Sources about Vlachs, Written sources about vlachs before 10 c

Vellum is a type of paper made from animal skin. It is durable and lasts longer than paper.
Radu

I know, but i think is not clear if CP mentioned about vlachs, or rather daco-latin leftovers, from which vlachs nation sprung.

Sure, but when is about Bizantine Empire, the poorness of sources is suspicious.
The first mention of the bizantines was Anna Comnena, and Benjamin of Tudela, with his "No man can go up and battle against them and no king can rule over them".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Wallachia
Probably in the time of Anna Comnena, they appeared in large number in Northern Greece-since then being much norther.
And after Asens revolt, probably a great split between vlachs was produced, forming the future romanians and aromanians. Neverthenless, in 12 cnt, vlachs were still in large number in Thessaly, since the army of John I Doukas, was formed mainly of vlachs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_I_Doukas

A probabile split of vlachs from south and north of Danube, after Assan revolt, is just a hypothesis with no proof. Anyway, even if it existed, it is imposible that from that point on the formation of future romanians and aromanians started. By that time, the process of romanian formation was already started for many centuries. It is apreciated that the process of formation of what will be future romanians started sometime around VIIth ot VIIIth century, when the slav tribes arrived north of Danube. Assans are living 3 or 4 centuries after this moment. The fact that after the Assan revolt, a part of vlach population from south of Danube might migrate north of Danube or farther south of Balkans, it is posible, but almost sure cannot be linked with romanian and aromanian genesis.

Even the language of nowadays aromanians show that their language developed diferent than romanian, showing an earlier split, having archaic features that are not present in romanian language (for this, search the phenomenon of "rotacism").

I didn't say they were all south Danube- in fact I believe the majority was faraway from Bizantines, that meaning north danube either. Anyway, i think they lived in highlands, from Tatra to pindus, while lowlands were populated by slavs, pechenegs, avars...The Asens revolt, and consequential split of vlachs, signified the beggining of substantial settlement of the vlachs in lowlands, mixing, relegating, asimilating slavs, cumans, pechenegs...
regarding the difference between romanian and aromanian, I'm not quite sure the differences are such big for almost a thousand years of isolation: as I know, the english from 15-16 cnt hardly could be understand by today english. On the other hand, partial groups of romanians could had different features from others: moldavians use even today "bini-ghini", "mari", "zbura=vorbi"(tendence to transform P in C, or B in G, etc)..., exactly like aromanians.

This post has been edited by Valium on April 29, 2011 08:04 am

Medieval Romanian is the same - in fact is extremely similar to Aromanian. Try this: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49321826/Miron-C...-Tarii-Moldovei

Modern Romanian was finally standardised when Cuza initiated his education reform.
Here is some interesting reading http://altmarius.ning.com/profiles/blog/sh...source=activity

HTH
Radu

I could understand Letopisetul tarii moldovei, even the phrases are archaic-is right you have to read it slowly, and carefully

I serioulsy doubt that you read all 2oo+ pages
Read more, go deeper. You will go across entire paragraphs where you will have no idea what is being said. Of course you can deduce the gist of it, but you have to admit that the language used is not al all like modern Romanian. You will not be able to buy a loaf of bread using that kind of language.

But even so, what you are reading there is a version of the text in Latin alphabet. Try to read the original in Cyrillic. (Google it, there are photos on the net).

Old Romanian is almost a completely different language. Try to go to Stefan cel Mare's grave and try to read what is carved into his grave stone. Go to any old church and try to read the text carved. Are you in Bucharest? Go to Biserica Stavropoleos and try to read the many inscriptions there. You will get a good glimpse of the language spoken in the heart of Bucharest in medieval times.

HTH
Radu

I serioulsy doubt that you read all 2oo+ pages
Read more, go deeper. You will go across entire paragraphs where you will have no idea what is being said. Of course you can deduce the gist of it, but you have to admit that the language used is not al all like modern Romanian. You will not be able to buy a loaf of bread using that kind of language.

But even so, what you are reading there is a version of the text in Latin alphabet. Try to read the original in Cyrillic. (Google it, there are photos on the net).

Old Romanian is almost a completely different language. Try to go to Stefan cel Mare's grave and try to read what is carved into his grave stone. Go to any old church and try to read the text carved. Are you in Bucharest? Go to Biserica Stavropoleos and try to read the many inscriptions there. You will get a good glimpse of the language spoken in the heart of Bucharest in medieval times.

HTH
Radu

I am from Pitesti. Piece of cake:you could give me an example in kirilic, and bellow replacing kirilic with latin characters-i don't know kirilic

But you see... I have nothing to "prove" to you. This is not a whim (moft ;-) ) of my own. You can do your own research and find on your own old Romanian texts and try to read them for yourself. You do not need my help or guidance. You must find for yourself whether old Romanian is the same as modern Romanian. A visit to your local history museum is a good start.
Radu

But you see... I have nothing to "prove" to you. This is not a whim (moft ;-) ) of my own. You can do your own research and find on your own old Romanian texts and try to read them for yourself. You do not need my help or guidance. You must find for yourself whether old Romanian is the same as modern Romanian. A visit to your local history museum is a good start.
Radu

In fact I red some: practically there were pure slavonic, or a mixture of romanian and slavonic, due to the fact the author didn't know well slavonic, and improvised with romanian, or he wished to "enrich", to "literilize" the romanian with slavonic words(It was been told to me, of course). So, what's your point? To make me find romanian was more slavonic that I knew? Why don't you make your point public, here, so everybody could see?

This post has been edited by Valium on April 29, 2011 10:43 am

I made my point in public. Here it is again: "Go and try to read old Romanian texts and see for yourself whether it is the same as current Romanian".

You stated in an earlier post that a current English speaker would not be able to read middle English. You stated that the situation is completely opposite when it comes to Romanian, i.e. that any current Romanian speaker must be able to read old Romanian. So, go and find an old original Romanian text and try to read it.

Radu

I made my point in public. Here it is again: "Go and try to read old Romanian texts and see for yourself whether it is the same as current Romanian".

You stated in an earlier post that a current English speaker would not be able to read middle English. You stated that the situation is completely opposite when it comes to Romanian, i.e. that any current Romanian speaker must be able to read old Romanian. So, go and find an old original Romanian text and try to read it.

Radu

I understand this:

<i]i pa(k) dau štire do(m)nïetale za lukru(l) tu®čilo® kum amĭ auzi(t) èu kŭ ĩpŭratu(l) au èši(t) de(n) sofïę ši aimi(n)trě nue ši sěu du(s) ĩ su(s) pre dunŭre i pa(k) sŭ štïi do(m)nïjata kŭ au veni(t) u(n) ω(m) de la nikopoe de mïe mě(u) spu(s) kŭ au vŭzu(t) ku ωkïi loi kŭ au treku(t) čěle korabïi če štïi ši do(m)nïjata prè dunŭre ĩ su(s) i pak sŭ štïi kŭ bagŭ den tote ωrašele kŭte [50] de ωmi(n) sŭ ę fïe ĩn ažuto® ĩ korabïi i pak sŭ štïi kumu sěu prinsŭ nešte me(š)šte® de(n) c[a]ri gra(d) ku(m) vorĭ trěče ačěle korabïi la loku(l) čela (st)rimtu(l) če šttïi ši do(m)nïjata i pa(k) spui do(m)nïetale de lukru(l) lu mahame(t) be(g) ku(m)u amĭ auzit de boęri če sŭntĭ medžïja(š) ši de dženere mïu negre kumu ęu da(t) ĩpŭratu(l) slobozïe lu mahame(t) beg pre iu iωi va fi voę pren cěra rumŭněskŭ jarŭ èlĭ sŭ trěkŭ i pa(k) sŭ štïi do(m)nïjata kŭ are frikŭ mare ši bŭsŭrab de ače(l) lotru de mahame(t) be(g) ma(i) vŭrto(s) de do(m)nïele vo(s)tre i pa(k) spui do(m)nïetale ka ma(i) marele mïu de če amĭ ĩcele(s) šïeu eu spui do(m)nïetale jarŭ do(m)nïjata ešti ĩceleptĭ ši ačěste kuvi(n)te sŭ cïi do(m)nïjata la tine sŭ nu štïe umi(n) mulci ši do(m)nïele vo(s)tre sŭ vŭ pŭzici ku(m) štici ma(i) bine i b[og]ĭ te ve(s)[e]li(t) amï(n)ŭ[/i]

Of course, is not an easy lecture, but the oral message could be better

This post has been edited by Valium on April 29, 2011 11:21 am

Can you read this?



This is possibly one of the most important Romanian documents. According to you, a current speaker of Romanian should have no problems reading it.
Radu

Thanks! It is exactly what I've asked for

And here is the explanation

http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrisoarea_lui_Neac%C8%99u

Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on April 29, 2011 03:56 pm