ROMANIAN the closest to CLASSICAL LATIN

JR   Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:35 pm GMT
I was looking at an map in the 16-17th century era and the countries were 'only' : Wallachia & Moldavia in the so-called ROMANIA countryside/location & region. Why is this?
Guest   Wed Apr 12, 2006 5:35 am GMT
"I was looking at an map in the 16-17th century era and the countries were 'only' : Wallachia & Moldavia in the so-called ROMANIA countryside/location & region. Why is this?"
That is to say what?
If you check an Italian map of the same era, what would you see? Dozens of states.
Transylvania was, of course, part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire until 1918/1919.
So was the northen part of Italy,. As a personal note, my great grandfather, who was then enrolled in the Austro-Hungarian army, even fought against the Italians in Tyrol.
augustin717   Wed Apr 12, 2006 5:46 am GMT
The above message was posted by me.
I keep forgetting to sign what I write.
Guest   Wed Apr 12, 2006 6:40 am GMT
Romanians are thus far wishy-washy.
a.p.a.m.   Thu May 11, 2006 9:05 pm GMT
Sorin said "As a Romanian I can understand 75% of Italian" My response to you SorinU, is that you're full of shit. You probably can't understand 10% of Italian. SorinU also said "Romanian is a sober language". What the hell does that mean? And what the hell makes you an expert on language, or anything else Gymnast Boy! SorinU, your opinion of another language is meaningless. A box of toothpicks is more valuable than your opinion. "The Italian language suits only women". That's your lowly opinion. The FACT is, my dear leotard wearing gymnast, is that far more people desire to study and learn Italian than they do RoGypsymanian. Italians didn't radically alter their language to make it sound Latin, the way "Romanians" did. "U" endings at the end of words sound ridiculous. Oh, I guess that means that "U" endings are "sober". Yeah, just ask Sorin, the language "expert". Why don't you get back on your balance beam, gymnast boy. You need to perfect your back flips, and cartwheels. The Olympics are just around the corner!
a.p.a.m.   Thu May 11, 2006 9:23 pm GMT
"Is it a matter of pride that you consider Romanian closest to Classical Latin?" Hey, if you've got nothing else to be proud of, go for it! I constantly hear pathetic Romanians prating endlessly about Classical Latin Classical Latin blah blah blah blah blah. Whatsa matter? Are you jealous of The Real Latin speaking nations of Europe? What's with the fucking Classical Latin mantra anyway? Can't you people discuss anything else besides Classical Latin and gymnastics? The Spanish, Portuguese, French, and Italians all contributed VERY HEAVILY to the foundation and advancement of Western Civilization. The Romanians did not. And because of that, what you have on this forum is a bunch of pathetic Romanians with an inferiority complex who constantly bring up the Classical Latin subject, because they have nothing else to contribute. Yes, it is true that Romanian is the closest language to Classical Latin. Big fucking deal! I'm not impressed. If you've ever heard spoken Latin, you will instantly reckongnize that Spanish and Italian sound the closest to it. The Spanish and Italians didn't perform a major surgical procedure to re-Latinize their languages.
Aldo_b   Thu May 11, 2006 9:57 pm GMT
I've heard some Romanian recordings and seen some of its grammar and I found it quite nice.
Luis Zalot   Fri May 12, 2006 3:01 am GMT
I thought this thread was closed for good? Why did it re-open again, was it popular? Or was it popular demand? hah!

Here are some "Classical-Latin" audio-passages of "Familia Romana" (capitulum secundum). I'll let you people decide.

http://headachefreelanguages.com/audio/

These "selected" passages of chapter 2 sound very much like
Spanish & Italian. And perhaps Portuguese?

http://headachefreelanguages.com/audio/Cap_II_015_024.mp3

http://headachefreelanguages.com/audio/Cap_II_085_092.mp3

http://headachefreelanguages.com/audio/Cap_II_062_079.mp3

http://headachefreelanguages.com/audio/Cap_II_053_061.mp3

http://headachefreelanguages.com/audio/Cap_II_042_047.mp3
Fredo   Fri May 12, 2006 8:03 pm GMT
"JR Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:35 pm GMT
I was looking at an map in the 16-17th century era and the countries were 'only' : Wallachia & Moldavia in the so-called ROMANIA countryside/location & region. Why is this?
"

That's because Romania is one of Europe's youngest countries. However Romanians have been living here for much longer. Always fighting with others, they slowly moved from the south to where they live now.
Transylvania is a different story, they started to form majority there in the 18th century when fleeing from the Turkish from Wallachia. They changed from cyrillic to latin these times.
Until the end of WW1, the region was either independent or part of historical Hungary, later the Austro-Hungarian empire. In general, they were really lucky with their history, if you look at the map now.
augustin717   Fri May 12, 2006 8:25 pm GMT
Transylvania is a different story, they started to form majority there in the 18th century when fleeing from the Turkish from Wallachia.

In fact the migrations were always the opposite direction: ever since the XIIIth century, Romanian speakers from Transylvania fled either to Wallachia or Moldova not from the Turks but from the Hungarian oppression which was, at times, even harsher than the Turkish one; from the XIIIth century onwards, the Romanian nobility of Transylvania was forced either to convert to Roman-Catholicism and thus, become Magyar, over time, or to loose its privileges; Some converted (Banffy, Dragffy, Kendeffy and many other Hungarian noble families have Romanian roots) but some did not. Of these some crossed the mountains, as Dragos and Bogdan from Maramures to Moldova and settled there.
It is probably from the era of these forced conversions to Catholicism that
"Latin" ("letin" in peasant speech) has aquired, among Romanians, the meaning of "greedy; cruel; pagan".
If you start researching a bit you will find out that there was a Romanian majority in Transylvania long before the XVIIIth century.
a.p.a.m.   Fri May 12, 2006 8:57 pm GMT
Although I am not as well versed on this subject as augustin717, what I do know, based on researching the topic of the population of Transylvania, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of the people of Transylvania are Romanian. There are a few pockets of Hungarian majority, but the land definitely belongs to Romania simply based on the clear majority of Romanian speakers there. It is in this region, if I'm not mistaken, that the main Roman settlements took place after the conquest of Dacia in 106 A.D. So there is not only a linguistic reason why Transylvania should be part of Romania, but there is also an important historic reason. The Romans arrived in Transylvania long before the Magyars did.
Fredo   Sat May 13, 2006 6:07 pm GMT
Well, I dunno. Thing is that Romanians never had their country and there must be a reason. Hungarians never were that strong to keep their position if what you say was true. Especially when Hungarians were conquered by the Turkish.
Where were the Romanians for centuries? Why they don't even have their own names of villages in Transylvania but adopted Hungarian names?
And ethnic stuff: main cities in Transylvania had always had over 70% Hungarian majority, before being Romanian cities.
Land of Szeklers however kept its 80-90% majority still today, does that mean it should be part of Hungary? Don't think so. Let's change borders of Europe in every 50 years, according to the actual situation? Booo...
Greater Romania was created by France but let's move on.
Fredo   Sat May 13, 2006 6:40 pm GMT
I asked one of my Hungarian friend and he said I was wrong with one info, coz the Romanian fleeing started earlier than the 18th century. He also added that I should ask what do you think the Romanian name of Transylvania - Ardeal - means ;)
augustin717   Sat May 13, 2006 8:59 pm GMT
Tell your Hungarian friend, pray you, that the mere fact that "Ardeal" comes from the Hungarian "Erdely" ("The land beyond the forests") only proves one thing: that the Hungarians came here after setteling in Pannonia, and only so could they speak about a land separated from theirs by large forests. It doesn't tell that a Romanian and Slavic speaking population was not already there. However, if you check the hidronimy, oronimy and much of the toponimy, these will tell you that Transylvania was continuously inhabited: Mures, Cris, Somes, Abrud, Albac, Barsa are not Hungarian in origin. And there are many other Slavic toponyms such as : Tarnova, Tarnaveni, Tarnava, Bistrita, Dezna, Leasa, Laz, Balgrad, etc.
He is, however, right in saying that the urban population was not Romanian. It was primarily Saxon and Hungarian. Romanians were either agricultors or shepherds. and inhabited most of the rural areas.
Ask your friend about the Huniady family? Of what ethnic origin was Matthias Corvinus, or his father Iancu of Hunedoara?
elfegxt@mail.ru   Sun May 14, 2006 4:29 pm GMT
<a href='http://www.yahoo.com'></a>Welcome! http://www.areaseo.com/improvepr/ <a href='http://www.areaseo.com'>improve pagerank default</a>. <a href="http://www.areaseo.com ">PageRank 11</a>: Web Site Analysis, SE marketing, High Rankings. Also [url]http://www.areaseo.com/linksale/[/url] and [link=http://www.areaseo.com]google rank 20[/link] from pagerank .