
Uwe, Hinrichs, Handbuch der Südosteuropa-Linguistik N. Vincent: "Latin",
The Romance Languages, M. Harris and N. Vincent, eds., K. P. Harrington, J. Pucci, A. G. Elliott, Medieval Latin
Rosetti, Alexandru, Istoria limbii romane,
Bennett, Charles E. Latin Grammar (Allyn and Bacon, Chicago, 1908)
N. Vincent: "Latin", Romance Languages, M. Harris and N. Vincent, eds, (Oxford Univ. Press. 1990),
Waquet, Françoise, Latin, or the Empire of a Sign
Wheelock, Frederic. Latin: An Introduction.
According with those linguists :
>>Due to its geographical isolation, Romanian was probably the first language that split and until the modern age was not influenced by other Romance languages, which can explain why it is one of the most uniform languages in Europe<
>>Another major distinction between Romance and Latin is that all Romance languages, excluding Romanian, have lost their case endings in most words, except for some pronouns. Romanian retains a direct case (nominative/accusative), an indirect case (dative/genitive), and a vocative<
>the name Vulgar Latin is sometimes given to the hypothetical proto-Romance of the Western Romance languages: the vernaculars found north and west of the La Spezia-Rimini Line, France, and the Iberian peninsula; and the poorly attested Romance speech of northwestern Africa. This view considers southeastern Italian, Romanian, and Dalmatian to have developed separately<
>>Romanian it is more conservative than other Romance languages in nominal morphology. Romanian has preserved declension, but whereas Latin had six cases, Romanian has three, the nominative/accusative, the genitive/dative, and the vocative, and retains the neuter gender as well. However, the verbal morphology of Romanian has shown the same move towards a compound perfect and future tense as the other Romance languages<<
LINGUISTIC References
Uwe, Hinrichs, Handbuch der Südosteuropa-Linguistik N. Vincent: "Latin",
The Romance Languages, M. Harris and N. Vincent, eds., K. P. Harrington, J. Pucci, A. G. Elliott, Medieval Latin
Rosetti, Alexandru, Istoria limbii romane,
Bennett, Charles E. Latin Grammar (Allyn and Bacon, Chicago, 1908)
N. Vincent: "Latin", Romance Languages, M. Harris and N. Vincent, eds, (Oxford Univ. Press. 1990),
Waquet, Françoise, Latin, or the Empire of a Sign
Wheelock, Frederic. Latin: An Introduction.
The following are just Trolls, or TABULA RASA !
S.P.Q.R
Athena
Luis Zalot
Di piero
Nostradamus
caveat emptor, etc.
You must be some insane and pathetic Trolls to fight international professional linguists.
You are 100% a troll !
Uwe, Hinrichs, Handbuch der Südosteuropa-Linguistik N. Vincent: "Latin",
The Romance Languages, M. Harris and N. Vincent, eds., K. P. Harrington, J. Pucci, A. G. Elliott, Medieval Latin
Rosetti, Alexandru, Istoria limbii romane,
Bennett, Charles E. Latin Grammar (Allyn and Bacon, Chicago, 1908)
N. Vincent: "Latin", Romance Languages, M. Harris and N. Vincent, eds, (Oxford Univ. Press. 1990),
Waquet, Françoise, Latin, or the Empire of a Sign
Wheelock, Frederic. Latin: An Introduction.
According with those linguists :
>>Due to its geographical isolation, Romanian was probably the first language that split and until the modern age was not influenced by other Romance languages, which can explain why it is one of the most uniform languages in Europe<
>>Another major distinction between Romance and Latin is that all Romance languages, excluding Romanian, have lost their case endings in most words, except for some pronouns. Romanian retains a direct case (nominative/accusative), an indirect case (dative/genitive), and a vocative<
>the name Vulgar Latin is sometimes given to the hypothetical proto-Romance of the Western Romance languages: the vernaculars found north and west of the La Spezia-Rimini Line, France, and the Iberian peninsula; and the poorly attested Romance speech of northwestern Africa. This view considers southeastern Italian, Romanian, and Dalmatian to have developed separately<
>>Romanian it is more conservative than other Romance languages in nominal morphology. Romanian has preserved declension, but whereas Latin had six cases, Romanian has three, the nominative/accusative, the genitive/dative, and the vocative, and retains the neuter gender as well. However, the verbal morphology of Romanian has shown the same move towards a compound perfect and future tense as the other Romance languages<<
LINGUISTIC References
Uwe, Hinrichs, Handbuch der Südosteuropa-Linguistik N. Vincent: "Latin",
The Romance Languages, M. Harris and N. Vincent, eds., K. P. Harrington, J. Pucci, A. G. Elliott, Medieval Latin
Rosetti, Alexandru, Istoria limbii romane,
Bennett, Charles E. Latin Grammar (Allyn and Bacon, Chicago, 1908)
N. Vincent: "Latin", Romance Languages, M. Harris and N. Vincent, eds, (Oxford Univ. Press. 1990),
Waquet, Françoise, Latin, or the Empire of a Sign
Wheelock, Frederic. Latin: An Introduction.
The following are just Trolls, or TABULA RASA !
S.P.Q.R
Athena
Luis Zalot
Di piero
Nostradamus
caveat emptor, etc.
You must be some insane and pathetic Trolls to fight international professional linguists.
You are 100% a troll !