Would you specify what you meant by "u mad? romanised Bulgarian".mōdgethanc wrote:It looks like a weird mixture of Latin, French and (u mad?) romanized Bulgarian.
He's in denial that Romanian has a large Slavic influence and tries to play up its Italic heritage (which nobody is disputing) instead, for what I can only assume are nationalistic reasons.Levente wrote:Would you specify what you meant by "u mad? romanised Bulgarian".mōdgethanc wrote:It looks like a weird mixture of Latin, French and (u mad?) romanized Bulgarian.
mōdgethanc wrote:He's in denial that Romanian has a large Slavic influence and tries to play up its Italic heritage (which nobody is disputing) instead, for what I can only assume are nationalistic reasons.Levente wrote:Would you specify what you meant by "u mad? romanised Bulgarian".mōdgethanc wrote:It looks like a weird mixture of Latin, French and (u mad?) romanized Bulgarian.
mōdgethanc wrote:Romanian sounds like Italian with two central vowels added. Written Romanian is another story, though. It looks like a weird mixture of Latin, French and (u mad?) romanized Bulgarian.
Levente wrote:Mihai, the way a language sounds to a foreigner is subjective.
For example Portuguese has no Slavic influence
but people still say that it sounds like Polish or Russian.
If Romanian sounds French to someone then that's the way it sounds to him/her.
To me it's like Italian spoken by a Bulgarian. And that's just my opinion.
By the way, I don't understand spoken Aromanian, but for me it sounds the same way.
tzutz wrote:which is false because Russian is an outlier among them
are not really ugly at all
"o", which is not even properly pronounced in Russian.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests