On the origins of Romanian language

P.S. The original list of percentages gives 1.7% of the current Romanian vocabulary being of Italian origin. Combined with French this would be about 40%.

Sid.

No,I have no other sources handy(although a visit to the Academia will provide me with some ammo).
What I am saying is very simple and anyone speaking Romanian fluently can see what I am talking (about that HUGE number you gave - over 30% French AND ITALIAN words)
Words were RE-ENTERING in the Romanian language,in another way:

Example

Nobody used the second one (adverb) , this was borrowed from a much more literary source although IT HAS THE SAME ORIGIN. Obviously first word (noun) is a very popular word.So,if somebody considers these words of being FRENCH OR ITALIAN origin they are very wrong simply because those as well HAVE LATIN ORIGIN.I can give you a lot of those examples but I believe you don't speak Romanian.

On another note,same thing happens nowadays when a lot of English word entered our thesaurus:
beep -> bip
interview ->interviu
and so on.Pronounciacion IS EXACTLY as in English but unlike English counterparts THEY HAVE GENDER.Thus they were assimilated.
That's the big difference,we kept the LATIN GRAMATIC and that is more than a proof.

Take care
Zayets out

One of the oldest books printed in Rumanian language was - small wonder - the Bible (it is known as the 'Vlach Bible').
It was translated on the direct order and paid by György Rákóczi II., ruler of Transylvania, in 1648. Translation done from Greek and Slavic sources by a monk called Sylvester.

The complete title is: Noul testamen, sau impacarea, sau leagea noauo a lui Is. Xs. Domnului nostru. Izvodit cu mare socotinta den izvoda grecescu si slovenescu, pre limba rumaneasca, cu indemnarea si porunca, denpreuna cu toata cheltuiala a Marii Sale Gheorghie Rakotzi, craiol Ardealului. Typaritusau intru a Marii Sale typografie, denteiu niou, in Ardeal, in cetatea Belgradului, anii dela intruparea Domnului si Mantuitorului nostru Is. Xs. 1648, luna lui Ghenuariu 20.

[Source: http://www.mek.iif.hu/porta/szint/egyeb/le...pc007670.html#4]

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on August 16, 2005 02:27 pm

So you werent referring to the Latinists I did. Well, nevertheless I have given you an example of an even more radical "re-latinisation" plot than you ever meant at the beginning. And it didnt work. Yes, there were also proposals to root out slavic words, but there wasnt a special school of thought for that, because the romanian language already had the replacement words, as slavic was a second language in the middle ages. So they were replaced according to the dynamics of the language.

Because the language is dynamic I also countered your claim about a national(ist) policy. Thats why I asked your agenda. Because things dont work quite like that.

For example Maiorescu proposed (approximate translation):

" Where we have in our language a word of latin origin, we must not introduce a neologism of the same origin. We will hence say: [I]imprejurare and never cerconstanta or circonstanta..." [/I][note that he opposed importing french neologisms if we already had a similar word or unless they described a totally new thing/notion !!!]

Well, today we can find both imprejurare and circumstanta in the romanian dictionary.
At imprejurare no ethymology is given (yet it is composed from words of latin origin -- but it doesnt say).
At circumstanta, lo and behold -- it says french and latin origin!

So we have the old latin origin word living side by side with the newer at the time french neologism, contrary to Maiorescu's indication. The dictionaries could do nothing but record the existence of the new neologism, they were not the ones behind introducing it. Its like saying today when lets say "cool" (OK, maybe bad example) will appear in the dictionary so that older folk understand the youngsters, there is a deliberate national policy to promote that word.

This is a also good example to see how erroneous would be to think that the french words account for a large part of latin origin in our language (when in fact a lot of french words were "imported" because it was chic to do so, not because there lacked an alternative), etc.

take care

This post has been edited by Imperialist on August 16, 2005 02:46 pm

Hi Zayets,

If you can consult the Academia, it would be most helpful.

Yes, of course most French and Italian words are of Latin origin. That is not in dispute. However, those that entered the Romanian language from these sources must be accounted for differently from those that were inherited from old Romanian or resurrected directly from classical Latin.

There seem to be four main sources of Latin-derived words in the modern Romanian vocabulary (with the statistics I quoted earlier):

1) inherited from pre-1820 Romanian (20%).
2) introduced or reintroduced via French after about 1820 (38.4%).
3) resurrected direct from classical Latin (2.4%).
4) introduced or reintroduced from Italian (1.7%).

Of these, only the first two are statistically significant. Anything you can do to clarify this would be appreciated.

Cheers,

Sid.

The total gives 84,9%. What is the origin of the remaining 15,1%?

The Romanian lexicon comprises app. 150,000 words. 38,4% French would mean 57,600 words.
The "missing" 15,1% would amount to 22,650!

I think that belgian webpage has some faulty or incomplete info...

This post has been edited by Imperialist on August 16, 2005 03:57 pm

Hi Imperialist,

Before writing off the Latinists completely, we still have to establish where the 2.4% of the modern Romanian vocabulary apparently derived directly from classical Latin came from. But I agree that in terms of the modern Romanian vocabulary they would not appear to be very significant.

I agree that language is dynamic. Throughout the Anglo-Saxon world this is recognised by the absence of anything like the Academie Francaise or the Academia Romana to regulate the English language. The English language grows organically. From our point of view, the mere existence of a state sponsored academy to promote and direct the national language indicates national(ist) policies.

There is no suprise that many Romanian words are of French AND Latin origin, because most of the French language is derived from Latin. From my point of view, it doesn't make any difference so long as they were introduced via French after about 1820.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Surely, your example of "circumstanta" might be evidence of the influence of your Latinists, Latinisation or Re-Latinisation?

The French word is "circonstance". However, the Latin word meaning circumstanta/circonstance is not apparently of the same root according to the Cassel's Latin Dictionary (which gives "res, sometimes tempus").

The origin of the French prefix "circon-" is the Latin "circum". Perhaps the Latinists (or others) took a contemporary French word and restored its Latin prefix to produce a new "Latinised" Romanian word that was nothing like the actual Latin original (res or tempus) of the same meaning?

So, whereas there seems already to have been a perfectly functional Romanian word of indeterminate origin - "imprejurare" - we now have a competing neologism of Latin-French origin - "circumstanta"?

The more I look at this example, the more it looks like "Latinisation" or "Re-Latinisation".

Cheers,

Sid.

Thank you Denes !

Sid the bold writing says: "rumanian language" and this was in 1648, do you now agree that the name "Vlahi" was indeed a name given to us by foreigners while we called ourselfs rumani/romani ? Also we called our language that way in the 17th century and be sure it did not start then.


Edited: Sid I have one question - do you consider that the english spoken by a welsh or by a scot (not their ancient language but the english they speak) is a dialect ? Can extend question to: english spoken by an american, australian, kiwi...

This post has been edited by D13-th_Mytzu on August 16, 2005 04:11 pm

Hi Imperialist,

You missed out ".......et autres influences moins importants".

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi D13thMytzu,

I not only NOW agree that Vlah and its variations were foreign descriptions, but I would ALWAYS have done so.

The point is that "Vlah" (or its variations) was still apparently used unselfconsciously in lexikon and grammar titles by Romanian and French authors in the 1820s and 1830s, but by the 1840s it seems to have fallen into disuse by them. I would suggest that this may have been for nationalist reasons - the promotion of a distinctive Latin Romanian national consciousness. What you write seems to reinforce that point of view.

Not only are there English dialects in Wales, Scotland or Ireland (indeed more than one in each), but there are many different dialects within England as well, let alone overseas. I find this completely unremarkable.

The BBC has just published a survey about the sheer variety of English within the UK. It is probably on the internet if you want to check. There are well over a million words in English, a very high proportion supplied by dialects. (I seem to remember that there are enormous numbers of different words for things like "left-handed" and "pigsty".

Here is a definition of "dialect" from the Encyclopedia Britannica: "Dialect is a variety of a language that is used by one group of persons and has features of vocabulary, grammar, or pronounciation distinguishing it from other varieties of the same language that are used by other groups."

It also says: "Generally dialects develop as a result of barriers that exist between various groups of people who speak the same language. These barriers can be geographic, economic, political or social." I would suggest that the geographic and political categories might particularly apply to Romania's historical situation - divided by a major mountain range and ruled by three different alien empires.

One other thing - according to glottochronology, the more diverse a language's vocabulary, the older it is likely to be. If Romanian is not a diverse language (i.e. no dialects) this implies that it is of relatively recent creation.

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. I was once told that Romanians in Transilvania are particularly partial to beer, those south of the mountains prefer wine and those in Moldova are partial to vodka. I don't know if it's true, but if it is it shows the sort of cultural variation that can occur within a society due to political or geographic circumstance. I would suggest that language is a cultural artefact that naturaly shows similar variation.

I am sorry Sid,
I don't know what to say,I have in front of me DEX (is true,one of the oldest edition)and everywhere I see "lat." not "fr." at origin. What should I do,to scan a page from the dictionary?This is an approved (although disputed due to Russian links of the author) by the Academy document.

And Sid,15,1% categorized as ".......et autres influences moins importants" is a bit silly,don't you think?I thought you are a serious person with whom we can have a civilized dialog.

Sid, I think you did not understand that "imprejurare" is of LATIN ORIGIN.
Now we have both imprejurare and circumstanta. There is no competition. Circumstanta has long lost its neologism character.

Like I pointed out, you misunderstood the example.

Surely it was an example of how a central directive (maintain imprejurare do not "import" circumstanta) fails.

And, like you pointed out, you were pretty much on a safe independent island. Why do you apply your circumstances to regions which had a different historical evolution?

Hi Zayets,

As I have already pointed out, most French words are of Latin origin. They will therefore show up as ultimately of Latin origin.

As a test, look up "circumstanta". We know that there is a French word "circonstance" with the same meaning. It also appears from the Cassels Latin Dictionary that the Latin words with the same usage (res, tempus) have a different root. Does your source attribute "circumstanta" to French or Latin?

Why is "..... et autres influences moins importants" "a bit silly"? It presumably means that at least nine other languages (not all of which, like Dacian, need still exist) have contributed less than 1.7% each to Romanian. Is this impossible?

Cheers,

Sid.

I think you understood very well what I meant, but just in case you did not I will rephraze: do you consider that the english spoken by an american, australian, scottish are english dialects instead of english spoken with a different accent ? I hope this time you understand what I mean..

This post has been edited by D13-th_Mytzu on August 16, 2005 05:24 pm

Hi Imperialist,

I thought you said (0245 today) that "no etymology is given" for imprejurare. Which Latin words is it descended from?

I also thought you wrote (again 0245 today) "...today we find both imprejurare and circumstanta in the Romanian dictionary". That being so, how can you now (0454) hold it up "as an example of how a central directive (maintain imprejurare DO NOT "IMPORT" CIRCUMSTANTA) fails?

Given that Latin appears to use unrelated words to convey the same meaning, surely "circumstanta" is an example of a contrived "Latin" word adapted from French origin?

Cheers,

Sid.