On the origins of Romanian language

Oh, but why should we leave the issue alone now, Sid? I am waiting for you to clarify that Bucharest dialect issue you were speaking about... So, what Bucharest dialect were you talking about?

I have seen this somewhere on internet,so called Bucharest dialect. I believe they wanted to say Muntenia/Tara Romaneasca accent.Simply because they don't know any other city in the southern Romania. Simply.Bunch of "experts".

Sid I think you didn't understand very well what was stated in that text. Here is the text again:

And here is your first conclusion:

What is called here "Dialectul Daco-Roman" appeared betwen the IX-th and XII-th century, it was called a so to make a difference between the language spoken by romanians and those living south of Danube, so basically the Daco-Roman dialect was the language inherited by today Romanians some 12 centuries ago and the others you may call dialects are those languages spoken by NON-Romanians found South of the Danube. Also it is stated that the Daco-Romanian dialect was "cel mai raspandit si mai dezvoltat " the most spread and developed (meaning the Daco-Roman dialect was the srongest and the most widespread thus it was powerfull enough to remain here for cenutries to follow). This means we all speak the same language without any dialects. About the sub-dialects mentioned - why is it called "sub-dialect", it is called so because the differences are not enough to call them dialects (as I said many times before: same vocabulary, same grammer, different accent amd VERY few different words). Also, considering there is only 1 Romania with only 1 language spoken, I would not say our language is a dialect - a dialect of whom ?
Aromanii, macedoromanii, etc. are not romanians and do not speak romanian (they speak aromana, macedoromana...) it is like Spain and Portugal: two similar languages but different, you would not call portugese a dialect of spanish or viceversa, right ?

This post has been edited by D13-th_Mytzu on August 24, 2005 06:38 pm

The use of the Slavonic language in the court documents started after the formation of the two states: in 1374 in Walachia, during the reign of Vlaicu I, and in Moldavia in 1392 during the reign of Roman I. Until then it was Latin.

Why Slavonic? Because the ties with the Orthodox Patriarchy in Constantinople could only be kept through the Bulgarian and Serbian states, which themselves were also part of the Byzantine cultural sphere.

Any ideea what type of writing was used in church writings from the 10th century ?

I don't think they did that much writing then. There wasn't any Romanian episcopy back then, no organized structure. There were some monastaries in the Banat, but like I said many times before, most of my books are packed up and stored in a friend's cellar.

Victor I know for sure that the oldest writings within our country were made by church members during the 10th century, also these writings are kept safe and only a few have access to them, however I wonder what type of writing would they use.
One more thing: the need for writing is not 100% dependant on an episcopy. There are many reasons why an organized entity would feel the need to write something somewhere.

This post has been edited by D13-th_Mytzu on August 25, 2005 08:45 am

Isn't the oldest writtings found in Tartaria, on ceramic tablets? They are dated to be before sumerian tablets, which were the first writtings (pictograms) in the world?

This post has been edited by Olaf The Viking on August 25, 2005 10:01 am

Hi Imperialist,

I don't much mind whether Romanian is a language or dialect.

However, if it is a language, then the next subdivision of regional speech is surely "dialect", not "sub-dialect"?

On the other hand, if it is a dialect, then the next subdivision of regional speech is surely "sub-dialect"?

My personal inclination is to regard Romanian as a distinct language on a par with Italian or Spanish. The logical extension of this is therefore that the next level of regional speech subdivisions are dialects.

Anyway, as I said above, in view of the fact that the relevant experts haven't yet sorted this one out themeselves, I doubt we can contribute much to the debate.

Fear not. The quote about the Bucharest area (i.e. Wallachia as was) dialect being the basis of the modern romanian language, is on its way.

Cheers,

Sid.

Cool.I hope this time is not an internet address not mantained anymore or not backed up with bibliography and so on.
Take care.

This post has been edited by Zayets on August 25, 2005 10:52 am

The question is not about minding, the question is about accuracy and truth. Romanian is a language formed on the basis of the daco-roman dialect.

The 5 subdialects mentioned, muntean;moldovean;banatean;crisean;maramuresean are subdialects in relation to the daco-roman dialect which is at the basis of the Romanian language.

See the above.

I think they very much did. A majority of them share a common opinion. See the original quote on the dialect issue.

Hi D13th Mytzu,

As far as I can tell, the quote is ambiguous.

It says that the "limbii romane actuale" is descended from "dialectul daco-roman" and according to most Romanian linguists has "cinci subdialecte".

Surely, the logic of this is that if Romanian has sub-dialects it must itself be a dialect? Other wise the sub-dialects have no "dialect" of which to be "sub-".

If Romanian is considered a language, logically its next regional subdivision will be into dialects.

If Romanian is considered a dialect, logically its next regional subdivision is a sub-dialect.

However, I would suggest that it is inherently irrational for Romanian to be a language and its next regional subdivision a sub-dialect.

Personally, I have always thought of Romanian as a full language on a par with Spanish or Italian, and it therefore seems logical to regard its five subdivisions as dialects, as my original source said.

I think that Victor's much earlier suggestion that it is all a matter of definition is well advised, especially as it appears from Imperialist's quotes that there is no concensus on these issues amongst specialist Romanian scholars.

That is why I suggest that it is fairly fruitless for us to continue debating this particular topic. If the experts can't agree, what hope have we?

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Victor or D13th Mytzu,

Could you confirm whether in translation "Limbii romane actuale, care are la baza dialectul daco-roman, ii sunt proprii, dupa parerea majoritatii lingvistilor romani, cinci subdialecte:....." refers to five subdialects of daco-roman or five dialects of the current Romanian language?

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. The final "dialects" should read "subdialects",

Sid.

You earlier said that using logic the relation is subdialect-dialect-language or in reverse order languag-dialect-subdialect.

So, in your view, when saying "the Romanian language, based on the the daco-roman dialect, has 5 subdialects..." whats unclear?

Its pretty clear. Use your logic man.