On the origins of Romanian language

OMG!!!!!

Arent you aware that languages have their own dictionaries?!
Why do you mention an inter-language dictionary, francaise-roumain, and take it as the reference point for when the first Romanian dictionary was written?!!!!

Excuse me for using colours and size buttons, but your post freaked me out... Sid, come on...! Dont you spot a huge error in your judgment there?

I think this clarifies what you meant by french scholars writing the first Romanian dictionaries and grammar books, though. I think it was a big error. And you probably meant the first bilingual french-romanian dictionaries/grammar books. Thats a HUGE difference, Sid!

take care

Sid, I have walked this country from north to south and west to east and I NEVER heard a dialect spoken - what I heard was the same romanian language I speak but with a different accent (which does NOT make it a different dialect), south of Danube it is not Romania btw. Would you please show me and prove to us that inside romania we speak 5 different dialects ? Did you ever stuy romanian language or been to romania ?

As for this:

I do speak very good french and I also studied latin and ofcourse I do speak romanian, 38.4% french is pure BS - sorry to talk like this.

This post has been edited by D13-th_Mytzu on August 15, 2005 01:23 pm

Hi Imperialist,

Is inventing other peoples' posts the ONLY way you can win a debate?

Where did I ever write about "French scholars writing the first Romanian dictionaries or grammar books"?

This is yet another case of either justifying your accusation or withdrawing it.

Which is it to be?

Now I will repeat what I wrote last time and perhaps you would care to answer the question in your next reply:

"I don't actually know when the first Romanian dictionary was written. In the British Library Catalogue there is mentioned the "Petite Dictionnaire Francaise-Roumain" by Jean Rizo of 1837. Perhaps there are older Romanian dictionaries. Doubtless you can tell me."

Well?

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

I have a few of Jean-Alexandre Vaillant's relevant titles as well:

1836: "Grammaire vallaque a l'usage des francaises".

1840: "Grammaire roumaine a l'usage des francaises".

1840: "Vocabulaire francais-roumain et roumain-francais"

1844: "La Roumaine, ou histoire, langue......"

Rather interesting that he changes the title of his 1836 grammar from "vallaque" to "roumaine" for the 1840 edition, don't you think?

Cheers,

Sid.

I reply to this only to refresh Sid's memory regarding his statements about french grammarians and their involvement in the "purification" of the romanian language.
It seems Sid now is saying I made that up, and he never claimed such a thing!!!

Same reason!

I invented nothing, and I'm not here to win debates. Please dont make an ego issue out of this.

Well, I'm sure its interesting for you, if you go about hunting nationalist conspiracies and their role in inventing romanian things to make them look more latin and Roman.
I guess you are unaware that the romanians have called themselves "ruman" in the middle-ages, and only the foreigners called them vlahi/valahi/wallachs.
But anyways, I'm curious, why would you say the french guy suddenly changed his titles?

Hi Imperialist,

So you don't recognise that "relatinisation", and purification of the Romanian language for nationalist reasons took place?

Accusing me of being "arrogant and patronising" may or may not be true (I will leave that up to third parties to decide). It is, however, entirely irrelevant. You should be addressing what I write, not my manner of delivering it. The fact that you are not addressing my substantive points or answering my questions is an implicit concession of defeat on the actual issues.

Oh, so I missed my target by three centuries when I wrote that Vaillant's book of 1844 predated the founding of the Academia Romana? When was the Academia Romana founded then? (And please don't try to muddy the waters by talking about other academies which I did not mention.) Straight question: When was the Academis Romana founded? Before or after 1844?

Nope. It did not escape my attention that you posted a short list of Romanian language books. However, as I was well aware of such early Romanian books and it wasn't directly related to anything else I had written, it didn't seem to merit comment. If by reminding me, you want me to express how impressed I am at your breadth of knowledge, however, irrelevant, then I am happy to do so. Lovely book list.

I am delighted that you get so much exercise walking Romania from north to south and east to west. However, when it comes to dialects I would prefer to rely on the expertise of profesional linguists, who have identified the five Romanian dialects, than yourself, a presumably unqualified holiday rambler.

Calling a 38.4% French-derived Romanian contemporary vocabulary "pure BS" is hardly an informed argument, is it? I am quite happy to debate with you, but not on such a level. Evidence and alternative sources, please.

Once again we are left with your unsubstantiated opinions on a subject versus contradictory sourced expert evidence. Once again I find no difficulty in preferring the latter.

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Imperialist and D-13th Mytzu,

I owe you an apology. I confused your two posts. Sorry.

Sid.

Sid, please calm down a little and try to think straight... I was born in this country and since I was a little kid my parents always took me in hollydays all across our country, many times I have spoken with all kind of people from many different social classes, also my mother's side still leave in the coutrny-side as simple farmers/peasants, I go there each year since I was a kid. Being a romanian who speaks french extremly well and also who has studied the latin, gives me the right to exercise my point of view on what some outsiders (I am speaking of the frenchies who claimed 38% french words in our language) say. Aparently you are not a romanian, you do not speak our language, you did not visit our country but you argue and tell me I know nothing about my own language and country-men... not very nice. Forgive me if I do not write academic works about percentages and latin words/french words.


Besides, what I learned long time ago, from others work (members of Academia Romana), 38% is WRONG. So again I ask of you, why should I belive the frenchies and not my own savants who know our people and language MUCH better then any frenchman ?

This post has been edited by D13-th_Mytzu on August 15, 2005 02:32 pm

No.
I think you are confusing things and aggressively attacking people who try to tell you otherwise. I drew your attention towards the issue of orthography, I drew your attention towards the issue of the Latinists, who were elloquently dismissed by Titu Maiorescu, and their absurd efforts to employ the ethimological system in orthography came to naught.
I gave you a list to show the intellectual and literary activity in this country before the alleged french scholars came.

I have addressed your points.

The Academy was founded in 1866.
That however, has nothing to do with the first studies on Romanian language, which far preceded the Academy's establishment.
And what do you imply with Valliant's book?

I think in matters of my own language I am better qualified than you, wouldnt you say? So drop the condescension.

p.s. And what exactly is your "agenda" Sid? Since you claim others have nationalist agendas and engage in purifications and other actions, what is yours?

This post has been edited by Imperialist on August 15, 2005 02:37 pm

Hi Imperialist,

Ah, your old, "I-can't-justify-what-I-wrote-but-I-can quote-something-that-says-something-else-and-pretend-it-does" ploy!

You posted that I had written about "French scholars writing the first Romanian dictionaries or grammars".

I denied it and it remains untrue.

I actually wrote, and you quote this correctly, "As I understand it, in the 19th Century both Romanians and Bulgarians employed foreign scholars (in the former case French, in the latter case Russian) TO HELP construct their first grammars and dictionaries because they lacked such specialists themselves." Not quite the same thing, is it?

You then accused me of accusing you of making up something completely different. Again, it was entirely untrue. I have never denied that French scholars had a role in the purification/relatinisation of the Romanian language. Why on earth would I?

As usual, you ask for something and then don't like the answer. You asked for the names of influential French scholars. I give you four names. Not only that, but I give you details of a book written by one who changes the wording of the title from "Vlach" to "Romanian" between the editions of 1836 and 1840. Why do I think Vaillant changed his titles? Because he was a firm advocate of Romanian nationalism (read his biography).

This always happens when you begin to drown in facts that contradict your proposition. You start to make false personal attacks and try to drown out unpalatable questions with diversionary irrelevances. This is not an adult response.

Please address my actual points, don't invent my posts and don't introduce irrelevant diversions.

And above all, be HONEST.

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Imperialist,

Er, no, you haven't addressed my points. You are fleeing most of them.

For example, I asked you for details of pre-1837 Romanian dictionaries. No answer. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are some, but you haven't offered any, have you?

I put up a list that claims that 38.4% of the current Romanian vocabulary is of French origin. You offer no explanation how these words infiltrated the Academia Romana's official dictionary, if not as part of an official policy.

Good. A straight answer, at last. The Academia Romana was founded in 1866, 22 years after Vaillant's book "La Roumanie...." was published, as I said. Why argue with something that is a self evident fact.

In Vaillant you have evidence of a French scholar long resident in Romania publishing several books on Romanian linguistics who was actively engaged in Romanian nationalist politics. It was what you asked for. He even seems to have changed a book title to conform with Romanian nationalist trends.

If you want to follow up orthography, you might also care to look up the catalogue of the Bibliotheque National in France. You will find that orthography is part of the full title of Vaillant's "La Roumanie......"

That there was intellectual activity in Roumania before the 19th Century is not in dispute. I wrote that it existed myself if you care to check. The problem was that the Romanian intellectual elite were then very few and very insecure. Very few Romanian-speakeers were then even literate, let alone academic "intellectuals". If some of them independently published Romanian dictionaries and grammars before the 1830s, doubtless you will soon supply the details.

One of my working assumptions is that people speak their own language better than outsiders. However, they do not necessarily know more about it. That seems to be your situation on this particular point. You are in denial about the influence of French scholars on the development of the Romanian language in the 19th Century and don't recognise that there was a deliberate national policy to "Relatinise" the language by consciously and deliberately favouring the adoption of mostly French loan words. there is nothing wrong with this, so I don't understand what your instinctive resistance to this proposition is based on.

I have absolutely no reference books on this subject available to me here in provincial England. I would have expected, if I was wrong, to be drowned in relevant hard facts from you. Yet it is me who is supplying the relevant hard facts of the internet.

You ask me my aganda? Simple. I want the facts.

What is your "agenda" in asking me my "agenda"? Simple, to try to imply that I am in some way anti-Romanian and thereby enlist support from other Romanians on this site on spurious patriotic grounds. And why are you doing this? Because you haven't got the necessary facts at your disposal.

I am quite prepared to be educated by you in the history of your own language, provided you produce the relevant evidence. For example, I have offered sources that state that there are five recognised Romanian dialects within Romania. You say there are no dialects. OK. Produce some evidence to the contrary. You don't like the proposition that 38.4% of the current Romanian vocabulary is of French derivation. OK. Produce some evidence to the contrary.

As always, I am perfectly willing to accept well-supported propositions. All I ask is that you bring such evidential support forward. If what you say is correct, it shouldn't be too difficult. Firstly Romanian is your own language, and secondly you are in Romania.

Cheers,

Sid.

1. I have been in all parts of Romania and no dialect was encoutered. Evidence number 1.

2. I am speaking this language as well as the french language and also stuidied latin. French words are by far less then latin words or words that resemble italian. Argument number 2.



PS: You should make a test - come to romania, go to a simple man anywhere in the country and talk to him first time in french then in italian then please tell me when did he understand what you said - when you spoke in french or when you spoke in italian ? This should be evidence enough... I already know the answer for this and I guess you also suspect it.

PS2: ahh I see you are from UK I would be happy next time I visit your country to come and talk to you more about this subject.. it is quite hard to understand eachother via forum. BTW: everytime I went to UK I visited a lot of your history related sites - I just love doing that and your country preserved its history very well, wish we have done the same.

This post has been edited by D13-th_Mytzu on August 15, 2005 04:49 pm

"Lexiconul de la Buda" -- 1825.

No, it is not. What contribution did he bring to the purification of the Romanian language, and to the writing of what dictionaries did he offer his assistance?

You keep mentioning "re-latinisation", when I have already told you that it did not took place under the nationalist policy-driven way that you mention.
Besides, I will always keep attacking the term "re-latinisation", because its linguistically inept and agenda-driven. You do not say neologisms, you do not say it was a fairly important cultural connection between Romania and France, you say policy of purification and re-latinisation. It stinks of a deliberate agenda from a mile, dear Sid.

Like Maiorescu said: "Dezvoltarea limbei, si anume si corupti fonetica, este un product instinctiv al naturei omenesti, un fapt de istorie naturala, si niciodata nu se va apleca dupa ratiunea calculatoare a individului."

You have rejected relevant hard facts as being irrelevant... And put forward opinions backed by 2 internet sources, one which is not clear enough and does a big confusion about Heliade Radulescu, and one who offers a procentage that I will investigate in due time.

I think you confuse me, I said linguistically they can be called dialects, but it must be specified what kind of dialects they are. There are dialects which basically mean a different language with different rules, and ones which simply mean a slightly different pronunciation/accent and a few archaic words which is the case in Romania. This regional particularity is known as "grai/graiuri". Its not quite a dialect.

Exactly what I was trying to poin out before being called "unqualified holiday rambler".