On the origins of Romanian language

Hi Guys,

Fortunately I only have to account for the methodology of the count, to which no objections have been offered, and not for the methodology used to compose the DEX.

As the opinion polls in this country usually sample just over 1,000 people out of an electorate of 30 million, I think that if I take one word from each page of the DEX as prescribed above (also apparently just over 1,000), this will be statistically significant because there are nothing like 30 million, or even 3 million words in the DEX.

All objections having been met, I will therefore proceed as described above.

Cheers,

Sid.

Well, go ahead then. The results you will give will be representative for "Sid's random sample of the DEX". I doubt they will tell us anything of relevance in the 38%-15%-63%-80% issue at hand.

Nah,if he chooses carefully he can end with 95% Slavic origin words.Then he can publish his thesis.I wouldn't miss that show either.
Go ahead Sid.

No, your comparison is not accurate.
You want to count a population (in this case of words), not to gauge opinions on a certain event or the choice between A or B in the next elections.

What you propose to do (randomly counting 1 word/page to reach a scientific result for the total make-up of romanian lexicon -- is this it?) is like doing a population count (recensamant) by randomly picking 1 apartment block/street then projecting the result of that count to the whole city. If you have 30% black and 70% white in your random count sample, you cannot reach the conclusion that the city has a racial composition of 30%-70%. You would actually have to go at each and every apartment block for that conclusion to have scientific value.
The same with words.

I write this only to save you your work and save further arguments when you come back with the results of your count only for me to dismiss it as irrelevant for the general composition of romanian lexicon, and only valuable for your random sample. Then you'd be pretty upset given the work you did, and you'd start blaming me that I didnt do it myself etc. etc. etc.

take care

Hi Imperialist,

Oh yes you can! The statistical rationale is exactly the same, with the proviso that a word count will probably be more accurate than an opinion poll because words can't change their opinions overnight!

Agreed! Each page is the equivalent of an apartment block. I will therefore be doing exactly as you suggest and visiting every apartment block.

Any other objections of a more substantial nature?

Actually, I already do blame you for not doing this work yourself. Personally I think it disgraceful that a Romanian in possession of a DEX not only won't do it himself, but is actively discouraging others from doing it. From an outsider's point of view it looks very, very bad. I doubt some Romanians are too impressed either!

Cheers,

Sid.

Sid,why don't you go counting your words?

Besides,what are you doing here is not a poll is a count.But I guess you can't make the difference.Imperialist couldn't be more clearer.You are not looking to see what Joe Doe likes to drink.You are looking to see how many Joe Doe are in the apartment block.
Is that simple.

Personally I find it disgraceful that someone coming here presenting some obscure sources wanted US to demonstrate that your sources are wrong.In fact you did nothing to prove yours,why should we accept it?

This post has been edited by Zayets on August 23, 2005 12:49 pm

http://dexonline.ro/search.php?cuv=latinism&source=

LATINÍSM, (1) latinisme, s.n. 1. Cuvânt, formă sau construcţie sintactică împrumutate (fără necesitate) din limba latină (şi neasimilate încă în limba care a făcut împrumutul). 2. Curent apărut în lingvistica şi în filologia românească din sec. XIX, care, pentru a demonstra caracterul latin al limbii române, a încercat să elimine din ea cuvintele de alte origini şi să modifice astfel forma celor latine, încât să le apropie cât mai mult de forma originară; a contribuit la generalizarea scrierii cu caractere latine şi a adus noi argumente în sprijinul originii latine a limbii române. – Din fr. latinisme. Cf. 1 a t i n.

Thus they were Latin at origins anyway? Or what?I don't quite understand.Modify the EXISTING LATIN WORDS in order to make them CLOSER TO THEIR ORIGINAL FORM ?

Here is the definition of latinism from my Dictionar enciclopedic vol IV - 2001

2. Curent in lingvistica si filologia romana din sec. 19 care a continuat unele idei ale Scolii Ardelene, aducand noi argumente in sprijinul originii latine a limbii romane; a contribuit la generalizarea scrierii cu caractere latine. Pentru a demonstra caracterul latin al limbii romane si din dorinta de "a restabili puritatea ei intergrala", a ajuns la exagerari ca: inlocuirea cuvintelor nelatine, modificarea formei cuvintelor latinesti mostenite din latina potrivit unei ortografii latinizante. Reprezentanti: T. Cipariu, A.T. Laurian, I.C. Massim s.a.

Translation:
Current in the Romanian linguistics and philology of the 19th century which continued some ideas of the Transylvanian School, bringing new arguments for the latin origin of the Romanian language; it contributed to the full implementation of writting in latin characters. In order to demonstrate the latin character of Romanian language, and from the desire "to reestablish its intergral purity", it got to exagerations like: replacing the non-latin words, modification of the morphology of the words of latin origin according to a latinizant ortography. Representants: T. Cipariu, A.T. Laurian, I.C. Massim etc

Thus they were Latin at origins anyway? Or what?I don't quite understand.Modify the EXISTING LATIN WORDS in order to make them CLOSER TO THEIR ORIGINAL FORM ?

It seems that there was indeed a deliberate effort to make the vocabulary look more latin that it appeared. It doesnt say that part of the vocabulary was not latin at origins.

Yes, thats the ethymological principle in orthography I was talking about earlier in the thread.

Titu Maiorescu wrote a scathing article against that Latinist school, "Cercetari Limbistice si Critica Sistemului Etimologic".

So that it will be clear that the Latinists did not succeed in doing the changes they intended, I shall quote from Titu Maiorescu, giving an example of mr. Cipariu's latinist changes he proposed:

[QUOTE]

I also gave other examples earlier in the thread (zboara - svola etc.)

Any speaker of romanian language will instantly realise that the Latinists did not manage to impose these changes.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on August 23, 2005 01:34 pm

The things were more complex than that; and in the end the Latinists didn’t have the last word to say on the matter. See my earlier post on that here: http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?sh...pic=2382&st=105

And how would you explain this to Sid? He thinks that having no clues about a certain language is not a show stoper in understanding it (the whloe idea.I won't go back to the post he said that.I'm too lazy today).

Besides,doing what Cipariu said we would basically speak Italian today.Not French btw.Funny enough,as Myztu said,a person from anywhere in Romania would understand nowaday much more easy Italian than French.French has to be cultivated to the masses
Is not an easy language.Obviously,it helps a bit if your langauge has Latin roots.

This post has been edited by Zayets on August 23, 2005 02:04 pm

Hi Zayets,

Indeed, you don't have to accept anything from my limited sources.

On the other hand you haven't put up anything as detailed against them. Indeed, you haven't actually put up any statistics at all!

My solution is to go the DEX and do a random word-origin count. Then neither of us will have to accept my limited sources because we will have gone to a source that presumably even Imperialist approves of.

To your credit, at least you are encouraging me to proceed with this word-origin count. The only person still throwing spurious obstacles in my way, is Imperialist.

Do you know why Imperialist is being so obstructive? After all, it is not as if I am likely to make any great new discovery about the origins of the Romanian language by using the DEX, is it?

Cheers,

Sid.

I don't have too. I just pointed out that your (or your source if you please) arithmetic is wrong. There are 15% not accounted. Which make your source doubtful.Besides,I have pointed out a link where the same percentage is given as French & Italian. You look back in the thread.

In fact Sid I am more cynical here. At least Imperialist tries to warn you that when you'd be finishing counting your conclusion will be wrong.And he will be right,you know.I explained you why,but you go ahead.

This post has been edited by Zayets on August 23, 2005 03:33 pm