ROMANIAN the closest to CLASSICAL LATIN
>in Romania all this theories are known under the name of "protochronism", that is a nationalistic ideological movement <
Yes, indeed Dacian language remains a mystery, and all these claims about Dacian can’t be verified, simply because there is no evidence DISCOVERED YET! What we know is some Dacian toponyms and names + 160 words of Dacian origin shared by Romanian and Albanian.
“La Sarisegetuza, Dacii nu au avut nevoie de translator Latin”
"At Sarisegetuza, the Dacians needed no Latin translator"
The theory of Dacian being related to Latin is more of a mystery based on Sanskrit words present in both languages : Dacian and Latin (therefore there was some intelligibility between both languages)
APA (water) in Romanian is inherited from Sanskrit APA (identical) and was not inherited from Latin AQUA derived from APA (Sanskrit).
Also the numbers in Romanian are from Sanskrit as well.
DECEBALUS the last Dacian King (Ancient Romanian) before the Roman conquest - his name means DECE- BALUS (TEN-STRONGMAN)
DASA in Sansrit = TEN
DECE in Dacian = TEN
DECEM in Latin
ZECE in Modern Romanian.
DECE-BALUS = "strong as ten men" from the Sanskrit DASA-BALA
More precisely:
DECEBALUS the last Dacian King
DECE-BALUS
DASA-BALA Sanskrit
DECE- “Ten” in Dacian language (before the contact with the Romans)
DECEM-“Ten” in Latin
ZECE-“Ten” in Romanian
DIECI- in Italian
DIEZ – in Spanish
DEZ – In Portuguese
DIX – in French
Unfortunately nobody knows how the Dacian language sounded. All we know is that it was an Indo-European language.
The statue of DECEBALUS the largest in Europe.
http://ue.mae.ro/images/gallery/ue/decebal_dunare_95415e1fd861377f1b095dd8b3b94c9d_83.jpg
cool, where is the statue and what river is there ?
This is getting largely off topic, but if you want to discuss the subject of ethnicity please don't instigate or deny easter roman ancestry by saaying that roman ancestry is exclusive to the western part of europe, because both me and subconciously your western based generalizing mind know that this is hogwash.
Brennus:
As for the original Romans (an Indo-European people, an Italic people?), they seem to have largely disappeared. While Roman blood may still exist in Italy and other parts of western Europe, including Britain, I imagine that it has been pretty well watered down by now.
Me:
We both know, Brennus, that scientific evidence cannot prove which country is more ethnically related to the Romans because even Romans weren't ethnically related. But if you are going to argue that only the western european countries retained "Roman" ancestry, please don't mention Britain. That country was raped by nearly all barbarian invaders, as evident in our language, while Roman Dacia retained almost all classical latin grammar. So how can you conlcude that Romanians or eastern europeans have almost no roman blood, while even "Britains" which have almost no Roman heritage (except Latin lexicography in English) are more related to the Romans than Romanians?
I agree that there is some Roman blood in all of the western european, but don't dismiss Romanians as not ethnically Roman. Like I said, there is no such thing as pure "Roman" blood, but realistically, Romanians are more ethnically related to the people who called themselves Roman, than Britons.
I believe this because Romanian couldn't have survived as a Latin language in such a geographical location, which was a focal point for barbarians entering the Roman Empire south of the danube (after 271 AD). Thus the people living in "Wallachia" had to have been the people that had lived there since the Roman occupation or before, otherwise ROmanian would be just another possibally slavic language. But it wasn't so because, the people in that region have been speaking a Latin based language since the Roman occupation up until now, therefore ethnically they had to have been the same. That is why the barbarians surrounding the romanian region called these people Vlach/Wlachs which is slavic for Roman
And I am tired of hearing this lingo about how Romanian is a made up language like esparanto. Yes Romanian did replace some slavic lexicalities in its vocabulary, however even when Romanian was minorly slavicated, it was still a Romance Language (some of you need to read this twice). Much like French was relatinized in the 16th century.
Romanian was not made up from scratch it was a Latin based language from start and remained Latin based throughout the slavic influences on the language (if you think otherwise you need to read and stop falsifying and exagurating history). The Romanian National Awakening of the 19th century would have never occured if Romanians didn't actually realize that they are different ethnically, culturally and linguistuically from their neighbours. They didn't just wake up and say: "I think I'm going to be Roman from now on". Thus, the minor relatinization process imposed on the Romanian language is just to over emphasize their Roman heritage over their neighbors.
And thats it! there was no creating a new language for false claims! this is something that only an ignorat instigator would say for publicity. If there are truelly understanding rational people on this forum please don't write unnesesarry insults or exagurate historic articles to the point of falsifying history for the purpose of disclaiming Eastern European Roman heritage.
Salve.
I disagree with this radical theory of sanskirt being close to or possibally the mother tongue of Dacian. I believe that this indo- european language relates to all indo-european languages not just Dacian. So in this respect I think that coincidently there are some "Dacian" and Latin derived words in Romanian that may relate to Sanskirt.
Augustin
those so-called proofs you have brought, are not really accepted by any serious linguist or historian; in Romania all this theories are known under the name of "protochronism", that is a nationalistic ideological movement that tries to demonstrate that Romania, or what is today Romania, was once, at least, the hub of the universe, that we are older than anyone else and other similar things.
Besides that, neither Sanskrit nor even Vedic Sanskrit is the "base of the Indoeuropean languages". This was an early 19th century naive idea. Sanskrit (along with any other Indoeuropean language) can be traced back to an even older language which is usually called "the common Indoeuropean".
agreed.
These mere coincidences are often used to promote radical nation centrism in Romania. There is a Romanian historian who believes that the ancestors of the Romans were Dacian. Although this is interesting, and his points are often convincing, this cannot be taken seriously. I usually dismiss such radical theories, as unrealistic.
Salutari la toti.
Well, I didn't want to suggest that Dacian were ancestors of Romans. Actually, I would consider this stuff as being more nationalistic if the Dacian language was totally different than Latin. Depends on everyone how uses it.
And those coincidences are just a small part of a whole. I didn't mention those which, indeed, sounded artificial and exagerated.
Octavian, I advised you about the “openness” of this forum attracting teenage and underage trolls mainly from Latin America boycotting and insulting. Please ignore them. As for your reassurance, please note- there are still a hand full of intellectuals, sporadic visitors that still have a contribution to the language section. Please disregard the rest.
______________________________________
And regarding the Dacian language with an unknown ancestry. I repeat - The theory of Dacian being related to Latin is more of a mystery based on Sanskrit words present in both languages : Dacian and Latin (therefore there was some intelligibility between both languages).
Albanian for instance is very vivid and still Alive !!! Unfortunately after 2000 years no linguist can classify the Albanian language and their ancestry.
Regarding the Albanian language. Here is a theory publicised in many scientific groups :
The Roman conquest in Dacia replaced the Dacian language in only 163 years
Dacian language disappeared completely.
Albanian still remains unclassified (but shares at least 200 Dacian words with Romanian)
Romanian despite a short Roman occupation 163 years-remains grammatically the closest to Cl.Latin.
Where are the Dacians then ? Here is what some scientist answered:
1.The Romans occupied DACIA
2.Some Dacians tribes from the south migrated to Pre-Albania.
3.Dacian language transformed into Proto-Albanian.
4.The rest of the Dacians were easily Romanised and Romanian was formed.
Anthropologic tests and DNA results demonstrated the ethnicity of Romanian being mainly Mediterranean people (olive skin – moderately dark) in Oltenia (Walachia) Tara Romaneasca (The Romanian country), southern Transylvania and partially Moldova. Therefore the Romans eliminated a big percentage of Dacian people, assimilating the rest easily, while the rest migrated to Pre-Albanian region.
Dacian = Albanian
A disputable "ALBANIAN "hypothesis, by some linguists, while approved by others.
Georgero, oricum este o ipoteza foarte interesanta. Dar e doar o ipoteza ! Oricum, cuvintele de origine Sanscrita exista in Romana, si nu uita misterul Sumerienilor din TARTARIA.
Servus !
Well, it is a theory, which I ignored it since now, because I thought there can not exist any scientific clues to justify it. It seems like, actually, are much more clues than generally known.
@Octavian
Anyway, speaking about the language, I guess is correct to say
"Salutari tuturor!" and not "Salutari la toti!" but don't take it personally...
No las' Georgero ca mere si "salutari la toti" gin Banat in Transilvania pe graiu nostu.
Noroc fain ! :)
Why would anyone WANT to be descended from Romans? What have the Romans ever done for us?
And "Noroc fain" reminds me of savage minners!
Stefaniel P Spaniel,
Ethinicity is not mutable regardless of want.