Is Romanian more like a Romance or a Slavic language

crisdiac
Posts: 8
Joined: 2009-02-09, 8:42
Real Name: Cristian Diaconu
Gender: male
Location: Bucureşti
Country: RO Romania (România)

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

Postby crisdiac » 2009-02-09, 10:41

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
Last edited by crisdiac on 2009-02-11, 21:47, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Lietmotiv
Posts: 1658
Joined: 2008-06-09, 9:47
Gender: male
Country: DE Germany (Deutschland)

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

Postby Lietmotiv » 2009-02-09, 16:48

.
Last edited by Lietmotiv on 2013-06-22, 20:33, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Balaur
Posts: 483
Joined: 2007-01-19, 1:37
Real Name: Андрей
Gender: male
Location: 台北
Country: TW Taiwan (臺灣)

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

Postby Balaur » 2009-02-10, 7:20

crisdiac wrote:"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).

I wouldn't say that it's only used for 'watch'. My family uses it quite frequently to mean 'hour'. For example: "De ce durează un ceas și să te îmbraci?", sau "În sfârșit, după un ceas a sosit poliția.". But it's possible that it's used more abstractly and sarcastically.

By the way, I've become accustomed to use 'â' and 'î' under the current rule, as stupid as it might be. So I'm not going to complicate everything and change now.



N-aș zice că se folosește numai pentru ceas de mână. Familia mea îl folosește destul de des cu sensul de 'oră'. De exemplu: "De ce durează un ceas și să te îmbraci?", or "În sfârșit, după un ceas a sosit poliția.". Dar se poate că se folosește un pic mai abstract sau sarcastic.

Apropo, eu m-am obișnuit să folosesc 'â' și 'î' sub regula actuală, cât e de proastă. Deci, nu mă încurc să-mi schimb acum.
Vă rog să mă corectați dacă fac o greșeală în orice limbă. // Вэ рог сэ мэ коректаць дакэ фак о грешялэ ын орьче лимбэ. // Please correct me if I make a mistake in any language. // Bitte korrigiert mich, wenn ich einen Fehler in irgendeiner Sprache mache. // 請改正我任何語言中的錯誤。 // 请改正我任何语言中的错误。 // Παρακαλώ να με διορθώνουν αν κάνω ένα λάθο σε οποιηδήποτε γλώσσα.

crisdiac
Posts: 8
Joined: 2009-02-09, 8:42
Real Name: Cristian Diaconu
Gender: male
Location: Bucureşti
Country: RO Romania (România)

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

Postby crisdiac » 2009-02-10, 10:29

[quote="AndreiB"] 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.[quote]

=======================
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.

crisdiac
Posts: 8
Joined: 2009-02-09, 8:42
Real Name: Cristian Diaconu
Gender: male
Location: Bucureşti
Country: RO Romania (România)

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

Postby crisdiac » 2009-02-10, 10:48

Balaur wrote:I wouldn't say that it's only used for 'watch'. My family uses it quite frequently to mean 'hour'. For example: "De ce durează un ceas și să te îmbraci?", sau "În sfârșit, după un ceas a sosit poliția.". But it's possible that it's used more abstractly and sarcastically.


I don't deny that in some parts of Romania or Republic of Moldova people use "ceas" also as a unit of time measurement. But in Bucharest and more probably in all the southern part of Romania it is never used like this. All use "ceas" only for the electronic/mechanical device.

Nu neg că în anumite părţi din România sau Republica Moldova oamenii folosesc "ceas" şi ca unitate de măsură a timpului. Dar în Bucureşti şi în mod sigur în toată partea de sud a României nu este deloc folosit în acest fel. Toţi folosesc "ceas" doar pentru dispozitivul electronic/mecanic.

crisdiac
Posts: 8
Joined: 2009-02-09, 8:42
Real Name: Cristian Diaconu
Gender: male
Location: Bucureşti
Country: RO Romania (România)

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

Postby crisdiac » 2009-02-14, 15:34

duko wrote:I'm not a linguist but I have experience with Romanian and a number of Slavic languages. I don't find in the Romanian grammar any big Slavic influence, and those typical Slavic features like many noun cases, verb aspects and lack of articles are not to be found in Romanian. The vocab has borrowed many words though, probably because Church Slavonic was until recently the language of religion, and Romanian was written in cyrilic.
I suspect that Greek had a greater influence on Romanian grammar (and on the whole Balkan Sprachbund thingie), but take it with a grain of salt.


=============================================
One of the greatest romanian historians, Constantin C. Giurescu wrote in 1935 in his book "History of Romanians" :

From all the populations that settled in Dacia after the retreat of the roman army, no one has had so much importance for the history of the romanian people as the slavs. They had on the danubian territory the role that was played in the west by the germanic populations. [...] We are a people of roman origin with a slavic "color", just like the french, italians, spaniards are of roman origin with a germanic "color". [...] Slavs have influenced us from the point of view of the race, language, social and political organization, culture and religion. No other people has had such a great impact upon us. [...] Romanian people got its full structure, its full ethnic characteristics, only after on the essential daco-roman element, which constitutes the base, was added the slavic element.

http://librarie.e-noesis.ro/istoria-rom ... -5406.html
=============================================

The relationship between romanian, latin and slavic cannot be understood without presenting a little history first.

HISTORY
The population that inhabited long time ago the current romanian territory was composed of dacians, which were of thracian origin. In the year 105 the dacians (led by the king Decebal) were defeated by the romans (led by the emperor Trajan). The dacian state was conquered and transformed in a province of the roman empire. The empire then began (as in other previously conquered territories) a politic of "cultural cleansing", which is actually the process of "romanization", of transforming the conquered populations in citizens of the roman empire without a distinct ethnic culture. This process was realized by the colons brought in Dacia from all over the roman empire, but especially from the neighboring territories (which are now Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, etc.) and more remote ones (Asia Minor, Syria, Gallia, etc.) which were conquered and romanized previously. In this process the dacian language was replaced with latin, new cities and roads were constructed and the population lost her dacian identity (language, culture and religious beliefs). It is what happened in all the other territories conquered by the romans, not only in Dacia. It is a matter of debate how much of the dacian territory was colonized by the romans, but it is sure that some areas were not colonized and in them survived a dacian population named the "free dacians", which would attack from time to time the new roman province.

But the new roman province established in Dacia was under the constant attack of "barbaric" people, for example the goths, which were a germanic people. Because of that, the roman empire decided 150 years after the conquest of Dacia to retreat all its army and population from the province. In the year 270 began the so-called Aurelian Retreat, named after the emperor Aurelius. The roman troops and the romanized population were retreated from Dacia (which lies north of the Danube river) to the south of the Danube (in the Balcanic peninsula), this big river being a natural obstacle in the way of the "barbarian" attackers. It is not known how many of the newly formed daco-roman population migrated south of the Danube with the roman army. It is safe to presume that many stayed, because that was their land and 160 years of roman occupation and romanization were not enough to determine them to abandon this land and go with the roman troops.

After the romans left Dacia, this territory was conquered by goths and gepids, two germanic tribes, which stayed from 275 to 577. It seems they had little influence on the daco-roman population, the romanian language has very few old germanic words.

Around the year 600 the territory of the ancient Dacia was conquered by the slavs. They settled on all the land that is now Romania, so their number was big. They did not impose a slavization process on the autochton (indigenous) population, contrary to what did the romans with their romanization process. The slavs lived alongside the daco-romans and fought together with the daco-romans to preserve the territories which were under constant attack from "barbaric" populations. By way of intermarriage and population mixing in the villages and towns, the slavs were eventually assimilated by the autochton population, so their descendants did not consider themselves as slavs, but as romanians. Around the year 1100 the process of the creation of the romanian people was complete, following the assimilation of the slavs. The romans ruled Dacia for 160 years and the slavs for 500 years.This situation influenced the composition (genetic traits) of the population and the language.

LANGUAGE
The official thesis of the politicians is that the romanian people is the result of the mixing of dacians and roman colons. The historical thesis (and in fact the truth) is that the romanian people was not formed until the numerous slavic population settled on the romanian territory was fully assimilated.
If we were to write the ecuation of the creation of the romanian people it would look like that:
Romanians = Dacians + Roman Colons + Slavs.
In this equation the lowest number in terms of population is that of the roman colons.

A similar equation can be used for the language:
Romanian Language = Dacian + Latin + Slavic
In this equation the lowest number in terms of words is by far the dacian language (only very few words are presumed to be of dacian origin, mostly because no other origin was discovered for them => there are no writings or inscriptions left from the dacians).

The romanian language is a romance language, its basic structure and grammar are derived mainly from latin. There are slavic influences in the grammar, for example in the suffixes (terminations of the words), prefixes (beginning of some composed words), in the construction of some numerals and also other. The slavic influence in the vocabulary is big and is due to the mixing of the daco-roman and slavic populations between the years 600-1100 on the romanian territory. Prior to 1850 the latin and slavic words were probably at 60-40%, but in the modern times romanian has borrowed many words from french, so today in the commonly spoken language by the romanians, latin (including french) words have a proportion of 70-75%, while slavic words are at 25-30%.
Last edited by crisdiac on 2010-02-07, 14:07, edited 1 time in total.

crisdiac
Posts: 8
Joined: 2009-02-09, 8:42
Real Name: Cristian Diaconu
Gender: male
Location: Bucureşti
Country: RO Romania (România)

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

Postby crisdiac » 2009-02-14, 15:36

=============================================
Unul din cei mai mari istorici români, Constantin C. Giurescu a scris în cartea sa "Istoria Românilor" publicată în 1935 :

Dintre toate neamurile care s-au aşezat în Dacia, după retragerea legiunilor romane, nici unul nu are atîta însemnătate pentru istoria poporului nostru ca slavii. Ei joacă în ţinuturile dunărene rolul pe care l-au jucat în apus neamurile germanice. [...] Sîntem un popor romanic de coloratură slavă, aşa cum francezii, italienii, spaniolii sînt popoare romanice de coloratură germanică. [...] Slavii ne-au influenţat sub raportul rasei, al limbii, al organizării sociale şi de stat, sub raportul cultural şi bisericesc. Nici un alt popor nu a avut o înrîurire aşa puternică asupra noastră. [...] Poporul român şi-a căpătat alcătuirea sa deplină, caracteristicile sale etnice complete, numai după ce elementului esenţial daco-romanic, constituind temeiul, i s-a adăugat elementul slav.

http://librarie.e-noesis.ro/istoria-rom ... -5406.html
=============================================

Relaţia dintre limbile română, latină şi slavă poate fi înţeleasă numai după prezentarea unui mic rezumat istoric.

ISTORIE
Populaţia care a locuit cu multă vreme în urmă pe teritoriul românesc era compusă din daci, care erau de origine tracă. În anul 105 dacii (conduşi de regele Decebal) au fost înfrînţi de romani (conduşi de împăratul Traian). Statul dac a fost cucerit şi transformat într-o provincie a imperiului roman. Imperiul a început apoi (la fel ca în celelalte teritorii cucerite anterior) o politică de "purificare culturală", care este de fapt procesul de "romanizare", de transformare a populaţiilor cucerite în cetăţeni ai imperiului roman fără o cultură etnică distinctă. Acest proces a fost realizat prin intermediul coloniştilor aduşi în Dacia din toate provinciile imperiului roman, dar în special din teritoriile vecine (care formează acum Serbia, Croaţia, Slovenia, Bosnia, etc.) şi din provinciile îndepărtate (Asia Mică, Siria, Galia, etc.) care fuseseră deja cucerite şi romanizate. În cursul acestui proces limba dacă a fost înlocuită cu latina, au fost construite oraşe şi drumuri noi şi populaţia şi-a pierdut identitatea dacă (limbă, cultură şi credinţe religioase). Este ceea ce s-a întîmplat în toate celelalte teritorii cucerite de romani, nu numai în Dacia. Cît de mult din teritoriul Daciei a fost cucerit şi colonizat de romani e o problemă aflată încă în dezbaterea istoricilor, dar e sigur că anumite părţi nu au fost colonizate şi în ele a supravieţuit o populaţie dacică numită "dacii liberi", care din cînd în cînd atacau noua provincie romană.

Această nouă provincie romană de pe teritoriul Daciei s-a aflat de la început sub ameninţarea şi atacurile popoarelor "barbare", de exemplu a goţilor, care erau un popor germanic. Din cauza asta imperiul roman a decis după 150 de ani de prezenţă să-şi retragă toată armata şi populaţia din Dacia. În anul 270 a început ceea ce s-a numit Retragerea Aureliană, numită după împăratul Aurelius. Trupele romane şi populaţia romanizată au fost retrase din Dacia (care se află în nordul fluviului Dunărea) în teritoriul din sudul Dunării (în peninsula Balcanică), acest mare fluviu fiind un obstacol natural în calea atacurilor "barbarilor". Nu se ştie exact cît din nou-formata populaţie daco-romană a migrat în sudul Dunării odată cu armata romană. Se poate presupune cu o mare probabilitate că o parte însemnată din populaţie a rămas pe loc, din cauză că acolo era pămîntul lor, iar 160 de ani de ocupaţie romană şi de romanizare nu au fost de ajuns să-i determine să părăsească acest pămînt şi să plece odată cu trupele romane.

După ce romanii au părăsit Dacia, acest teritoriu a fost cucerit de goţi şi gepizi, două triburi germanice, care au rămas din 275 pînă în 577. Se pare că ele au avut o foarte mică influenţă asupra populaţiei daco-romane, limba română conţine foarte puţine cuvinte germane vechi.

În jurul anului 600 teritoriul fostei Dacii a fost cucerit de slavi. Ei s-au aşezat pe tot teritoriul ce alcătuieşte azi România, ceea ce arată că numărul lor era mare. Ei însă nu au impus un proces de slavizare asupra populaţiei autohtone (indigene), aceasta fiind în contrast cu felul în care au procedat romanii cu procesul de romanizare. Slavii au locuit alături de populaţia daco-romană şi au luptat împreună cu ea pentru a apăra teritoriile de atacurile popoarelor barbare. Prin intermediul căsătoriilor mixte şi a amestecului de populaţie din sate şi oraşe, slavii au fost în final asimilaţi de populaţia autohtonă, astfel încît descendenţii lor nu se mai considerau slavi, ci români. În jurul anului 1100 se poate spune că procesul de creare a poporului român se terminase prin asimilarea completă a slavilor. Romanii au condus Dacia timp de 160 de ani, iar slavii timp de 500 de ani. Această situaţie a influenţat compoziţia populaţiei (trăsăturile genetice) şi limba.

LIMBA
Teza oficială a politicienilor este că poporul român este rezultatul amestecului de daci şi colonişti romani. Teza istorică (şi de fapt adevărul) este că poporul român nu s-a format pînă ce nu a fost asimilată numeroasa populaţie slavă prezentă pe teritoriul fostei Dacii.
Dacă ar fi să scriem o ecuaţie a formării poprului român ea ar arăta astfel:
Români = Daci + Colonişti Romani + Slavi.
În această ecuaţie cel mai mic număr din punctul de vedere al numărului populaţiei este acela al coloniştilor romani.

O ecuaţie similară poate fi scrisă pentru limbă:
Limba Română = Dacă + Latină + Slavă
În această ecuaţie cel mai mic număr din punctul de vedere al cuvintelor este al limbii dace (doar cîteva cuvinte sînt presupuse a fi de origine dacă, şi asta mai mult pentru că nu li s-a găsit o altă origine => nu există scrieri sau inscripţii rămase de la daci).

Limba română este o limbă romanică, structura sa de bază şi gramatica sînt derivate în cea mai mare parte din latină. Există influenţe slave în gramatică, de exemplu sufixele (terminaţiile cuvintelor), prefixele (începuturile anumitor cuvinte compuse) sau modul de compunere a unor numerale, dar şi altele. Influenţa slavă asupra vocabularului român este mare şi este datorată amestecului dintre populaţia daco-romană şi cea slavă între anii 600-1100 pe teritoriul românesc, în această perioadă intrînd în română foarte multe cuvinte slave. Înainte de anul 1850 cuvintele latine şi slave se aflau probabil în proporţie de 60-40%, dar în timpurile moderne limba română a împrumutat multe cuvinte din franceză, astfel încît astăzi în limba folosită în mod obişnuit de români, cuvintele latine (inclusiv franţuzeşti) au o proporţie de 70-75%, în timp ce cuvintele slave de 25-30%.

ravinescu
Posts: 8
Joined: 2009-05-21, 8:56
Real Name: Radu Vinescu
Gender: male
Location: Bucureşti
Country: RO Romania (România)

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

Postby ravinescu » 2010-02-07, 14:49

Am participat recent la nişte discuţii pe forumuri despre influenţa slavă asupra limbii şi poporului român. Cei care sînt interesaţi de subiect le pot citi la adresele de mai jos.

Ce limbă romanică are sonoritatea cea mai slavă?
http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t13953-45.htm
(discuţie în engleză => mesajele mele sînt în paginile 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 20, 22, 23)

Cultura română - o cultură slavă?
http://forum.softpedia.com/index.php?sh ... &p=6791833
(discuţie în română)

Ce/cît e latin şi ce/cît e slav în română?
http://forum.softpedia.com/index.php?showtopic=627437
(discuţie în română)

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

I have recently participated in some forum discussions about the slavic influence on the romanian language and people. Those that are interested by the subject can read them at the addresses below.

Which Romance language sounds more Slavic?
http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t13953-45.htm
(discussion in english => my messages are on the pages 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 20, 22, 23)

The romanian culture - a slavic culture?
http://forum.softpedia.com/index.php?sh ... &p=6791833
(discussion in romanian)

How much is latin and how much is slavic in romanian?
http://forum.softpedia.com/index.php?showtopic=627437
(discussion in romanian)

Ludwig Whitby
Posts: 3665
Joined: 2009-03-30, 13:44
Gender: male
Location: Belgrade
Country: RS Serbia (Србија)

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

Postby Ludwig Whitby » 2010-02-07, 15:07

I've noticed a similarity between Serbian and Romanian.
It's the verb a trebui (trebati in Serbian)
It seems that in both languages it isn't conjugated and has the same meaning

ravinescu
Posts: 8
Joined: 2009-05-21, 8:56
Real Name: Radu Vinescu
Gender: male
Location: Bucureşti
Country: RO Romania (România)

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

Postby ravinescu » 2010-02-08, 11:30

Rumpetroll wrote:I've noticed a similarity between Serbian and Romanian.
It's the verb a trebui (trebati in Serbian)
It seems that in both languages it isn't conjugated and has the same meaning


There are many more similarities, for sure. If you want to know the etymology of a romanian word, you can use the site http://dexonline.ro. It uses the definitions from DEX ("Dicţionarul Explicativ al Limbii Române"), but also from other dictionaries (etymological dictionary, dictionary of synonyms, dictionary of neologisms, dictionary of archaisms and regionalisms, etc.).

For example, the verb "a trebui" [must - in english] has the following definition in DEX :

====================================
TREBUÍ, pers. 3 trebuie, vb. IV. 1. Intranz. A avea nevoie (de ceva); a fi nevoie (de ceva). ♢ Loc. adv. Cum trebuie = aşa cum se cuvine, cum se cade; bine. ♢ Expr. Aşa-ţi trebuie! = aşa ţi se cuvine, aşa meriţi. Atâta i-a trebuit (ca să...) = asta a aşteptat (ca să...) 2. Tranz. unipers. şi impers. Este necesar să..., este obligatoriu să..., se cere (neapărat) să... 3. Tranz. unipers. şi impers. A fi probabil sau posibil, a se putea presupune. [Prez. ind. pers. 1 sg.: (rar) trébui şi trebuiésc] – Din sl. trĕbovati.

http://dexonline.ro/search.php?cuv=trebui
====================================

The last sentence states that the romanian verb derives from the slavic verb "trĕbovati".

All the words have the etymology mentioned briefly at the end of the definition (the romanian word "din" means in english "from"). If "cf." is used instead of "din", that means a similar word exists in another language, but it is not proven that the romanian word derives from the foreign one, or the contrary is true.

The etymologies presented in DEX use the following abbreviations:

Alb. = albanian
Bg. = bulgarian
Ceh. = czech
Ebr. = old hebrew
Eng. = english
Eng. am. = american english
Et. nec. = unknown etymology (many of these words derive probably from the dacian language, but this cannot be proved without a doubt in the absence of writings in dacian)
Fr. = french
Germ. = german
Gr. = greek (old greek)
It. = italian
Jap. = japanese
Lat. = latin
Lat. med. = medieval latin
Lat. pop. = popular (vulgar) latin
Magh. = magyar (hungarian)
M. gr. = middle greek
Ngr. = neogreek (new greek)
Pol. = polish
Port. = portuguese
Rom. = romanian
Rus. = russian
Săs. = saxon (in romanian "saşi" = germanic population that lived in Transylvania)
Scr. = serbo-croatian
Sl. = slavic (the common slavic language before dividing into the slavic languages of today) => not to be confused with slavonic ("old church slavonic", language based on bulgarian)
Slov. = slovene
Sp. = spanish
Tăt. = tatar
Tc. = turkish
Ţig. = gypsy (in romanian "ţigănească")
Ucr. = ukrainian

Addresses of some romanian dictionary sites:

http://dexonline.ro/

http://www.dex-online.ro/
(mirror of the dexonline.ro site)

http://www.dexx.ro/
(a site that also has many dictionaries; it uses the normal romanian writing, with Î and "sînt", not the latinized version with  and "sunt")

User avatar
モモンガ
Posts: 1050
Joined: 2009-12-20, 12:07
Real Name: Walery Smutas
Gender: male
Location: Konty Vrotsuafskaye
Country: PL Poland (Polska)

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

Postby モモンガ » 2010-03-15, 15:49

Similar to Latina.
[flag]tr[/flag]Türkçe [flag]vi[/flag]㗂越[flag]lo[/flag]ພາສາລາວ[flag]tet[/flag]Prasa Tetun

tryes
Posts: 2
Joined: 2010-08-31, 5:14

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

Postby tryes » 2010-08-31, 5:40

this reply is mostly for the non -romanians who visit this topic. althou i am a romanian by birth i spent most of my life outside the country. i do speak romanian fluently and as a romanian i was naturally interested in my own history. i have found that by studying linguists which are not romanians or any other nationality which might have an interes in denigrating the romanians is the best bet to get any useful information. most of the so called history that the "experts" display here is oversimplified at best. so its not to be taken into consideration too much. its a good reference but not definitive at all. the corellation between romanian and dacian and latin is much deeper than the history of decebal and traian which the official romanian history presents to you. i have done some research for about six years now and i have found that even the best linguists are puzzled and have been puzzled in the past by the romanian language. they are looking at it from a different point of the spectrum one which does not give a complete view of this problem. a good starting point is the fact that even peoples of the italic penninsula from before the latin influence are found to have their origin in the region of the danube river. so try this for a chance and get some useful info.http://web.fu-berlin.de/phin/phin43/p43t2.htm

User avatar
Michael
Posts: 6861
Joined: 2009-07-21, 3:07
Real Name: Mike
Gender: male
Location: Oak Park (subúrbio de Chicago), Illinois
Country: US United States (United States)

Re:

Postby Michael » 2010-11-28, 22:57

Draven wrote:Slavic influence? Not just the vocabulary. You can feel it in the sound as well. To me it's like Italian with a Slavic touch :D
I actually find it to be a mix of Neapolitan+Sardinian with a Slavic touch. Wait, it's actually European Portuguese that sounds more Slavic than Romanian! And by the way, Old Church Slavonic is actually Old Bulgarian so that explains even more similarities with that language :P
N: American English (en-us) Pizzonese (nap) | B1: Italian (it) Mexican Spanish (es-mx) Brazilian Portuguese (pt-br) Greek (el) | A2:  (sq) Persian (fa) Azerbaijani (az) | A1: Turkish (tr)
Personal language journals: TAC ‘17 (general log) | Türkî/Türkçe
I appreciate all corrections. In fact, I encourage them!

User avatar
FiliusLunae
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-21, 1:08
Real Name: Filius Lunae
Gender: male
Location: Berkeley
Country: US United States (United States)
Contact:

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

Postby FiliusLunae » 2011-02-07, 23:44

I read through this thread, and I found interesting the commentary from Romanian themselves, and the one person from Moldova. I personally haven't talked to anyone from that country. :)

I was a regular here, gone for a long time, and just coming back.

During my hiatus, I took up Romanian, and now consider myself to at a quite advanced level.

What is being discussed on this thread is exactly what I talk about on my own blog. My experiences and thoughts of someone who's active with the Romance languages and Latin, going into the Slavic-Latin admixture that is Romanian.

Something I mention a lot on my posts is that Romanian couldn't be more Latin. And to me, it is an extension of the Italian dialects, for instance. I do a fun experiment at times: I'll tune into a Romanian TV broadcast, then, when I'm done, switch to something in Italian. The feeling I get is the continuation of a single entity, the remnants of the Latin spoken in each area. That is pretty much the focus of my blog (and lately, mostly about Romanian and manele).
My Hebrew journey in pictures — http://instagram.com/filius_lunae

User avatar
Fenek
Posts: 3332
Joined: 2002-06-21, 20:15
Real Name: Paweł Penszko
Gender: male
Location: Warszawa
Country: PL Poland (Polska)

Re: Re:

Postby Fenek » 2011-03-09, 7:27

Michael wrote:And by the way, Old Church Slavonic is actually Old Bulgarian so that explains even more similarities with that language :P


In fact, Old Church Slavonic is not Old Bulgarian. OCS was based on a Macedonian, not a Bulgarian dialect. And actually, I don't understand what it is meant to explain and why.

However, the Slavic tribes that inhabited Romania belonged to the Bulgarian-Macedonian subgroup, and for this reason the Slavic loanwords in Romanian are of Bulgarian-Macedonian phonetic type (for example nădejde).
I'd appreciate any corrections to my messages!
Vi sarò molto grato per ogni correzione!
Zelo vam bom hvaležen za popravke!
Aş fi recunoscător pentru orice corectare!
Bio bih vam veoma zahvalan na ispravkama!

User avatar
TeneReef
Posts: 3047
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 » 2011-12-08, 5:52

To me, Romanian sounds very Slavic (like European Portuguese and Catalan):

listen to it in a song, especially the pronunciation of final A's is reminiscent of Lisbon Portuguese and Catalan (a sound between an open e and a schwa):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6mUITHGHjc
विकृतिः एवम्‌ प्रकृति

anunci1211
Posts: 1
Joined: 2011-12-21, 9:37
Real Name: anunci
Gender: male
Location: Navarra
Country: KE Kenya (Kenya)

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

Postby anunci1211 » 2012-03-30, 9:51

Eastern Romance languages like the other branches of Romance languages descends from Vulgar Latin, adopted in Dacia by a process of Romanization during early centuries AD.[5][6] The Roman Empire withdrew from Dacia in AD 271-5, leaving it to the Goths.[7][8] The history of Eastern Romance between the 3rd century and the development of Proto-Romanian by the 10th century, when the area came under the influence of the Byzantine Empire, is unknown. It is a matter of debate whether Proto-Romanian developed among Romanized people that were left behind in Dacia by the Roman withdrawal or among Latin-speakers in the Balkans South of the Danube.
anuncios clasificados
*LIFE'S SHORT. If you don't look around once in a while you might miss it*

Ethefor
Posts: 4
Joined: 2013-01-25, 18:11
Real Name: Piotr
Gender: male
Location: Mys??owice/Krak??w
Country: PL Poland (Polska)

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

Postby Ethefor » 2013-01-25, 18:59

I have question is a bigger list of Slavic words commonly used in Romanian nowadays? Similar to this which write crisdiac
"Vreme" is widely used, as is "timp". However, "vreme" has these days mainly uses related to meteorology.
?

And I have also question if this are also Slavic influence:
-ending -ția in such words as lecția, poliția (in polish lekcja, policja and pronounced identicly as in polish) or temperatura (also pronounced like in polish)
-evoluția limbii (not limbă, but limbii, if in polish would be words limba, sentence evolution of limba would be ewolucja limby. Interesting similarity: limbă - limbii - limba - limby)?

User avatar
Levike
Posts: 6063
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, 11:54

Ethefor wrote:And I have also question if this are also Slavic influence:
-ending -ția in such words as lecția, poliția (in polish lekcja, policja and pronounced identicly as in polish) or temperatura (also pronounced like in polish)
-evoluția limbii (not limbă, but limbii, if in polish would be words limba, sentence evolution of limba would be ewolucja limby. Interesting similarity: limbă - limbii - limba - limby)?


Many languages have that kind of ending
- poliția in Romanian, polizia in Italian, policía in Spanish
- temperatura in Romanian, temperatura in Spanish

"Limbii" is the possessive ( genitive ) form of the noun.
Romanian inherited this case from Latin and it simplified it.

But Latin is also an Indo-European language as Polish and the other Slavic ones
so it's not hard to find some grammatical similarities.
Nem egy nap alatt épült Buda vára.

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 » 2013-05-30, 14:24

Levente.Maier wrote:"Limbii" is the possessive ( genitive ) form of the noun.
Romanian inherited this case from Latin and it simplified it.


Which endings do the -i and -uri desinences stem from?
занесіть мя в Верховину / де родився, хай загину


Return to “Romanian (Română)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest