On the origins of Romanian language

OK. But the latinists had nothing to do with circumstanta... I dont know what you mean.

That is a clue, but lets leave that for inspector Clouseau. A letter in a word is your source for the greek origin of that word? I'm sorry, your logic is falling apart. What you proved was the greek origin of a... letter! Not of the word!
By the way, there are plenty latin words with "y" in them, and it does appears independently in the Latin alphabet... as "y".

OK, like I said, look for circumsto,are,steti .

Dont worry, take your time.

Hi Imperialist,

I have an hour to spare.

My Cassels Latin Dictionary has "gyrus" on p.270. After giving the gender as masculine, it gives the original Greek word in the Greek alphabet, which I cannot render here.

If you go to a modern Greek dictionary, you will find the word still exists, with much the same meaning.

"Gyros" is a word of Greek origin and is the Greek equivalent of Latin "circum".

As I posted before, the "Y" is a give-away.

Yes. As my last post indicated, I know Latin had a "Y" - it was adopted from Greek specifically to render the Greek letter upsilon in Greek loan words, presumably like "gyrus".

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Circumsto is in my dictionary. It means to "stand around or in a circle", or "surround". A derivative is circumstantes - "bystanders". It is one of many circum- words in the dictionary which share a common prefix with "circumstanta" but do not share the same meaning.

By contrast, the English-Latin end of the dictionary says: "Circumstance, res, sometimes tempus: according to circumstances, pro re (nata); in these circumstances, quae cum ita sint."

I have so far found no word "constantia" in Classical Latin.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A couple of days ago your dictionary reportedly didn't give a source for imprejurare. Now it apparently does.

That source, according to you, gives "gyrus" as a Latin root, whereas in fact "gyrus" is of Greek origin.

That is why I am asking for a source for your discovery that imprejurare was of Latin roots. Without a source I cannot check it myself next time I am in the British Library.

It is a perfectly reasonable request.

Cheers,

Sid.

I really have something against what you said in this topic, and against the way you have developed your argumentation. You wrote more than half of the 9 pages from here using two internet sources. One of them ( http://romania.ibelgique.com/langue-roumaine.htm ) is part of a travel guide, has no specified author and uses no references. The other ( http://linguistics.byu.edu/classes/ling450...s/romanian.html ) is written by an illustrious anonym and although it uses references does not quote any linguist in the bibliography used (for your info, all those guys are historians). And about the honesty you were requiring from Imperialist, it was sad for me to see that you haven’t used it at all in your argumentation. I will quote from one of your sources ( http://romania.ibelgique.com/langue-roumaine.htm ):

“Voici la composition actuelle du vocabulaire roumain, selon l'origine des mots : 20% de mots hérités du latin (proportion similaire dans toutes les autres langues néo-latines), 38,4% au français, 14% d'emprunts aux langues slaves (ancien slavon, le bulgare, le serbo-croate, le russe, l'ukrainien), 3,7% au turc, 2,4% au grec, 2,3% à l'allemand, 2,4% au latin classique 1,7% à l'italien et autres influences moins importantes. Donc 63% de mots venus directement ou indirectement du latin.”

“Le fond lexical latin de la langue roumaine comprend 2000 éléments de base (sans compter les dérivés), c'est-à-dire autant que le nombre de mots hérités directement du latin par les autres langues romanes. Les mots roumains hérités du latin représentent depuis toujours dans le roumain, le noyau de base du vocabulaire.”

So you can read here the parts Sid deliberately omitted to reproduce (see my underlying above); seeing that, I cannot wonder what his question/questions about the Romanian language specificity among the other Romanic languages (from the perspective of the Latin origin lexical heritage) might be, since this source emphasizes that there is no such specificity.

Another point reached by you was the “re-latinisation” (a totally unfortunate choice for a term) of Romanian language, the role played by the Romanian nationalism in the process, and in subsidiary the influence of the French language (and culture - I can only speculate) in the Romanian language evolution.

First of all, the nationalism of the XIX century was not today’s nationalism. From the beginning of the XIX century onwards, the nationalism (better called “patriotism”, conforming with today’s understanding) was the main driving force for most of the Europe, and a preponderant constructive force too. For the Romanian Principates and Transylvania (as for other parts of the Europe), the nationalist movement took over the illuminist ideas and ideals and, along with the appeal for national language, culture and the formation of a national state, promoted the abolition of serfdom, slavery and privileges, the institution on equal citizenship, the personal, economic and political freedom and the modernization of the state’s institutions. The national consciousness of the Romanians and the linguistic studies and enquiries linked to it had arisen long before the French grammarians mentioned by you begun their work. In series of studies, the exponents of “Scoala ardeleana” (“Transylvanian School” - in the sense of “school of thinking”) in Transylvania (Micu, Sincai, Maior, Budai Deleanu), Ioan Heliade Radulescu in Muntenia and to a lesser degree figures like Gh. Asachi in Modavia proved the latin origin of the Romanian language. They were by no means local or provincial pamphlets writers, but scholars known in Europe. ALL of them started their consistent scientific work before the grammarians you mentioned and let me say that their effort was far more substantive and relevant, even if your internet “quick-find” sources does not provide you with that information. None of the above mentioned was a partisan of the excessive latinisation. Morover, form all of them we can only call Heliade Radulescu as being a “fan” of the French language and culture. Asachi was fond of Italian culture and the members of Scoala Ardeleana were all of Austrian/German education.

In what the “re-latinisation” of the language is concerned, the things are somehow simpler and far more logical than you presented them. First of all, the modernization of the language was part of a radical process of modernization which engulfed the entire Romanian society in the first half of the XIXth century. During decades, state’s organization, legal system, economy, lifestyle, everything of importance experienced major changes, the turning point being the adoption of the “Regulementele organice” (“Organic regulations”) as fundamental laws for the Muntenia and Moldavia in 1830-1831. For Transylvania this movement was less radical but it had begun earlier with "Scoala ardeleana”, in the political environment created by Joseph II reforms (and reforms initiatives). So all these new realities needed new words and a new language, hence the massive influx of neologisms in the language - technical, economical, judicial terms and so on. This was the cause for the a quite radical modification of the foreign origin terms proportion in the language, and in no case an (imposed) substitution of the already existing words with new ones. A process of this kind would however have been impossible for practical reasons: due to the quite low rate of literacy from those days, the new artificially constructed language would have become a restricted use jargon for those who created it. Also note that this modernization trend, in the case of Muntenia and Moldova, was at first not so much directed against the Cyrillic writing (still in official use, although the Latin writing was already privately used) but against the Greek language, which was widely used by the fanariot nobility and by the parasite post-feudal political regime until the end of 1820’s.

The efforts to edify a national language were not at all a continuous and linear push in the direction of its Latin roots. There were differences, even among the Latinists: some were modernists, adepts of neologisms adopted from Romanic languages (mainly French, but also Italian) - mocked by authors like Alecsandri or Caragiale - and other “autochtonists”, insisting in elaborating linguistic constructions specific to Romanian language - thus being ridiculed for allegedly proposing new expressions like “gatlegau” (cravata - tie) or “produse laptate” (“produse lactate” - diary products). There was also a pro-Slavic current, with its exaggerations, having the linguist A. Cihac as its exponent. Since he was a member of the Academy, the Slavic heritage of the language was not at all as undefended as you implied. But I guess you found nothing about that in the “professional” sources you used. Maybe you should get yourself a more recent travel guide for that …

This process of accelerated modernization of the language somewhat ended around 1880; this does not mean that since then the language stopped its evolution, but by that time the febrile searches in all directions came to an end and the language became more or less the Romanian used until nowadays. It’s interesting that the last word in this pre-settlement phase did not belong to the Latinists but to their adversaries, the rather conservative Junimists (Maiorescu, Caragiale, Eminescu). They were not linguists, but their contribution through their literary works and criticism (especially in Maiorescu’s case) was a major one for the shape the Romanian literary language took by the end of the XIXth century. They were sustaining, even in language matters “teoria formelor fara fond” (a critical theory about the forms without content, without essence) which favored a gradual, equilibrated evolution over the radical changes. Also an important role in the matter was played by B. P. Hasdeu, the considered the most visible Romanian linguist from the XIXth century. He was also a writer and a member of the Academy, adversary of both the Latinists and the Junimists, and an expert in Slavic languages.

You said you are surprised by the share of the French influence in modern Romanian. Actually we can discuss about a cultural and linguistical influence, which, as your amateur source specify, did not modified at all the Latin-origin core of the language. France influence started to be visible even from the XVIIIth century, partly because of its outstanding cultural life and partly as an effect of the French revolution ideas, even in their exported post-1796 form. Thus France was perceived as being one of the main reservoirs of the Illuminist thinking. Some XVIIIth century “boieri” (nobles) were subscribers of the Encyclopedie Francaise, while others wrote petitions to Napoleon in the beginning of the XIX century. And when the process of radical modernization (described above) begun, France was a likely model. The single (then) Latin superpower also had an at least indifferent (at first) and benevolent (later) attitude towards the Romanian Principates, being perceived as the only great power which does not have a domination interest in the area.

And in the end I must tell you that I had a dilemma: whether to let you go on and on with your fantasists allegation, or to waste my time writing this argumentation.
As for your attitude, I agree with Imperialist (that of course if I am accepted as a viable “third part”) - as I’ve already told you, your attitude does look like patronizing and self sufficient to me too. And I also agree with you, that it does not affect the content of what you are saying, but it’s nevertheless disturbing. What does affect the content of your undocumented argumentation is the fact that you are giving lessons in matters of which you are ignorant. I bet a native speaker, university educated “unqualified holyday rambler” (as you graciously called a fellow forumist) is far more qualified in this matter that the “linguists” you were quoting. As for your agenda, I’m still obscure about that… but I find really hard to believe that is about the search for the truth. For that, we still have the good old fashioned questions. The best scenario - I’d bet on your stubbornness…

This post has been edited by Agarici on August 17, 2005 02:48 pm

Hi D13th Mytzu,

I told you right from the start that all Anglo-Saxon countries have dialects.

It therefore follows automatically that if I talk to any American who is using his own vernacular he, like me, will be using a dialect. Furthermore, American isn't one dialect, but half a dozen.

If you haven't got the necessary reference books, you can check this out by following up "American dialects" on Google.

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Zayets,

Did I fall on my sword with enough dignity for you?

Regretably I am trying to hold three simultaneous discussions (and when I can get around to Agarici, four), so it is entirely possible that I missed one of your earlier posts. That being so, what exactly do you want me to respond to that I overlooked earlier?

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Agarici,

As you can see, I am quite heavily engaged on other fronts. However, I will address what you write as soon as possible - probably tomorrow.

However, I will say this now. I concealed nothing. I gave details of a link and you have merely reproduced that link. Where is the concealment?

If you want to engage in a discussion on the facts, I am happy to do so. However, it is not much advanced by unsubstantiated (indeed unsubstantiable) accusations of that sort.

Cheers,

Sid.

You are not even funny anymore.I am really worried now that this is the only thing you understood from this whole thing.

That's right , blame something,someone as long as it's not you

I will take that as a joke.
Take care

Yes, apparently the word gyre is "from the greek guros".
So? In your view, does that mean that the word gyrus is not a latin word? Like I said, I dont understand where you want to go with this... Look up the greek word "guros" too. What is its origin. Then look up the next word's origin. Whats the point in all this?
Suffice to say, jur is from the latin gyros. Not from the earlier greek guros.

Like I told you before, the actual word is circa- in latin. The grammar of the language makes it change into circum- as a prefix.
Gyrus - means circle, spiral
Circa - means in a circle, in a spiral, around etc.
So they are not equivalents.

One of the derivative of circumsto,are,steti is circumstantes (which means the ones which lie arround, are around).
If you would take the word and pass it through all persons probably you'd find circumstantia too.... but dont expected that in the dictionary. The dictionary gives you only the basic three forms of the word as shown above.
About the meaning, the meaning is the same, but you dont get it.

A couple of days ago I was telling you the source for imprejurare is not given, but the source of the words that enter its composition IS. So that may be one reason for the 15% "missing" which could actually very well be composed words of latin origin....

The source is the DEX, for crying out loud... Dictionarul Explicativ al Limbii Romane.
What is your source to doubt what I have just told you? Hmmm, let me see, a general distrust of others?

And to wrap this up, what exactly are you trying to prove? What exactly do you want?

This post has been edited by Imperialist on August 17, 2005 12:12 pm

I wonder the same thing. I enjoyed the whole thread until it came to the point that Romanian took a huge amount of its thesaurus from French.
I learn A LOT from this forum in regard with history (and not only) and it pisses me off to see how some people divert the original thread to some obscure details which are not even sustained scientificaly.Yes,I'm talking about Sid.
Take care

Regarding the language thing, in a book published in 1816 by P. P. Svynin (member of the Odessa History and Archaeology Society) and entitled "The Description of the region of Bessarabia":

The inhabitants of this region are the Moldavians or Vlachs, descendents of the Roman colonists. They speak the Moldavian, which is of Latin origin and has, like the Italian, numerous particularities of the neolatin languages.

This was obviously happening before the Russian/Soviet government came up with the Slavic theory regarding Moldavians.

Very interesting Sid, you are even more stubborn then certain ppl I know.. so, in your opinion the official language of United States of America is a dialect of english ? I NEVER asked if you they speak dialects within a country and you know it, you always knew what I asked of you but you always avoided an honest answer instead tried to give som smart answers covering the real issue. You will probably do the same now, but why should I care ? We told you many times a thing, if you wish to understand it it's fine if not it's also fine because your stuborned opinion won't change the fact that THERE ARE NO ROMANIAN DIALECTS SPOKEN WITHIN ROMANIA.

For me this subject is closed and clear as it always was. Hope you will realize that being stuborned when wrong is not a good thing. Cheers !

Actually I know some Macedo-Romanians, living in Romania, that also speak their dialect among them, not only Romanian.

IMO the whole thing it's just a matter of what we each perceive as a dialect. I'm no expert in the field though and I may be wrong.

Surely none of us can deny the differences existing between the Romanian spoken in the different parts of the country. For example, I heard a Tulai Doamne, no fain ii some 10 days ago in Saua Crapaturii and there was no doubt in my mind that the person is from Transylvania. I have collegues from all over the country and can tell apart those from Oltenia, Moldavia or Transylvania by some of the particularities in the way they speak. There are words and accents that differ from region to region, although the differences aren't as many as in the case of Macedo-Romanian for example.

And that’s exactly why the Romanian linguists circumscribed those particularities to different “graiuri”, instead of dialects. And because they are professionals (to quote Sid) we should stop here these useless discussions and accept their version as being the correct one.

PS: I'm not a linguist neither, Victor, so nobody would ask so much from you. But did you use to skip the Romanian language classes in gymnasia? Or maybe you weren't paying attention, thinking of... Romanian army in WW2?

This post has been edited by Agarici on August 17, 2005 07:59 pm

Victor the Macedo-Romanians are not Romanians :] so they cannot count in our discution. However I think you have a point when you say "e whole thing it's just a matter of what we each perceive as a dialect" , if by dialect one understants same language with a different accent and a few different words (like subway vs. underground) then yes, we have many dialects in romanian. But this is not what I and others here understand when talking about dialetcs.

Sid, what does "dialect" mean in your conception ?

This post has been edited by D13-th_Mytzu on August 18, 2005 08:17 am

Hi Zayets,

No. No joke.

You asked me to respond to something you had written earlier.

I asked you what it was, but just got ridicule in return.

I ask again, what is it that you want me to respond to? It is entirely possible that I missed something, but I don't know what unless you tell me what it is, or specify which post it was in.

You cannot reasonably accuse me of avoiding responding to something if you won't even tell me what or where it is.

Over to you.

Cheers,

Sid.