On the origins of Romanian language

I have said "imprejurare" is a composed word, and that is why an ethymology is not given for it, but for the words its made up of. Therefore, it is a word of latin origin. And probably this kind of not mentioning the ethymology of composed words is the reason behind the "missing" 15% in that belgian table you offered.
That would push the latin origin words to 35%.

What? I think its pretty clear, do I have to spell it for you? What part of "do not 'import' " do you not understand, and what part of "it is in the dictionary"????

I reached the conclusion you have no idea what you are talking about.
Contrived latin word adapted from French? Just because we have "circum" and the french "circon". Oh my, you have no idea of linguistics...

p.s. Before we continue, I'd like to know what age you are please. Dont take it on a personal note, but your level of obstinancy and way of understanding some things puzzles me. Again, no offense intended, my age is on my profile, I'd like to know yours, or at least the age range, please.

take care

Hi D-13th Mytzu,

All the newer Anglo-Saxon countries have their own dialects, sometimes more than one. That is why they now have their own national dictionaries and don't just import British ones. The US has more than one dialect.

Even in Rhodesia, with a brief history and a maximum of only 270,000 English speakers, there was a distinct local dialect due to the absorption of Afrikaans and local African words into everyday speech. Nobody talked of cows, they talked of "mombes". The word "long" in Rhodesian English could mean "lots", unlike elsewhere. Fields were usually "vleis". Hills were "gomos". Traffic lights were "robots", and so on.

Cheers,

Sid.

Let’s get now to the discussion regarding the Romanian language itself. First of all, please keep this in mind: THERE ARE NO DIALECTS IN THE ROMANIAN LANGUAGE SPOKEN IN ROMANIA. Sorry if I am too blunt, but I’m really surprised that you have the nerve to go on and on saying that although you were told so many times that this is not true. By doing that, using as arguments two obscure internet sources, you defy the existence of two centuries of Romanian linguistics and the common knowledge of all the Romanian language speakers from this site. The only dialects of the Romanian are those spoken to the South of Danube. The Romanian language spoken in Romania has no dialect and many “graiuri”, this is a fact learned in the gymnasia Romanian language classes. The essential difference between dialect and “grai” is that the existence of the former implies substantial differences at the lexical level (different words for the same thing) and different grammar rules up to a certain degree, and the later mainly different pronunciations for the same words. And NO, the “Bucharest dialect” (which by the way does not exist) is not the basis of the Romanian literary language. The Muntenian “grai” (spoken also in Bucharest - and do not mistake it by the slang used in the bad Bucharest’s neighborhoods) is, like the other “graiuri”, different form the literary language (the use of “da” and “pa” instead of “de” and “pe”, the generalization of the singular number for substantives, adjectives and adverbs, etc) .

And another thing: STOP using “Valachians” for the contemporary Romanians. For some of us, at least for those in Transylvania, this is a derogatory term, associated with “olah” or “bozgor”. The first was use as an insult for the Romanians (equaling their ethnicity with an inferior social status and also with other attributes denoting their inferiority) and the second is an insult for the Transylvanian Hungarians, meaning “people without a country”. For your understanding, something like “nigger”…

This post has been edited by Agarici on August 16, 2005 07:44 pm

QED

Hi Imperialist,

I have little time.

Is your judgement that "imprejurare" is of Latin roots your personal opinion or derived from other sources? Either way, it would be nice to know what these specific Latin roots are.

The missing 15% aren't necessarily Latin so you cannot addthem arbitrarily to the Latin total.

Must go.

Cheers,

Sid.

But what are your sources to think I made it up, or its inaccurate?

No sources, just the erroneous premises with which you started the whole discussion -- that the current romanian language is made up of contrived words (hence nothing but an ellaborated lie), that the name Romania was contrived to make it look more like Rome/Roma, that the first dictionaries were written by french scholars (or HELPED them be written) who also engaged themselves in the purification of the language, etc., that the term romanian was changed from vlach for nationalistical reasons (not because it existed before -- that you found out from us) etc.

If you started with these premises, no wonder you doubt everything we say. But at the same time ask for more sources from us!!! Interesting strategy.

And to answer your question, my source was DEX, which breaks up "imprejurare" into its constituent parts, separating the root from the suffix/prefix/etc. The root is latin.

I cannot add them? Who says? You have to come up with the 9 languages which add 1,7% each to prove me wrong, Sid!

This post has been edited by Imperialist on August 16, 2005 06:19 pm

Sid, why are you not being fair ? you understood VERY well what I meant however you keep on going about the dialects ? Ok, this time I will put it even simpler so a 5 years could understand:

When you meet a US citizen and you speak with him IN ENGLISH do you consider that you speak english and he speaks some kind of dialect ?

Also on the message on Aug 16 2005, 04:07 PM you say:

The latin word is "circumstantia" . What res, tempus root are you referring to?
The romanian word is "circumstanta". The prefix circum you noticed different from the french "circon", is of latin origin. There are other words of latin origin which lack a french origin, but which present the same prefix "circum", in the romanian language. For example "circumcizie".
If circonstance appeared as a french neologism, it would have been only natural for the prefix "circon-" to be replaced by the romanians themselves with circum-. The latter already existed in the language, while the former was the result of the french language's evolution.
The role of the Academy was not to transform the circon into circum in a nationalist plot to make things look in a certain way, but to point out that if we already have a circum- there is no logic in introducing an alien circon-.
And that circon- is also the probable reason why the neologism circonstance was rejected by Maiorescu who affirmed its better to reject it and maintain imprejurare.
And now we have both imprejurare and circumstanta. Aint romanian language rich and beautiful?

----

About imprejur:

"Imprejur" = in+pre+jur
"jur" = from latin gyrus

Imprejur is of latin origin.

----

Hi Imperialist,

Yes. You obviously do have to spell it out for me.

You stated:

1) "today we find both imprejurare and circumstanta in the Romanian dictionary"

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

How can the central directive "do not import circumstanta" have failed if today it is in the Romanian dictionary?

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

"Gyrus" is actually of Greek origin. It is the Greek equivalent of "circum-".

What is your source for the Latin etymology of imprejurare?

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

My Latin Dictionary doesn't give "circumstantia". I will check elsewhere. Can you recommend a source? It says that res and tempus were used.

Cheers,

Sid.

Sid,would you care to explain how Latin took "gyrus" from Greek?Or your source is ,as always, wikipedia?Besides,even if Latin gyrus comes from Sanscrite it will still not prove your point that's simply because what Imperilaist said is that "the central directive" was TOU USE "CIRCUMSTANTA" IN PLACE OF "IMPREJURARE". The fact that dictionary contains BOTH and BOTH are used in curent language today MEANS that THE DIRECTIVE FAILED.
Geez man, at least die with some dignity

This post has been edited by Zayets on August 17, 2005 09:17 am

Gyrus is actually latin.... What is your source that gives it a greek origin?


"Circum" is actually the transformed in language form of "circa". Again, you have been caught "orbecaind" through notions and principles that you obviously comprehend not.
Why dont you learn more and come back later?

My language, and my dictionary. What is your source that its not?

Yes, I would recommend a good dictionary and some basic knowledge of latin.
Res and temous have nothing to do with the issue.

Look for circumsto,are,steti.

Why would it be in the dictionary if the "directive" would have succeeded and the language users would have been satisfied with using "imprejurare" and only "imprejurare". Whats so hard to comprehend?

This post has been edited by Imperialist on August 17, 2005 12:13 pm

Hi Zayets,

Are you saying that "gyrus" is not of Greek origin? Even my Latin dictionary says it is. Please check.

Cheers,

Sid.

My Latin dictionary has the word gyrus in it.
My Romanian dictionary, explicitly point out the latin origin of the word jur -- from the latin gyrus.
I would like to see what your latin dictionary says about gyrus -- from what greek word did it come?


p.s. And now you'll have the task of proving how the Romans re-latinised their language in a romanist maybe imperialist plot, by borrowing greek words and greek scholars, to make words look more like greek etc. And then the greeks, like Zayets said, in a devious plot borrowed from sanskrit etc.
[ I think you wouldnt last a semester in a Linguistics class, dude... ]

take care

Hi Imperialist,

Firstly, I owe you an apology. I completely misread your posts and my logic was at fault. Clearly the directive did fail and the Latinists got their way over circumstanta.

The clue over "gyrus" is in the letter "Y", which Latin did not originally have and borrowed from Greek in order to represent the Greek letter upsilon in borrowed Greek words. Check it out.

I cannot find "circumstantia" in any Classical Latin Dictionary. It may be Medieval Latin. I will dig further.

I may not be able to get back today, but I will resume tomorrow.

Cheers,

Sid.

I have said what I have said few posts above.Would you care to answer?Or you try to switch the whole discussion to a totaly different ground as you did from the begining?
I am sure now that you have no idea of what are you talking about.You're just fishing now in the hope that you'll fall on yer feet.Good luck