|
|
ROMANIAN the closest to CLASSICAL LATIN
TOO many slavic words and did I mentioned dialects? Other dialects saved c.l words while others don't or there NEWLY introduced, which means this language is STILL being modified as we speak.
Well, Daco-Romanian is a single dialect with several local parlances, mutually comprehensible.
Every living language is in a continual change, Spanish included, I suppose.
The standard form of a language, no matter how useful might be as a means of communicating, does not tell so much of the history of that language, as the local parlances do.
Luis Zalot are you blind? deaf or dumb which one? ROMANIAN IS CLOSEST TO CLASICAL LATIN and all this comes with a minor slavic influence. Much like the ARABIC INFLUENCE ON SPANISH, or german on french. Dont look at the words of the prayer look at where and how they are placed and compare that with classical latin. You cant tell me that spanish italian and all of those other wannabe Latin langauges can be compared to romanian.
DOES NOT, I REPEAT "RESEMBLE" CLASSICAL LATIN AND WORDS ARE "LITERALLY" CHOPED UP AND SOMETIMES 'ONE' DOESN'T KNOW IF IT CAME EITHER FROM C.L or SLAVIC.....I GUESS THE REASON WHY ROMANIANS WORDS ARE CHOPED UP, IS BECAUSE OF FRENCH INFLUENCE AND INSPIRATION.
THE ABOVE IS TOTAL BS. First of all this prayer has so many spelling mistakes that is doesn't make any sense. THAT IS NOT ROMANIAN. but anyhow analyse the first line:
Pater noster, qui est in coelis (Classical Latin)
Tatal nostru, care esti in ceruri (Romanian)
Padre nuestro, que estas en los cielos (Spanish) why is "los" in this sentence there is no extra word in classical latin or romanian...
Padre nostro che sei nei cieli????? what is that well at least there no extra word.
I rest my case, you ignorants
@ S.P.Q.R, Your English is getting better, keep practicing…but your context is still rubbish I am afraid…
One more time, Romanian kept even the first names from Classical Latin intact, for example:
(Augustin –Romanian) derived from Lat. Augustine
(Octavian – Romanian) from Lat. Octavian-the first and one of the most important Roman Emperors.
In Italian, Spanish and Portuguese these famous Latin names, become bimbo-fied adding a BimbO “O” at the end of any possible name and word.
In Latin&Romanian____In BimbO Latin
Octavian ==========OctavianO
Augustin========== AugustinO
Paul==============PaOlO
Marius============MariO
(H)Adrian==========AdrianO
etc
All names in Italian, Spanish and Portuguese are BimbO Lola.
Animals in Italian, Spanish and Portuguese are BimbO-fied as well.
Latin---------Lupus
Romanian----Lupul
Italian--------LupO
Spanish------LObO
English-------Wolf
Latin------------Ursus
Romanian-------Ursul
Italian-----------OrsO
Spanish---------OsO
English----------Bear
These BimbO Latin languages even failed to preserve the first names from Latin, not including the animal names, that are “O” all over and over again.
This should be the motto of Bimbo Latin !
>An“O” all Over and Over again<
Avete CapitO O nO ?
post scriptum
If any paranoid mind thinks I am disguised in Octavian, Augustin, and other Romanian posters, is an idiot, please ask moderator for the IP.
Archaic Latin
Sources for studying the Archaic stage of Latin are rather scarce. Linguists define the time frame of the period from the 8th to the 5th century BC. Romans and citizens of other towns in Latium acquired the script in the 8th century from Italian Greeks whose colonies existed in Cumae and Neapolis, close to Rome. We will not describe the Roman script and its development in detail, but you can turn to a special page devoted to it (Roman Alphabet) instead. It seems that Etruscans who were at the time much more civilized than Italics gave them first skills in writing. But Latin people in fact did not use much of it, they were occupied by primitive agriculture and wrote no literature works. That is why inscriptions written on columns and walls of temples are the only thing left from Old Latin.
The earliest of them, as far as modern science has discovered, is the inscription on a fibula (a sort of a golden adornment) from Praeneste. It dates back from the late 7th century BC and reads the following:
Old-latin;Manios med fhe fhaked Numasioi
(Classical Latin; Manius me fecit Numerio)
(Spanish; Manio me hizo por numeros)
"Manius made me for Numerius"
Another quite ancient inscription is that found on the so called "black stone" which was found during archaeological works on the spot of the Roman forum. It is dated around 500 BC and reads:
quoi honc… sakros esed
(Classical qui hunc… sacer erit)
Other Archaic Latin inscriptions were written later and contain usually just a few words, mostly personal names, which is typical for ancient written examples. They were mostly written on burial stones, and only a few are official documents of the rising Roman Republic. Among them the most famous are the epitaphs of the Scipio family and the text of the Senate's order concerning temples of Bacchus in Rome.
The above mentioned documents allow us to get acquainted with the ancient stage of the Latin language, to understand better processes which were under way later. Archaic Latin stands much closer to the Proto-Indo-European stage. In phonetics, its major characteristic feature is the preservation of diphthongs, which were later partly simplified, partly disappeared. The examples are:
ai was preserved in cailavit, aire (spanish; aire & italian aria) (in classical Latin it turned to ae: caelavit, aer).
Latin words borrowed from Greek with this diphthong also made it ae (Thermopilae) au became long o in Classical Latin, though it was present in Archaic Latin: maurtia is the example (Latin mortis 'death')
ei also became a monophothong, long e in deus (Archaic Latin deivos);
another variant was long i in sive, si (Archaic Latin seive, sei 'if') (Spanish; "si" from C.L) & (Italian "se" from Old-latin)
oi changed its pronunciation to oe (Latin foederatio, Archaic Latin foideratei); this very oi turned to long u sound when in the beginning of the word: oino (spanish & italian; -uno-) 'one' becomes unus, una in Latin,
and the word comoinem (Classical Latin communem is the derivative from the same word unus with a prefix com- 'together', 'with')
Archaic Latin shows a strange diphthong which did not exist in Proto-Indo-European and was probably an Italic innovation: oe in coeravit 'he cured', Classical Latin form curavit with long u
again two different ways of reflection of the diphthong ou which existed in Archaic Latin met in the words iouestod, souad (Classical Latin developed u here) and cloulei (later oe)
The preservation of diphthongs is thus an archaic feature which later disappeared in the language. Oscan as the most conservative among Italic languages, preserved all them too, while Umbrian did not have the majority of them.
Archaic Latin phonetics used a number of other vowels which were changed in certain positions in the Classical period. But most of them were changed just due to assimilation processes:
a changed to e (Archaic Latin muliar, cuncaptum)
e to i (Archaic mereto, Classical merito 'by merits')
o to i (Archaic Primogenia, Classical Primigenia)
The letter u in Archaic Latin sometimes sounded a bit like modern German ue, and that is why could be replaced by i; later this sound coincided with original i. The example of this is Archaic lubs, Classical libens, liber (from IE *leudh- 'free people').
Old Latin consonants did not undergo those important changes we seen in the Classical period. Many original Italic phonemes sounded still archaic. For example, the initial b- in Latin bonus 'good, kind' originated from Archaic Latin dv- (dvenoi). Consonant sounds did not yet disappear in weak positions: like -v- between vowels in deivos 'a god', Latin deus. The final -d (which is quite important for the noun declension, because it was in the ablative singular ending) was still on its place; later it was dropped.
And one of the most significant features - Archaic Latin did not know the law of rhotacism, it preserved -s- between vowels (Numasioi > Nomerio, vetusia - Classical vetoria). This proves that rhotacism is not a Common Italic trait, it appeared rather late, but simultaneously in Latin and Umbrian (but not Oscan).
Other consonant changes are mostly kinds of assimilation (suepnos > somnus, adcedo > accedo, conquatsai > concussi)
Latin morphological system is the result of graduate simplification of the Indo-European original structure. The number of cases decreased, as well as the number of verbal grammar forms - moods, tenses, etc. Latin produced more analytic forms, which is typical for all Indo-European branches.
Now, who's Bimbo now? Sorin your just incompetent as they come and have fantast ideas, at least S.P.Q.R & Luis Cite their stuff, you on the other hand...bable on....and ramble about your day-dreams
Archaic latin was first (ended almost all their words with "OM/OS") Like Spanish & Italian.
Spanish has fewer arabic words then Romanian has Slavic words/phonology/influences
Spanish/Italian/Romanian are the closest to "Classical latin" and Italian & Spanish reference the INFAMOUS! 'O's from "ARCHAIC LATIN." Something that "romanian" can't cope up and Not to mentioned words derived from "archaic latin" are in Italian and spanish as showned. And if you didn't KNOW "ARCHAIC LATIN" is OLDER then "Classical latin."
You got owned.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:xCFVjoQoFdYJ:indoeuro.bizland.com/project/grammar/grammar61.html+archaic+latin&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4
Aldo, Hello my Latin brother !
English-----------Brother
Latin-------------Frater
Romanian--------Frate
Italian------------FratellO (are you surprised ? )
French----------- Frère
Spanish----------HermanO
Portuguese------ Irmão
Why are you FRATERnizing with the trols ? Hope you got my irony…
"Cruor" is the Classical Latin term for "blood". All Romance languages have inherited "sanguis" (sange, in Romanian). And yet, Romanian has also inherited the adjective "crunt" (gory) from the Latin "cruentus". Is it the case of other Romance languages or not?
Spanish; crúor.
(Del lat. cruor, -ōris).
I read that article and I'v never seen one word end in from archaic latin "os" or "om" stop citing bogus articles for show. Its not going to make your argument anymore credible if your information doesn't confirm your argument.
Spanish has fewer words than romanian has slavic? prove it. I have nothing against Spanish I actually enjoy the beautiful language, but I would prefer a much easier pronouncing slavicated romanian than a throaght itching arabized spanish. besides the Romans never had to worry about pronouncing such words.
I do however agree with you on one thing Aldo, Romanian has slavic phonology influence but never slavic syntax influences. You and S.P.Q.R/Luis Zalot need to accept the fact that romanian/sardinian is closest to classical latin grammatically, and thats that. (search on google and you can find most articles confirm this). Spanish and Italian are closer to classical latin in terms of phonology. But as I said in another topic: the words don't tell you the language, the way they are placed does.
for example;
Archaic-latin;Manios med fhe fhaked Numasioi
Classical Latin; Manius me fecit Numerio)
Spanish; Manio me hizo por numeros)
"Manius made me for Numerius"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
another variant was long i in sive, si
Archaic Latin -sei- 'if') (Spanish; "si" from C.L) & (Italian "se" from Old-latin)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ai was preserved in cailavit, aire (in classical Latin it turned to ae: caelavit, aer).
archaic latin; aire
spanish; aire
italian; aria
classical latin; aer
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Archaic latin;oino
spanish & italian; -uno-
Classical latin; unus
etc......enough already. Who's bluffing now? Romanian is a language with regrets. HAH, quote me.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:xCFVjoQoFdYJ:indoeuro.bizland.com/project/grammar/grammar61.html+archaic+latin&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4
Is "cruor" inherited or just borrowed? I ask this because some here seem to ignore this, and suppose that since a Latin word is found in the dictionary of a Romance language that proves soemething. In fact, if it is a loan word it doesn't prove anything.
Late vulgar latin; Natural Phenomenon or reference "Archaic latin."
Even so, Sorin. YOU cannot dismissed it either one way or another, Spanish and Italian maintained the Archaic & Late vulgar latin endings
Archaic latin; "om/os"
Late vulgar latin; "O"
So tell me? Where did "Romanian" get the "U" from Classical latin? Nope. But, From VULGAR LATIN. Your pathetic.
Vulgar latin; "U"
Classical latin; "Um/Us"
You got owned.
crúor. (SPANISH)
(Del lat. cruor, -ōris).
1.m. Coágulo sanguíneo.
2.m. poét. sangre (ǁ líquido que circula por las arterias y venas).
Cited from; R.A.E (REAL ACADEMIA ESPANOLA)
|