On the origins of Romanian language

Hi Sid,
Now if you readed carefuly my posts you'd understand what I meant.For example :

First one is directly Latin descendant,secondly is also although most probably you'd find fr.,lat. Thus? What gives? Why would you choose French instead Latin?
Also,do you read what others said about multiple etimology?

Finally,why not a French refference for a certain word next to the Latin one? As was already pointed out ALL Romance language keep a base of around 20% Latin (including Romanian unless you suggest otherwise),right?
Given this fact then why rule that a word having multiple etimology (in this case fr,lat) has French origin???? Your rationament does not make sense.

Take care

Hi Imperialist,

Thanks very much for the answer on dialect and grai.

So, in essence:

1) Romanian as used in Romania is a dialect, not a language.

2) The five forms of the Romanian speech I originally called "dialects" are actually "sub-dialects" according to the majority of Romanian linguists, but not all (see your last quote).

3) Some Romanian linguists think graie are dialects and others think they are sub-dialects.

My strong inclination is to leave this issue alone. As it would appear that the experts have yet to reach a consensus on it, our inexpert input would seem to be entirely superfluous.

Thanks again for some strong quotes.

Cheers,

Sid.

And pardon my humble question. A dialect of which main language if I dare to ask?

Hi Zayets,

The on line DEX gives both frate and fratern as Latin without French mediation.

Have you a better example?

I am delighted that you are now beginning to use my sources (20%, etc.). Welcome aboard.

Cheers,

Sid.

lol, Zayets you should have taken more time to write that.



Sid: "1) Romanian as used in Romania is a dialect, not a language." I think you did not understand what you read in that quote.

I thought you don't have the DEX.
Anyway, the 20% was never in dispute.Is signaled first time by Agarici as a part that you intentionally left aside when you posted your "research". We are talking about 20% base here for every Romance language,watch out. This was never in dispute.
I guess I gave you more exaples in a previous post.Anyway, look very attent at what I wrote , I said probably not for sure. So please don't twist my words.

Secondly,Romanian is a dialect you conclude when it was pointed out that Romanian has dialects as explained here : http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Romanian_language

I am sorry,but you are wrong again.

later edit : I said earlier water ->apa/acvatic

ACVÁTIC, -Ă, acvatici, -ce, adj. 1. De apă, care trăieşte în apă. 2. Format din apă. ◊ Mediu acvatic = apă ca mediu de viaţă. – Din lat. aquaticus, fr. aquatique.

This post has been edited by Zayets on August 24, 2005 11:12 am

Hi D13th Mytzu,

Thanks for the translation offer. I think I got the sense right, but if I haven't, please let me know.

Yes. I also think that Cyrillic arrived through the Orthodox Church, which invented the script in one of its southern Balkan monasteries, if I remember correctly. Had Romanian speakers been Roman Catholic I guess they would have inherited the Latin script in the same way.

As a matter of interest, are any of the diacritical marks/accents used in Romanian an attempt to convey a Cyrillic sound in Latin script? I am thinking particularly of the sedila under "s" and "t"?

Cheers,

Sid.

Did not know that Latin had a "sh" sound.Definitely it has "tz" . But maybe I am wrong.

Hi Zayets,

Please justify or withdraw the accusation that I "deliberately" left anything aside. It is particularly ridiculous as it was on a link I supplied. You wouldn't even know about it if it wasn't for me, would you?

Actually, it was Imperialist's post that stated that Daco-Roman (i.e. "Romanian as used in Romania") is a dialect of Romanian. Even the source you gave states that. Please check.

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. In the given case of acvatic it would go on my list as a French introduction. However, I imagine that apa was always in the Romanian language ("water" is one of the 100 base words used by glottochronologists) and so would go on my list as Latin.

P.P.S. I am so glad that we are agreed that the 20% direct Latin origin given in the Romanian Community in Belgium and Luxemburg link is plausible. After all, as you say, it is typical for every Latin language. This only leaves the 60% between it and Imperialists 80% Latin origin to account for.

Perhaps you would care to offer some suggestions? You don't like my source that suggest 38% French, so perhaps you would care to come up with some other suggestions?

Sid.

No Sid,you are wrong and as usual you shift the conversation. The whole 20% was never in discussion.Was the source.Is that simple. Your source can't be EVEN PLAUSIBLE for the missing 15% Imperialist pointed out to you.
The 20% you are so keen to agree with me (or anyone else for that matter) is not the point here. If you are saying that French has almost 39% and the same French has also 20% Latin as base where the rest (making indirect Latin words) are? 19% For crying out loud Sid, these are numbers.Unlike words they can't have nuances.They are plain numbers,cold numbers.And your math is wrong.What is so difficult to understand?

That proves Imperialist point. You can't even conduct such count since your assumptions are wrong from the start.And also proves my point(in fact lingvistic since they researched that) that words were re-introduced in Romanian.

Sid,I took some 30 mins to check somethings about your percentages.Everywhere where I look it says (as I pointed out before) that this 38,x% comes from French AND Italian. The only rwmark that this amount of words are inherited from French only are in your (francophone) source bad in math.So this is for you,information is duplicate sometimes,but I am sure you are an inteligent person and pick whats best for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_language
http://www.answers.com/topic/romanian-language
http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Romanian:language.htm
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclope...an_language.htm
http://language.school-explorer.com/info/Romanian_language
http://encyclopedie-en.snyke.com/articles/...n_language.html
http://www.onelang.com/encyclopedia/index....manian_language
http://july.fixedreference.org/en/20040724...manian_language
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Romanian-language
http://indoeuro.bizland.com/tree/ital/romanian.html

Oh,in case you did not know,Romania is not a francophone country. Was never francophone. Probably francofil but I don't think it was fully francofil ever given the fact that France could care less about Romania in the last 200-300 years.But maybe I am wrong,who knows

This post has been edited by Zayets on August 24, 2005 12:25 pm

Rumania is part of La Francophonie for 12 years now:

BTW, according to the web site of the Republic of Rumania's Paris Embassy,

or [more than] every fourth Rumanian knows French...

And:

This contradicts the above information, however. Based on a 23 million census, 950.000 persons represent only 4.13% of Rumania's population.

[Source: http://www.amb-roumanie.fr/francofonie.html]

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on August 24, 2005 01:28 pm

Sorry to say,Romania's national language is not French. Romania is only part of OIF but that does not means is francophone.
Is Albania francophone?Or Bulgaria?Or Egypt?Or Dominica?Or Macedonia???
Because they are members of teh same organisation.Here's the link:
http://www.fll.vt.edu/French/francophonie.html

PS: let's not deviate from the thread subject
PPS: francophone means french-speaking isn't it?

This post has been edited by Zayets on August 24, 2005 01:34 pm

No, in essence Romanian is a language based on the daco-roman dialect which is common for all the territory north of the Danube, but which has regional subdialects.
What the heck lead you to the conclusion that Romanian as used in Romania is not a language, but a dialect?

This post has been edited by Imperialist on August 24, 2005 07:31 pm