Is Romanian more like a Romance or a Slavic language

User avatar
Levike
Posts: 6050
Joined: 2013-04-22, 19:26
Real Name: Levi
Gender: male
Location: Kolozsvár
Country: RO Romania (România)

Re: Is Romanian more like a Romance or a Slavic language

Postby Levike » 2013-05-30, 16:25

Which endings do the -i and -uri desinences stem from?

I'm not an expert on this but I looked at the Latin declesions and this is what I think:
The way nouns change in Latin are sometimes similar to Romanian

water = aqua = apă
of the water = aquae = apei ( If I know well then the Latin "ae" was sometimes pronounced "e" )
of the waters = aquarum = apelor

table = mensa = masă
of the table = mensae = mesei
of the tables = mensarum = meselor

Historically a big part of the words with "ii" were "ei" like
"of the street" = "străzei" in the past but nowadays "străzii"

I think that also "of the language" was "limbei" in the past.

The plural form of masculin nouns "i" comes from Latin:
1.dominus = sir, master
dominus --> domn or domnul ( where "ul" = "the" )
domini ----> domni or domnii ( where the second "i" = "the" )
2.filius = son
filius --> fiu or fiul
filii ----> fii or fiii

About "uri" I have no idea.
Nem egy nap alatt épült Buda vára.

User avatar
iodalach93
Posts: 845
Joined: 2013-01-03, 23:51
Real Name: Alex
Gender: male
Country: IT Italy (Italia)

Re: Is Romanian more like a Romance or a Slavic language

Postby iodalach93 » 2013-05-31, 2:26

Levente.Maier wrote:
Which endings do the -i and -uri desinences stem from?

I'm not an expert on this but I looked at the Latin declesions and this is what I think:
The way nouns change in Latin are sometimes similar to Romanian

water = aqua = apă
of the water = aquae = apei ( If I know well then the Latin "ae" was sometimes pronounced "e" )
of the waters = aquarum = apelor

table = mensa = masă
of the table = mensae = mesei
of the tables = mensarum = meselor

Historically a big part of the words with "ii" were "ei" like
"of the street" = "străzei" in the past but nowadays "străzii"

I think that also "of the language" was "limbei" in the past.

The plural form of masculin nouns "i" comes from Latin:
1.dominus = sir, master
dominus --> domn or domnul ( where "ul" = "the" )
domini ----> domni or domnii ( where the second "i" = "the" )
2.filius = son
filius --> fiu or fiul
filii ----> fii or fiii

About "uri" I have no idea.


That is some very educated guess, congrats Levente! :yep:

We studied the evolution from Latin into the modern Romance languages (focusing on Italian, of course) at high school, most of what you said is perfectly correct.

The desinence -i originated from Latin, where most of masculine nouns in -us pluralised by changing -us into -i. Among Romance languages, this feature is still shared only by Italian and Romanian (and few other minors).

About the desinence -uri: I see it's rather uncommon in Romanian and totally absent in Italian. In Romanian is found mostly on neutral nouns (please Levente correct me if I'm wrong). My guess, it comes from the Latin -ora, which was the desinence, actually part of the stem plus the desinence -a, for the plural of a small class of neutral nouns belonging to the third declension. I think the most clear example is Lat. tempus (pl. tempora) which has evolved into Rom. timp (pl. timpuri).
 (en) Please correct my mistakes.  (fr) Corrigez mes erreurs, s'il vous plaît.  (sv) Snälla, rätta till mina fel.  (ru) Исправляйте, пожалуйста, мои ошибки.  (ja) 間違いを正してください。  (ar) تصحّحوا أخطائي من فضلكم.  (el) Παρακαλώ διορθώστε τα λάθη μου.  (ga) Ceartaígí mo chuid earráidí, le bhur dtoil.  (fa) لطفا اشتباهاتم را اصلاح کنید.

User avatar
pittmirg
Posts: 715
Joined: 2008-06-11, 7:37
Gender: male
Country: PL Poland (Polska)

Re: Is Romanian more like a Romance or a Slavic language

Postby pittmirg » 2013-06-11, 9:51

@Levente.Maier: much of that makes sense. It's however strange that the -i ending entered feminine nouns as well.

Also I think apelor is contracted from aquae + illorum.

@ iodalach93: a Romanian grammar that I have says that -uri can in fact occur in feminine nouns, too (ceartă — certuri, vreme — vremuri). It seems pretty convincing it has something to do with the Latin -ora of certain 3rd declension nouns. Maybe it's contaminated with the plural -i?
занесіть мя в Верховину / де родився, хай загину

User avatar
Levike
Posts: 6050
Joined: 2013-04-22, 19:26
Real Name: Levi
Gender: male
Location: Kolozsvár
Country: RO Romania (România)

Re: Is Romanian more like a Romance or a Slavic language

Postby Levike » 2013-06-11, 11:21

apelor = aquae + illorum

Yes that makes even more sense.

As I thought about it a bit I think (but not sure)
Proto-Romanian didn't really have the Dative/Genitive case.

So maybe Romanian just inherited separate words from Latin
and later connected them to form a new Dative/Genitive case.

Maybe in the beginning people said "ape lor" as separate words
since ape=waters and lor=to them.
Nem egy nap alatt épült Buda vára.

User avatar
TeneReef
Posts: 3046
Joined: 2010-04-17, 23:22
Gender: male
Location: Kampor
Country: HR Croatia (Hrvatska)

Re: Is Romanian more like a Romance or a Slavic language

Postby TeneReef » 2013-06-14, 15:17

Romanian sounds like Malay. :P
विकृतिः एवम्‌ प्रकृति

User avatar
Levike
Posts: 6050
Joined: 2013-04-22, 19:26
Real Name: Levi
Gender: male
Location: Kolozsvár
Country: RO Romania (România)

Re: Is Romanian more like a Romance or a Slavic language

Postby Levike » 2013-06-14, 15:29

TeneReef wrote:Romanian sounds like Malay. :P

And that's a good or a bad thing? :whistle:
Nem egy nap alatt épült Buda vára.

User avatar
TeneReef
Posts: 3046
Joined: 2010-04-17, 23:22
Gender: male
Location: Kampor
Country: HR Croatia (Hrvatska)

Re: Is Romanian more like a Romance or a Slavic language

Postby TeneReef » 2013-06-16, 13:20

I'd say good
विकृतिः एवम्‌ प्रकृति

Zarcu Mihai
Posts: 106
Joined: 2013-09-29, 9:55
Real Name: Zarcu Mihai
Gender: male
Location: Constanta
Country: RO Romania (România)
Contact:

Re: Is Romanian more like a Romance or a Slavic language

Postby Zarcu Mihai » 2013-10-11, 16:35

crisdiac wrote:There is no "official" language and "unofficial" language and this is true for romanian or any other language. The language spoken/written on TV/radio/newspapers is different in vocabulary from the language spoken by ordinary people in the sense that it has a reduced vocabulary and uses many more neologisms. The assertion that the language used on romanian TV/radio/newspapers uses more latin-derived words is false, it just uses more neologisms, which are actually taken from french (in the XIX and XX centuries) or english (in the XX and XXI centuries), not from latin. And the language used by those invited to speak on the various shows is the language used by the common population.

===============
Quote from AndreiB:

Actually, the media educates us to use the latin equivalents, we're brainwashed to a certain extent

Like to use:
Speranţă for Nădejde (hope)
Timp for Vreme(time)
Oră for Ceas(hour

Pericol for Primejdie(danger)
Eroare for Greşală(error)
Final for Sfîrşit(the end)
Culpă for Vină (guilt)
Aer for Văzduh (air)
===============

As I said, the media does not educate the people to use latin-derived words, but neologisms, which are mainly from english these days.

"Nădejde" is very rarely used. Almost everyone (at least in the cities) uses "speranţă".

"Vreme" is widely used, as is "timp". However, "vreme" has these days mainly uses related to meteorology.

"Ceas" is used only for "watch" (Am un ceas nou = I have a new watch) and to ask for the time (Cît e ceasul ? = What hour is it?). "Oră" is used to measure the time (cinci ore = five hours).

"Primejdie" is rarely used, although it is not an archaism, people continue to use it. "Pericol" is much more used these days.

"Greşeală" is the default word, it is extensively used in any situation. "Eroare" is used mainly related to technical situations, nobody uses it in the common language. "Greşeală" actually means "mistake", not "error".

"Sfîrşit" is the common term for "end", used by all. Another used word is "terminare", mainly as a verb (cînd se termină ? = when will it be over ?). "Final" is rarely used in the common language, it is used mainly related to the end of artistic works in the reviews.

"Vină" is the default term, nobody uses "culpă". The only use of "culpă" is when speaking about situations related to law breaking. It is a technical word used in the jargon of the law profession.

"Văzduh" is never used, except for poetry or literature. It has been almost completely replaced with "aer" in the common language.

=================
Quote from Ladybug:

În România, din 1993 nu se mai foloseşte „î” în interiorul cuvintelor (excepţie fac cele formate cu prefix, ex. „neîndemânatic”)…

Quote from Riks:
Văd că scriţi "cuvint" şi "cuvânt". Amândouă sunt egale sau unul dintre ele seamnă ceva alt?
===============

Actually many people use "Î" in the middle of the words, and they are right to do so. But let's present some history:

There were many discussions in the XIX century related to the romanian ortography, after the decision was made to use the latin alphabet instead of the cyrillic one (latin alphabet replaced the cyrillic alphabet in 1860). In those times (XIX century) the written romanian language used more diacritics than today, for example E, O or U also had diacritical marks (breve or circumflex) when present in the middle of the words. In 1904 a decision by the Romanian Academy was taken in order to simplify the ortography, so in the middle of the words was accepted only Â, and all the E,O,U with diacritical marks were changed in Â. So the romanian would have 2 letters (Î and Â) that represent the same sound. But it was a step ahead, because the ortography was simplified (E,O,U with diacritical marks disappeared).

http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fonologia_ ... om%C3%A2ne

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_cent ... nded_vowel

In 1953 (under the communist regime) the Romanian Academy issued another ortographical reform, stating that  would be replaced by Î in all instances (an exception was issued in 1964 for "român" and the derived words). It was a logical step and also a practical one, which simplified the ortography and enabled a more rapid learning of writing (in that time a great percentage of the population did not know how to write, were analphabets). This helped a lot with the alphabetization of the population, which is now probably close to 99%.

In 1993 (under the democratic regime) the Romanian Academy issued what is probably the stupidest ortographic reform form all times. It reverted the decision from 1993 and reinstated  in the middle of the words. It has to be the only ortographic decision from modern times and from all over the world that actually complicates the ortography of a language. This decision had no a single rational motivation, it was purely political (many academicians were former communists, and by this decision they depicted themselves as anti-communists). It must be said that all the romanian linguistics institutes opposed that decision. But it was passed with the votes of engineers, physicians, economists, lawyers, etc. which were members of the Romanian Academy and had not a single clue about linguistics.

Another change made in 1993 by the same decision of the Romanian Academy was to replace a romanian form of the verb "a fi" ("to be") with a latin form. The words "sînt" ("am" or "are"), "sîntem" ("are"), "sînteţi" ("are") were replaced with "sunt", "suntem", "sunteţi". So "eu sînt" ("I am") was to be written "eu sunt", etc. It must be said that "Sînt" is an original romanian word, derived from the latin "Sint". It has no connection with the latin "sunt", this is proved by linguists. The form "Sînt" is present in all the texts prior to the XIX century. It is a word that evolved from latin, and is the best example of the evolution of romanian from latin (all the romanian words derived from latin are modified, as are the french, spanish, or portuguese ones). But more importantly, it is very easy to pronounce. The form "sunt" is hard to pronounce when speaking rapidly, that's why almost nobody uses it in the spoken language (not even those that use it in writing).

So why the change from "sînt" to "sunt" and the reintroduction of  ? Because from the XIX century onwards the romanian "elites" have modified artificially the language so that it will look more like latin. And for that they use all the means, including the complication of the ortography and sometimes outright lies (as in the etimology of some words, which are presented as derived from latin, even if this is not true).

All this is done to brainwash the romanian population and to impress the westerners. The brainwashing works, but the westerners are not duped by that, they have good historians and linguists that know the truth. And the truth is that genetically speaking the romanians are mainly a mix of Thracians (Dacians, the autochton population), Slavs (a migrant population that settled on all the romanian teritory) and other migrants populations like cumans or pecenegs. The romanian colonists brought after the conquest of Dacia by the Roman Empire were not from the Italian Peninsula, but from the perifery of the empire (especially form the teritory that is now the asian part of Turkey, Asia Minor). It is true that the romanian language is derived form latin, but many words are slavic even today, because many of the romanians are of slavic origin. And many of the popular first names (Bogdan, Mircea, Radu, Dragoş, Răzvan, etc.) used in Romania are also slavic. Also many toponyms (names of places) are of slavic origin, for example those that have an "ov" in them, for example (Ilfov, Braşov, Prahova, Craiova, Moldova, Milcov, Neajlov, etc.). This is not to say that the romanian are slavs, they are genetically mainly a mix of Thracians and Slavs and use a language derived from latin (borrowed from the early colonists brought by the roman conquerors). One needs only to read the history of romanians to find the truth.

Some very interesting and recent discussions about the romanian ortography are below. They all point to the conclusion that the modern romanian ortography should use only Î and not  (with the exception of "român") and should use "sînt", not "sunt".

http://forum.softpedia.com/index.php?showtopic=454379

http://www.mandrivausers.ro/forum/index ... 973.0.html

http://groups.google.ro/group/diacritic ... d307381f4c
Ego Civis Macedono-Romanicvs Svm!

Zarcu Mihai
Posts: 106
Joined: 2013-09-29, 9:55
Real Name: Zarcu Mihai
Gender: male
Location: Constanta
Country: RO Romania (România)
Contact:

Re: Is Romanian more like a Romance or a Slavic language

Postby Zarcu Mihai » 2013-10-11, 16:38

crisdiac wrote:
AndreiB wrote: By the way,in the Republic of Moldova there is no such sign as â,except for the words România,Român,although many people are not used to this rule. And the written language in Moldova nowadays is Romanian,no matter what people speak(although it's called Moldavian)

A large part of the English vocabulary is Latin,therefore those words have a latin root whatsoever.

=======================
Maybe what you say is true now, but this may be about to change, because the new ortographic dictionary issued by the linguistic authorities of the Republic of Moldova will impose the romanian rules from 1993. It's a big mistake, but somehow the Romanian Academy persuaded the Moldavian Academy to do it, probably by emphasizing the need for a unitary ortography in the two countries. I'm also for a unitary ortography, but by choosing the one suited for the XXI century, not the one for the XIX century, as is the ortography oficially used today in Romania. The Romanian Academy does not want to recognize its mistake done in 1993 and for that they "punish" not only the romanian people that must use an archaic ortography, but now they also want to punish the people from the Republic of Moldova. This happens because the population (which by the way pays the salaries of the academicians) does not protest such arbitrary and ilogic decisions.

Probabil că ceea ce spui tu e adevărat acum, dar e pe cale să se schimbe, din cauză că noul dicţionar ortografic scos de autorităţile lingvistice din Republica Moldova va impune folosirea regulilor româneşti din 1993. Este o mare greşeală, dar Academia Română a reuşit cumva să convingă Academia Moldoveană să o facă, probabil prin accentuarea necesităţii unei ortografii unitare în cele două ţări. Şi eu sînt pentru o ortografie unitară, dar prin alegerea aceleia care e potrivită pentru secolul XXI, nu cea potrivită pentru secolul XIX, aşa cum e cea folosită azi în mod oficial în România. Academia Română nu vrea să recunoască greşeala făcută în 1993 şi din cauza asta "pedepseşte" nu numai poporul român, care trebuie să utilizeze o ortografie arhaică (învechită), dar acum vrea să pedepsească şi poporul din Republica Moldova. Asta e posibil pentru că populaţia (care plăteşte salariile academicienilor) nu protestează faţă de astfel de decizii arbitrare şi ilogice.

==============================

Yes, maybe, but the romanians that use them do not perceive this relation and actually do not care about it, they love english and despise the other languages (including romanian). The majority would be amazed to learn that many english words are actually derived from french, a language that almost no one wants to learn in Romania, even though probably close to 30% of the contemporary romanian vocabulary is derived from french, by means of imported words in the XIX-XX centuries. A very relevant situation is that of the word "site", which is written and pronounced by the majority of romanians like in english. This despite the fact that the english word is derived from a french one ("site/sites"), and the origin of the word is latin ("situs"). The romanian language has the word "sit/situri" as a translation for the english "site/sites", but as I said the majority use the english word (written/pronounced like in english).

Da, poate, însă românii care le folosesc nu percep această relaţie şi de fapt nu le pasă de ea, ei iubesc engleza şi dispreţuiesc celelalte limbi (inclusiv româna). Majoritatea ar fi uimiţi să afle că multe cuvinte englezeşti sînt de fapt derivate din franceză, o limbă pe care aproape nimeni nu doreşte s-o înveţe în România, deşi probabil că vreo 30% din vocabularul românesc contemporan provine (este derivat) din franceză, prin intermediul cuvintelor importate în secolele XIX-XX. O situaţie foarte relevantă este cea a cuvîntului "site", care este scris şi pronunţat de majoritatea românilor ca în engleză. Aceasta deşi cuvîntul englezesc este derivat dintr-unul franţuzesc ("site/sites"), iar originea cuvîntului e latină ("situs"). Limba română are cuvîntul "sit/situri" ca traducere a englezescului "site/sites", dar aşa cum am zis majoritatea românilor folosesc cuvîntul englezesc (scris/pronunţat ca în engleză).

===============================

As much as the official line is to emphasize the kinship relation between romanian and latin, as much the romanian population (especially young people) doesn't care about that, they only love english and don't care about the romanian language. This can be seen from the fact that the majority of romanians (probably more than 80%) use Windows and all the other software in english, not in romanian. And this can be seen also from the fact that probably 90% of romanians do not use the romanian diacritics (ĂÂÎŞŢ) when writing on a computer, so the romanian language actually looks like english. The romanians are the only europeans that do not use software in their native tongue and do not use diacritics when writing in their maternal language on a computer.

Pe cît de puternică este politica oficială de scoatere în evidenţă (accentuare) a relaţiei de rudenie între română şi latină, pe atît de puternică este şi indiferenţa populaţiei româneşti (în special a celei tinere) faţă de acest lucru, pentru că românii iubesc engleza şi nu le pasă de limba română. Aceasta poate fi observată din faptul că majoritatea românilor (probabil mai mult de 80%) folosesc Windows şi celelalte programe de calculator (softuri) în engleză, nu în română. Şi poate fi observată şi din faptul că vreo 90% din români nu folosesc diacriticele româneşti (ĂÂÎŞŢ) cînd scriu la calculator, astfel că româna scrisă de ei seamănă ca aspect cu engleza. Românii sînt singurii europeni care nu folosesc softuri în limba maternă şi care nu folosesc diacritice cînd scriu în limba maternă la calculator.
Ego Civis Macedono-Romanicvs Svm!

Zarcu Mihai
Posts: 106
Joined: 2013-09-29, 9:55
Real Name: Zarcu Mihai
Gender: male
Location: Constanta
Country: RO Romania (România)
Contact:

Re: Is Romanian more like a Romance or a Slavic language

Postby Zarcu Mihai » 2013-10-11, 17:06

Vai...dar voi chiar ma uimiti...chiar credeti toate speculatiile acelea despre istorie romaniilor?eu unul nu am cum sa cred ca slavii ne'au influentat si la firul de par ca daca era asa nici macar nu am Mai fii vorbit romana.probabil am fii Vorbit bulgara sau slavona.slavii nu au fost un ajutor la formarea Romaniilor de astăzi după datele genetice,după harta haplogroup romanii au gene similare cu slavii nu mai mult de 10-15% acest procent fiind frecvent in nord mai ales acordând acestei hărți.r1a e comun la formarea genezei slaviilor http://www.google.ro/imgres?imgurl=http ... CDgQ9QEwAw.
Noi avem 20% r1b o caracteristica a celtiilor care este comuna in vestul Europei.http://www.google.ro/imgres?imgurl=http ... CDMQ9QEwAQ
Cel mai mare procent este reprezentat de l2 un grup comun in Balcani si Sardinia fiind cel mai frecvent in Croația si Sardinia iar aceste tari nu au cu siguranță gene slave in parte.ciudat deoarece Sardinia e insula izolata fata de Balcani.
După calculele făcute aici se pare ca romania are prevenite înrudite cu Sardinia.
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_ ... oups.shtml
Voi chiar sunteți siguri ca slavii au fost cei care ne'au format?ca romanii au cel ami mic procent la formarea noastră??de ce romanii in tot acest timp s'au considerat romani?(<lat.romanus cetățean al romei) mai sunt si cei din Alpi reto-romanii care si ei proces in acest fel.
Eu cred ca doar dezaprobati faptele istorice cu speculatii făcute de oameni care probabil aveau origine fie ungura fie rusească.romanii întotdeauna au fost considerati vlahi in același timp sunt considerati si italienii pana si in prezent.aveti vreo dovada istorica,ca romanii sunt formații majoritari din romani?serios acum eu nu zic ca romanii sunt înrudite mai mult cu vesticii decât cu cei din Balcani dar zic ca romanii s'au considerat asa cu un anumit scop.oh so da,vocabularul limbii romane înainte de secolul XIX era de 75% inheritat direct din latina si restul slavic maghiar turc grec ,întotdeauna a fost o limba latina iar gramatica este oricum predominant latina si fonologa la fel dacă ii studiezi evolutiile fonologice vei vedea ca asa este.sunt multe fapte istorice care ii dovedesc pe romani a fii înrudite cu italieni,in afara de faptul ca si noi si ei sunt considerati vlahi de popoarele estice.daca vreți sa ajung acolo eu sunt dispus sa va arat totul.
Ego Civis Macedono-Romanicvs Svm!

Zarcu Mihai
Posts: 106
Joined: 2013-09-29, 9:55
Real Name: Zarcu Mihai
Gender: male
Location: Constanta
Country: RO Romania (România)
Contact:

Re: Is Romanian more like a Romance or a Slavic language

Postby Zarcu Mihai » 2013-10-11, 17:08

Toate aceste toponime si nume reprezintă faptul ca slavii întotdeauna ne'au dominat...nimic altceva...
Ego Civis Macedono-Romanicvs Svm!

Zarcu Mihai
Posts: 106
Joined: 2013-09-29, 9:55
Real Name: Zarcu Mihai
Gender: male
Location: Constanta
Country: RO Romania (România)
Contact:

Re: Is Romanian more like a Romance or a Slavic language

Postby Zarcu Mihai » 2013-10-11, 21:05

Deasemena mai este si acest articol.vieilleeurope.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/maps-of-neolithic-culturesthe-romanian-etnogenesis-latin-languages-have-i-origin-2/
Ego Civis Macedono-Romanicvs Svm!


Return to “Romanian (Română)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest