On the origins of Romanian language

Well guys, I dont want to imply that Sid necessarily used this "source" for that idea, but I found the same thing being said here:

pg. 4 in "Separating Myths and Facts In the History of Transylvania" by "Dr." Sandor Balogh; Corvinus Library [where else... ]

take care folks

This post has been edited by Imperialist on August 12, 2005 08:53 pm

Hi Imperialist,

This debate won't advance very far if you resume inventing my posts. Where did I ever call any Romanians "idiots" or claim that "British scholars" contributed in any way to the Romanian language? Please stick to what I actually wrote and stop inventing it.

What nationalist reasons? "Romania" looks more Roman than "Rominia".

For an English-language reference to the "Re-Latinisation" of the Romanian language in the 19th Century, see:

http://linguistics.byu.edu/classes/ling450...s/romanian.html

There is no disgrace in having French grammarians helping. The whole modern concept of Grammar was formulated by the French Port-Royal Grammarians in the late 17th Century and French Grammarians and their methods were later employed widely, not just in Romania. You must also remember that the French began pushing the concept of the natural unity of Latin-based language during the 19th Century because they saw these countries as their natural constituency in power politics. They were thus keen to promote conformity amongst Latin countries.

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Imperialist,

This debate won't advance very far if you resume inventing my posts. Where did I ever call any Romanians "idiots" or claim that "British scholars" contributed in any way to the Romanian language? Please stick to what I actually wrote and stop inventing it.

What nationalist reasons? "Romania" looks more Roman than "Rominia".

For an English-language reference to the "Re-Latinisation" of the Romanian language in the 19th Century, see:

http://linguistics.byu.edu/classes/ling450...s/romanian.html

There is no disgrace in having French grammarians helping. The whole modern concept of Grammar was formulated by the French Port-Royal Grammarians in the late 17th Century and French Grammarians and their methods were later employed widely, not just in Romania. You must also remember that the French began pushing the concept of the natural unity of Latin-based language during the 19th Century because they saw these countries as their natural constituency in power politics. They were thus keen to promote conformity amongst Latin countries.

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi D-13th Mytzu,

I have never questioned that there were Romanian intellectuals capable of such work. If you use the link I gave to Imperialist above referring to "Re-Latinization", you will find some of them mentioned.

But in the early 19th Century, before the country was consolidated, and when the overwhelming majority of Romanian-speakers were illiterate, the pool of such people was small. France had a vastly bigger, literate population and arguably the world's leading linguistics specialists, certainly with regard to Romance languages. Just as Romania had to import technological expertise to build its railways or military expertise to raise a regular army, it also had to import intellectual expertise, either in the form of experts or ideas, in more academic fields as well. Linguistics was one such field and France was the most logical source.

None of this reflects on the inherent intellect of Romanians. It merely reflects the circumstances of a time when the centuries-long lack of a Romanian state and foreign rule had marginalised most Romanian-speakers and reduced Romanian intellectual activity to a very small and vulnerable elite heavily influenced by France, the senior fellow-Latin state.

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. Nor have I ever suggested that Romanian was not at its core a Romance language. That is Imperialist's invention in order to give himself an invented target to attack.

However, I do claim that there was a conscious and deliberate "Re-Latinisation" effort in the early 19th Century to make Romanian even more distinctly Latin.

See:

http://linguistics.byu.edu/classes/ling450...s/romanian.html

Cheers,

Sid.

Like I said in my first reply to your question, the Latinists (the 19th c. movement to latinize words) failed.

Your source says:

The source does not clarify the issue. Was the effort successful? Was the movement widespread? How many words did they change?

I think you confuse things, Sid.
Heliade Radulescu is well known for his efforts in the elimination of the chirillic ortography and the introduction of the phonetic principle in orthography, in the literary language. ( Gramatica Romaneasca - 1828 )
Those word were written in the chirillic orthography, but they were not slavic words!!!
Could it be that this "purification" is confused by you and other foreigners with the elimination of slavic words?
This has nothing to do with the 80%-15% ratio.

p.s. and from what I know H.R. was not part of the Latinist movement that I referr too;

p.s.2 -- again, I dont know who are the french scholars that drafted (or help draft) the first Romanian dictionaries and grammar books, that you mention.

take care

Hi Johnny Bi,

I agree with most of what you wrote.

The Academie Francaise is more engaged in keeping pure than purifying the French language. However, to do so it has to find alternatives to mostly Anglo-Saxon words that are already in use by the French population. In that sense they are engaged in purification.

As a matter of minor interest, the Academie Francaise approved the Quebecois term "courriel" for use in metropolitan French insted of "E-mail" only a couple of years ago.

The Romanian case is rather different. Illiteracy amongst Romanian-speakers in the early 19th Century almost universal. Until then Romanians had all been ruled by foreign states with no public education systems. They were almost all rural peasants, while the population of the future country's cities was largely foreign-speaking (Hungarian, German, Jewish, Russian, Turkish, Greek, even Armenian).

Thus when the Romanian precursor states began to gain independence, coalesce and set up state institutions, there was a great opportunity to influence the language's composition and development because for the first time literacy became a national goal. With so few Romanian-language books available, it must have been relatively easy to influence the teaching of Romanian literacy through centrally directed national policy. For example, is modern Romanian not based on the Bucharest dialect? This presumably means that it superceded local dialects within the public education system.

Cheers,

Sid

Bucharest dialect? Local dialects? There is no such thing Sid.

Sid, illiteracy means not knowing to read and write. It doesnt mean you dont know how to speak. The very fact that the romanian language survived in such conditions and under foreign occupation is proof of its inherited nature. In the romanian villages romanian was spoken from father to son, with no need for direct instructions from the "center".
"Almost universal" -- thats like what, bigger than "almost planetary" or? Whats the reference system here?
Also, what does "largely" means in the population issue?

False.

The first romanian language document that has survived the test of time is "Scrisoarea lui Neacsu" (1521).
The first book in romanian was "Catehism Luteran" (1544).
Coresi's printing house starting from 1557, released 9 romanian language prints.
Other romanian language books were "Alexandria" and "Istoria lui Mihai-Voda, sin Patrascu-Voda, carele au facut multe razboaie cu turcii pentru crestinatate".

Starting with the 17th century the first romanian language law books appear.
"Pravila de la Govora" (1640) in Wallachia and "Pravila Aleasa" in Moldova. This meant the recognition of romanian as the official language of the feudal states. (though there lacked a unified Romanian state, there were states inhabited by a romanian majority).

Another important book in Romanian was "Carte Romaneasca de Invatatura" (1643) [approximate translation -- romanian learning book]

Numerous editions were printed of these romanian books, and they did circulate in romanian territory. Intellectual activity was not as small as you might think. Romanian language was not as marginalised as you might imagine.

In 1673 Dosoftei translates in romanian "Psaltirea".

In 1688 the first edition of the entire Bible is translated in romanian. "Biblia de la Bucuresti"

Was our country name EVER spelled Rominia ? not in the 20th century for sure, anyone has any info on this ?

Sid, as I said before: I never heard of french intelectuals building the foundation of romanian grammair and I did pay attention in classes especially at history classes do you have any such example ?

Was our country name EVER spelled Rominia ? not in the 20th century for sure, anyone has any info on this ?

I dont think so. In communist era books on the first pages of the book, it appears as "Romania". Romanian is also spelled "roman", not "romin".
In books that deal with 19th century documents or speeches, the term that appears in those documents or speeches is "Romania".
Thats all I have at the moment.

take care

I dont think so. In communist era books on the first pages of the book, it appears as "Romania". Romanian is also spelled "roman", not "romin".

[Source: http://www.banivechi.home.ro/1947-1965.htm]

Gen. Dénes

From 1948-1955 the coins show "Romania".

Some examples from before that period:

http://www.muzeulfilatelic.ro/index.php?p=photo_detail&id=43

http://www.muzeulfilatelic.ro/index.php?p=photo_detail&id=76 [here one has to stare close to see that its Romania, dated 1926]

http://www.muzeulfilatelic.ro/index.php?p=photo_detail&id=74 [here its Romania too, the date 1918 is written by hand]

http://www.muzeulfilatelic.ro/index.php?p=photo_detail&id=75 [here Romania is better visible, 1926]

I just wanted to illustrate, Imperialist, that you were wrong also in this statement of yours, as based on the official coins, the country's name was spelled 'Rominia' at least between 1955-1961.

Take care,

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on August 13, 2005 11:30 pm

Even if true, the time frame 1955-1961 is insignificant for the topic.