On the origins of Romanian language

Mounted on what?

I see this comment has made many people angry. What Sid was trying to say is - I think - that there is a controversy regarding the clasification of Aromanian, Istroromanian and Meglenoromanian as dialects of the Romanian language or independent languages. If they are independent languages, then Dacoromanian is a separate language itself, making the 'graiuri' dialects, not sub-dialects. What he said next - "Whether Romania has dialects or subdialects is dependent on this" - makes me believe this is the case.

The logical structure is pretty simple, so I still dont see why Sid doesnt understand it:

- common Romanian -- splits in 4 dialects:

-- daco-romanian
-- macedo-romanian
-- meglenoromanian
-- istroromanian

Daco-romanian as a dialect, has 5 subdialects.
Also daco-romanian gave birth to the literary and national Romanian language.

Sid takes the Romanian language and says it cannot have subdialects without the intermediary dialects. When pointed out that the subdialects are subdivisions in relation to the daco-romanian dialect which is the basis of Romanian language, he then asks whether Romanian is a dialect then and not a language. (?)
Personally, I cannot see the logic in his assertions. Maybe you can help me understand what he means, like you did now.

The structure presented by me is not my invention, but the opinion of a majority of linguists.
The other opinion, of the minority, would be that Romanian is a distinct language in comparison with the south of the danube ones, and has 5 dialects.
I still dont see how this makes Sid say, its not clear whether Romanian is a language or dialect....

take care

Sid must have meant Dacoromanian. We'll have to wait for his confirmation, thou.

Sid must have meant Dacoromanian. We'll have to wait for his confirmation, thou.

If we pull it really really hard, I guess he probably meant daco-romanian.

Hi Guys,

The following link might be ot interest:

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=ron

Cheers,

Sid.

This thread is gaining pages to easy.I think it becomes useless.
Nope Sid,I have never heard about Bayash , is that a dialect,hehehehe

Hi Imperialist,

I would point out that I never mentioned Transilvania in this context and that in fact it is YOUR contention that there is no differentiation between the Romanian spoken in different parts of the country that calls into question the longevity of Romanian residence in some areas, not necessarily Transilvania. This is something addressed by Bogmih, who suggests a late medieval migration of Romanians OUT of Transilvania.

For the principles of glottochronology, I would recommend an internet search.

Cheers,

Sid.

Nope Sid, you have said

Notice the term you used : very recently. If for you very recently means late medieval then you are somehow closer to the truth.In any case,still far away.
Personally I feel that answers in this thread are already prepared by the time a reply comes.Is for that I believe it becomes realy pointless.

PS: Sid,is clear what you want.Move on.You will not gain supporters here.

This post has been edited by Zayets on September 06, 2005 11:12 am

No, my contention was not, that "there is no" differentiation. Probably you meant to say "little differentiation".
And moreover, calls it into question based on what theory?

Hi Imperialist,

Good. You contend "little variation". The link I gave above says that between the various Romanian dialects there is "little dialectic variation".

So, there we have it: Romanian has dialects, but with little variation.

Your second question would be answered if you would take my earlier advice to look up glottochronology.

Cheers,

Sid.

Unfortunately the link is very very poor in information. And amateuristical.

Some examples:

Huh? Thats "language development"?

What the hell is this? Mountain slope - forest - peasant agriculturalists - christian. Earth -- moon -- NASA.

I'm sorry Sid, given the amount of info we brought in this thread, this link is really weak in correct and "peer-reviewed" info.

And no, I'm not going to search for glottochronology. If you want to base your statements on it, you provide a good link. All I found about it is that its "a controversial method".

take care

The first link about glottochronology I found googling was this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glottochronology

It says "In fact, no serious linguist today believes that language change occurs automatically at any rate at all, for any change has a reason. E.g. Albanian changed nearly 90% of its original vocabulary not by any inherent rate, but due to strong Roman dominance in history. Notice that the literature in favor of glottochronology is extremely dated."

EDIT: http://linguistlist.org/issues/5/5-1168.html

The glottochronology uses the Swadesh list of basic words that are presumably lost from a language at a constant rate (14% per 1000 years). This means an 86% retention rate over 1000 years. However, we see much different rates in many languages:

Plautine Latin vs 1600 Spanish: 79.0% retention
Plautine Latin vs Moliere's French: 77.6%
Old High German vs Modern German: 85.4%
Egyptian vs Coptic: 76.0%
Koine Greek vs Modern Athenian: 83.6%
Koine Greek vs Modern Cypriot: 82.9%
Classical Chinese vs Modern Mandarin: 79.5%
Old Norse vs Modern Swedish: 85.4%
Classical Latin vs Modern Tuscan: 83.9%
Modern Portuguese: 80.6%
Modern Rumanian: 76.4%
Modern Catalan: 79.3%

The record belongs to Eastern Greenlandic -- 42% LOSS.

This post has been edited by bogmih on September 06, 2005 01:57 pm

Here you go again. We envy your impeccable logic and documentation, but it is your balanced and subtle rationality and equilibrium of arguments that makes us all love you. Now that the points from your agenda have become obvious, perhaps you can tell us where you did you get that from? Or better not… I only wonder if you elaborate much before phrasing the things this way, or it's just a stroke of inspiration?

I have a suggestion for you people: let’s not bother Sid anymore for a while. Let’s give him some space on this thread. Let’s institute a boycott or embargo for every question which have been answered and re-answered before. There are pages already since the same things are being repeated again and again… and I see no sense in that.

As for myself, I have a different understanding of concepts like “argumentation” and “motivation”. So I really don’t care if the hypothesis of different dialects in Romanian language (leaving aside the one about the “disproportionate” influence of the French, as a deliberate product of the Romanian nationalists/nationalism) sustains the “proposition” that the Romanians lived continuously in Romania since the Roman's time.

As a personal opinion, I guess that you probably woke up one morning with these ideas in your head and I'm pretty sure you won’t give up. This has long ago ceased to be a discussion based on fair argumentation and rational arguments. Since for you your hypotheses are obviously the only possible conclusions (thus becoming anything but hypotheses) and you are indiscriminately searching for, gathering and using any type of convenient arguments (while dismissing any "adverse" conclusion), these have nothing to do with a scientific-type search for answers anymore. So I would humbly suggest letting you have "the final word" you want so bad and stop wasting time in here. But that’s just an opinion… And no offense meant, Sid.

This post has been edited by Agarici on September 06, 2005 03:51 pm

Hi bogmih,

I was trying lead Imperialist towards that link, which is the first to come up. I knew that there was absolutely no chance he would make the effort to follow up a suggested subject because he never does, even when it is to his benefit!

Glottochronology has undergone theoretical modifications since it was first propounded, to the point where there is now reference to a "neo-glottochronology". Just as the Theory of Evolution has been modified by punctuated evolution, so glottochronology has been modified to account for irregular paces of language development. The Swadesh retention rate is not an absolute. There are bound to be variations in every single language. But the general principle that greater divergence is a function of time holds good.

The best example I have seen of the confirmation of the basic tenets of glottochronolgy by another discipline was in an article in Nature or Scientific American a few years ago regarding the route of migration across Polynesia before the Europeans arrived. The family trees of the relationships between the Polynesian population of the various island produced by Glottochronological analysis and DNA analysis were almost identical.

Polynesia was a particularly clean laboratory, because significant inter-migration between the various island groups after their first populating was minimal or non existent. It is a less sure tool on continental land masses, but the tight grouping of the Latin-derived languages on the list you gave (76.4% to 83.9%) after 2,000 years shows that even here it has some utility.

I will pick up some points from your longer earlier post later. Sorry for the delay.

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi bogmih,

I have found the article to which your second link referred:

http://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz/psych/rese...ayrev3wfigs.pdf

I hope it is of interest.

Cheers,

Sid.