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/ling450ch/reports/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… |
come on, see the big picture - abyone belives that those frenchie (who weren't even french, it was a romanian movement aimed at pointing out the latin origin of our language and NOT replacing ti with a latin one) so how would those "french grammarians" teach the sheppard far in the mountains, a new language ? You should come to Romania and visit all parts of it - you will notice there is only one language spoken as oposed to other countries, we have no dialect - however people from different parts of the country speak with different accent but they do speak same language = no one taught the peasants and sheppards a new language in 100 years.. lets be serious. 
]
Or maybe you weren't paying attention, thinking of... Romanian army in WW2? 
responsive to questions, this diversion would probably not have happened at all.