On the origins of Romanian language

... or "metro", that's how they call it in Washington DC!

... or the different names used in different states from USA for highway, which would also multiply the number of US English dialects... Let's get serious, folks...

You're so full of it Sid.And it stinks.And I will show you why. Check this , the initial post:

Can you spot the question mark at the end of the phrase?Goooood.Let's go further

I see that there's another question mark there.Hmmm,that must be a coincidence.Or should I say ... circumstance (sic)

In fact,Sid,is not your lack of knowledge which is annoying,one can easy understand.What I find troublesome at least is the fact that you pose in a lingvistic expert when you don't have that quality even in your mother tongue.And all these based on some obscure notes found in a (how ironic is that) travel guide page.

As for that

This I will take it as another fine joke.

On a final note,stop redirecting the thread to some other things.read the title of the thread and do post accordingly.
Take care

Hi Imperialist,

Good. We are now agreed that ultimately "gyrus" has Greek roots, and presumably that "Y" arrived in Latin from Greek by the route I claimed but you preferred to ridicule.

Congratulations. An explanation as to why imprejurare went from having no roots to being definitely Latin - at last. Why not just answer questions the first time they are asked? I have asked this of you before. It is quite painless!

Why the interest in the origin of "gyrus"? You brought it up, so presumably you had your reasons.

Romanian has Greek-derived words in its vocabulary. Why should "gyrus" not have been assimilated directly from Greek? After all, you initially said that imprejurare had no provenance and then declared that it was Latin without giving a source. If you were (a) consistent and ( responsive to questions, this diversion would probably not have happened at all.

No equivalence? The Greek "guro" also means "around" (Langenscheidt Standard Greek Dictionary). "Circa" means "around". Both are used as prefixes in a similar way in both Romanian and English (i.e. circumferinta and giroscop).

The key questions about "circumstantia" are whether it was used in Classical Latin with the modern meaning (in which case "circumstanta" may well be derived directly from it) or whether it is Medieval Latin and (in which case it probably reached Romanian via French). Do you know which? If the latter is the case and it is attributed in a dictionary solely to Latin, then the dictionary may not be reflecting the arrival of French loan words.

I am not trying to "prove" anything. I did not start this thread. My contribution has grown organically in response to questions and statements by others, in exactly the same way that yours has. Sometimes I make mistakes and you jump on them. Sometimes you make mistakes and I jump on them.

What do I want? The facts. Anything that is not soundly based should not be allowed to pass unchallenged, be it by you, me or anybody else.

I clearly overstated my case and went beyond the evidence when I suggested that French Grammarians were used to help assemble the FIRST Romanian dictionaries and grammars. But my original question about whether your figure for Latin-derived content in the Romanian language referred to today or 200 years ago remains valid. The vocabulary of the Romanian language has changed enormously in the last 200 years. As a result of largely French-derived words the "Latin" proportion has clearly grown greatly and the Slavic proportion has declined. So, which Romanian vocabulary were you referring to? Today's or 200 years ago?

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Zayets,

There. That wasn't so difficult, was it?

I have, in fact, already answered this question in my posts to Imperialist and
he has had the good grace to agree that Latin took "gyros" from Greek.

Anyway, for your personal benefit:

Firstly, The Cassel's Latin Dictionary says so on p.270, giving the original Greek word in Greek letters.

Secondly, the letter "Y" was not originally in Latin. P.650 of the same dictionary says "Y,y, a letter borrowed from the Greek in order to represent the Greek upsilon (Y)."

No. My source was not Wikipedia - as would also have been clear if you had read what I posted to Imperialist.

You are absolutely right. We are way off thread. Will you be reminding Imperialist, Agarici and D13th Mytzu as well. Or am I specially favoured?

I am sorry if I haven't responded as quickly as you would like to your questions, but I have answered your questions elswhere in posts to others.

Cheers,

Sid.

No,I do not agree with this.You brought no proof (ie. scan,web page etc).Besides,it has nothing to do with the thread subject.
I am saying that "gyrus" has ultimately (as you said) Sanscrite roots.Prove me wrong.

Now,lets take this gem :

On which basis?Greek influence in Romanian language appeared centuries later than their (presumably) latin counterparts.

Now,lets see this:

You proved NOTHING yet.You came with two obscure sources not backed by any scientific support.That was it all.You ignored,and then redirected the discussion to totally different things, everything what was said and proved by all person here.When they dare to challenge you , you called them ridicule or something else.
Therefore is clear that you don't want any facts at all.You want to stir the pot and then dissapear.
One final thing.Romanian language is changing even now.Dramaticaly.But you can't see that since all your experience regarding this resumes to your brief presence in this thread.Claiming that Romanian language changed dramaticaly in 200 years is exactly like saying English language uses Latin alphabet.Obvious,isnt it?
I do hope that you'll intervene on this issue without REAL proofs
Take care

LATER EDIT:

No you are not at all favoured(or favored using English American "dialect").You merely started deviating from the subject.I know is boring to look back in the thread,but do me a favor and check it.You will see how "ridicule" you are then.

This post has been edited by Zayets on August 18, 2005 10:48 am

Hi D13th Mytzu,

I have answered your question directly three times, amplifying it each time. What I cannot do is make you like the answer.

To put it in the most basic form, every English speaker, everywhere speaks in one dialect or another. There are no exceptions. The Queen speaks RP. Mick Jagger speaks Estuary. The current President speaks a variety of Southern and his father New England.

There is no "official language of the United States". Look it up under Google "Official Language USA". The entire premise of your question is wrong.

On the subject of dialects I offer you the following from the 1962 Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol.19:

"The Romanian literary language is based mainly on the Daco-Romanian dialect of Walachia. It assumed importance only at the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th centuries. Before that all literary output was dialectical" The sources given at the end of this article are almost all Romanian. Here are some.

O. Densusianu - Histoire de la langue roumaine (1901-32)
S. Puscariu - Etymologisches Worterbuch der rumanischen Sprache (1905) and Limba Romana (1940)
Collective authorship - Atlasul lingvistic roman (1938 et seq.)

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi D13th Mytzu,

I have answered your question directly three times, amplifying it each time. What I cannot do is make you like the answer.

To put it in the most basic form, every English speaker, everywhere speaks in one dialect or another. There are no exceptions. The Queen speaks RP. Mick Jagger speaks Estuary. The current President speaks a variety of Southern and his father New England.

There is no "official language of the United States". Look it up under Google "Official Language USA". The entire premise of your question is wrong.

On the subject of dialects I offer you the following from the 1962 Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol.19:

"The Romanian literary language is based mainly on the Daco-Romanian dialect of Walachia. It assumed importance only at the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th centuries. Before that all literary output was dialectical" The sources given at the end of this article are almost all Romanian. Here are some.

O. Densusianu - Histoire de la langue roumaine (1901-32)
S. Puscariu - Etymologisches Worterbuch der rumanischen Sprache (1905) and Limba Romana (1940)
Collective authorship - Atlasul lingvistic roman (1938 et seq.)

Cheers,

Sid.

Sid, if you read carefully my posts you’ll see that in each one (except those where the main subject was a joke ) I was trying not to lose contact with the issue in discussion in this topic, linking the debate about the language with aspects related to Transylvania’s history and culture.

Hi Zayets,

Why would I want to prove you wrong that "gyrus" has Sanskrit roots?

If you have evidence of this, feel free to present it, in exactly the same way as I have given you the "gyrus" source.

Has Romanian got other Sanskrit words in it?

I know both Greeks and Romans had contact with Romanians. When did this contact with Sanskrit occur?

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Guys,

It is clear that we are at crossed purposes regarding the meaning of "dialect".

Can we have some sourced Romanian definitions of "dialect"? My Romanian-English dictionary has the Romanian for "dialect" as English "dialect". However, it appears from our conversation that they may not have identical definitions.

From my dictionary, (Teora, 2004) the English definitions for grai are "speech", "language", "idiom" and "voice".

However, when I look up the English word "idiom" it includes "dialect" amongst its Romanian definitions.

I think some clarification as to the precise meaning of "dialect" and "grai" is necessary.

What does the DEX+S say on these two words?

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Agarici,

I owe you an apology for not yet answering your posts, which are probably the most substantial on the thread.

I am giving priority to existing correspondents, and this can be somewhat burdensome.

Cheers,

Sid.

It's all right, take your time...

Hi Guys,

One more confusion. My Teora 2004 gives the following translations:

Patois: grai; dialect.

Cheers,

Sid.

I thought thread is closed for moderation.Anyway...

Is quite simple Sid.You claimed that "jur" came in Romanian language from Greek.
You did not said direct simply because you knew that is absurd.Greek influence in the current Romanian language appeared much more later
than Latin when Greek people made massive appearence in what is know today as Romania.This happened especially after 1453 once the Byzantine Empire fallen.
Now,you cannot claim that two very different languages (Greek and Latin) brought the same word into the language (be this Romanian if this pleases you).
You cannot make a paralel between reintroducing a certain word in Romanian (or any other language for this matter) like that : Latin->French/Italian and Greek->Latin.
The reason is more than obvious,French and Italian are Latin at origins where as Latin cannot be said it has Greek origin.Or are you suggesting that latin has Greek origin or derives from Greek?
I have proven to you how word were reintroduced from Latin giving you examples,you did not.All you have said is that according to Casell's (BTW is not Cassel with double s ) gyrus origin in Latin is the Greek word "guros".
Good,now I am asking you,what does this add to the discussion?You said that probably "jur" came from "guros" (Greek) and that it might not be that crazy afterall.
Then,I have asked you to prove it.Which you didn't and you are just avoiding the answer.As you might be surprised to find that "guros" in Greek has most probably another origin which is not Greek afterall,but Sanskrite,Phenician,Myceean etc.
Folowing your logic,Romanian language has Phenician roots.Your theories are good around(sic) a pint of ale when nobody pays too much attention but they fail when is about gathering proofs.
Take care