The passage you're quoting is literally in Slavonic. The letter used two languages.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It's the oldest known letter in Romanian, but keep coping
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yeah, and the beginning and the ending of this letter are literally in another language (because Slavonic was the official language of Wallachia back then). Nobody has ever claimed that the first passage of the letter is in Romanian. You're the one coping.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yes, I know that Romanians used Cyrillic. What are you trying to say? Mongols write with Cyrillic too, doesn't make them Slavic.
I speak Romanian and can't understand a word of that except Brasov
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
[...]
‘Brașov’ and ‘Necșul’ are names so
I can understand ‘ot’ as I remember from the high school but you can look for cognates and still recognize a few words like: >cistitomu
cinstit >zupan
jupân >zdravie
zdravăn
Still not enough to resemble romanian thoughever
The Romanian language part comes after that fragment
it literally says in the notes that the parts written in italics, as in the thing you screenshot, was slavic in the original letter. scroll down a bit to the non italics transliteration for the actual romanian part of the letter
The Gesta Hungarorum was still written 300 years after the fact radu. Nobody except romanian "historians" consider it a reliable source on the period.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Vlachs had been living in the Balkans for centuries when the mongoloid Magyars arrived on their small ugly horses, what are you gonna do about it, Slav-LARPing-as-mongol boy?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
your ancestors fricking goats on the balkans for centuries and not achieving anything of note is not as much of a boast as you might think
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>not achieving anything of note
I wish this meme would die. Irrelevance is comfy today and I see no reason to believe it hasn't always been comfy. Muh achievers just frick shit up for themselves and everyone else.
Hungarians are the indigenous people of the Carpathian Basin for thousands of years
Magyars who came in the 9th century were Turkic invaders who settled there and then adopted the local language (Hungarian)
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I know you're trolling and shitposting, most of this thread is that, but your post in a contradiction because it was the Magyar (Finno-Ugric) component that came in the 9th century that brought the Hungarian language, and it was many Turkic elements that existed here before that, not the other way around.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
There is zero proof that Magyars spoke Finno-Ugric, all their words that we know were actually Turkic, feel free to post proof to the contrary (you can't)
And even traditional scholarship agrees that there's nothing Ugric in Magyar material culture, it was completely Turkic (tools, art, clothing etc)
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>asks for proof of what it opposes >posts 0 of their own
Do turkic theorists really?
Having tons of loanwords doesn't change the origin of the language. Like 60% of Japanese is Chinese words, but it doesn't make Japanese a fake language.
Romanian is a bastard language, much like French or English. It's far too contaminated by outside influences to be a true Latin language, but it's also clearly not Slavic.
That's not how it works. Linguistic descent doesn't depend on loanwords. Language isn't just a bag of words.
t. linguistics degree holder
Polish also started borrowing more and more phrases and grammar structures from Latin as time went on but it wasn't called a "re-latinization" because the language was never a Romance language in the first place. And the same thing happened here. Romanian is not a direct descendant of Latin, it's a direct descendant of the language(s) that ancient Dacians spoke, which were similar to ancient Latin, other Italic languages and ancient Greek. Romans conquered them for a while and it got more Latin influences during that time because it was already quite similar.
>Romanian is not a direct descendant of Latin, it's a direct descendant of the language(s) that ancient Dacians spoke
Also nonsense.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Did I even mention loanwords?
You'd think someone with a linguistics degree should be able to parse a sentence.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
"Too contaminated by outside influences to be a true Latin language" is not how it works. Genetically, it's descended from Latin. There's no more or less descended, short of maybe creoles.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You sound like you've never heard of a Sprachbund.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I'm perfectly well aware of it. Sprachbunding does not affect what a language is genetically.
Having tons of loanwords doesn't change the origin of the language. Like 60% of Japanese is Chinese words, but it doesn't make Japanese a fake language.
>change the syntax of the language specifically to make it look older and support your lies about your origins >n-no faking going on!!
most truthful romangutan gypsy on the internet
Polish also started borrowing more and more phrases and grammar structures from Latin as time went on but it wasn't called a "re-latinization" because the language was never a Romance language in the first place. And the same thing happened here. Romanian is not a direct descendant of Latin, it's a direct descendant of the language(s) that ancient Dacians spoke, which were similar to ancient Latin, other Italic languages and ancient Greek. Romans conquered them for a while and it got more Latin influences during that time because it was already quite similar.
I’ve heard the theory that Latin and Celtic were more mutually intelligible in ancient days than they were now and that they diverged later on. Could this be true?
It's kind of hard to explain it at 3 AM but the gist of it is that as much as we know about continental celtic languages they had different phonetics, insular ones show different grammar including word order shift. We have 2 options. The insular celts had a grammatical shift after 200-300 AD but before the 600's, or that the celtic languages were sort of understandable between different celts despite differences in grammar before that period, only then a situation where italic and celtic languages would be sort of understandable for speakers of each(think Old English and Old Norse as an example) anywhere close to the historical times.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I’ve heard the theory that Latin and Celtic were more mutually intelligible in ancient days than they were now and that they diverged later on. Could this be true?
It is actually true. Italic and Celtic were a dialect continuum rather than two seperate branches of a family. Julius Caesar had to code his messages in Greek because the Gauls could read Latin. There is also the fact that written classical “Latin” itself as we know it is ALSO an artificial, fake language. Real Latin as spoken by people day-to-day was different. “Classical” “latin” was deliberately concieved as a poetic script. Real latin was mututally intelligible with Gaullish.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Real Latin, at least from the very late Republic and later, was also quite close to modern Italian and Spanish, much closer than the artificial Classical Latin.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>“Classical” “latin” was deliberately concieved as a poetic script.
A good modern example of this would be Received Pronunciation.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Not really, spoken Latin and Classical Latin had massive differences in vocabulary and grammar, not just pronunciation. It's more like Chaucerian English vs colloquial English.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
But Chaucerian English reflects how English was spoken in those days, if with a bit more polish and poetic quality.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Please don't be autistic. It's an analogue of the difference between between spoken Latin and Classical Latin. I wanted to illustrate how big the linguistic difference was between those two.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
If Classical Latin isn't based on how Latin was spoken at some point, what is it? Are you saying it's just a conlang?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Kind of. It's based on earlier forms of Latin, with artificially fossilised features, irregularities were deliberately selected for and preserved to make it more complicated and "prestigious".
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
How do you know?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
What?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I'm asking from what specific historical sources the thing you're claiming is known.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It's not history, it's linguistics.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It's historical linguistics, but my point is it has to be known somehow, how is it known?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Graffitos and other fragments written in spoken Latin show what spoken Latin looked like.
Mistakes that people made when writing Classical Latin also show us what spoken Latin looked like.
Daughter languages like Italian and Spanish can also be used to reconstruct spoken Latin.
Very ancient monuments and tombstones show us what ancient Latin looked like (Priscas Latinitas).
Finally we of course know what Classical Latin looked like. Then you just have to put all these together and draw conclusions.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Italic and Celtic were a dialect continuum rather than two seperate branches of a family.
So Italic is just a branch of Celtic? What’s the purest of the Latin and Celtic language?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>So Italic is just a branch of Celtic?
No. >What’s the purest of the Latin and Celtic language?
You'd have to define more clearly what you mean by "purest".
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Would love to hear those transitional languages between Italic and Gallic. Most have been sexy.
no, there were never celtic language
gauls and latins speak similar one tho
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>no, there were never celtic language
What are Irish, Welsh, etc?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Anglo-Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Dane rape babies in denial...
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Okay but what do you call the branch of Indo-European that Irish, Welsh, Breton etc belong to if not "Celtic"? I'm asking about the language, mind, not the genes of the people who speak it.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Sanscrit.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
What? That's a language, not a branch, and from an entirely different branch.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Indo-European >Indo
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yes, but the Indo-Aryan languages are an entirely different branch of IE than Celtic. I'm not sure what you're saying here.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
"Indo-Aryan"
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
"Indo-Aryan" is the name of a specific sub-branch of IE, being part of the larger Indo-Iranian sub-branch. Do you know anything about Indo-European linguistics?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It's Indo-European. "Indo-Aryan" is cope, but you're related 101%.
Celtic is Sanscrit
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
How is "Indo-Aryan" cope? You don't think it's a valid subgrouping of IE? >Celtic is Sanscrit
How? They're from different branches of IE.
>Romanian is not a direct descendant of Latin, it's a direct descendant of the language(s) that ancient Dacians spoke, which were similar to ancient Latin,
One of the most insanely idiotic ideas ever conceived about this subject. Whoever made this shit up probably intended to poison all discussions on the subject.
The language was still like 50% Latin 25% Slavic by word origin in the Middle Ages and almost entirely Latin by grammar.
Re-Latinization was just importing neologisms from the West for all the new concepts in medicine, engineering, etc. that were entering society during that time.
Names are imported from other cultures including Hebrew like for many European countries.
The vocabulary has been studied and it's always been predominantly Latin.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Names are either imported via religion (Greek, Hebrew) or are indigenous to your culture. In your case that should be Latin, but somehow it is actually Slavic...
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
What about Roman names in the English-speaking word, like Julius, Emily, etc?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Just ignore the millions of French, Spaniards and Italians with German names.
Britons with Latin names.
Finns with German names.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
This, probably millions of native Americans have Germanic names like Rodrigo/Roderic
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
There are actually a lot of Germans with Latin names as well.
Like Remus (mythical founder of Rome) is more common in Germany than in fricking Italy.
It happens naturally from friction between neighboring cultures.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Names are either imported via religion (Greek, Hebrew) or are indigenous to your culture. In your case that should be Latin, but somehow it is actually Slavic...
Romaninans still have a small number of names that are Latin-derived and aren't borrowed. Also, sometimes religion can cuck the people out of native names completely. For example, virtually all Russian names since the 17th century have been Greek/Latin/Hebrew. Pagan names like Igor or Vladimir didn't regain popularity until the 19th-20th cc.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
This, probably millions of native Americans have Germanic names like Rodrigo/Roderic
Just ignore the millions of French, Spaniards and Italians with German names.
Britons with Latin names.
Finns with German names.
What about Roman names in the English-speaking word, like Julius, Emily, etc?
I see the Romanian defence force is here. You're all just Bulgarians speaking a made up language.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Bulgarians are still our relatives even though they were assimilated by the Slavs while we were not.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
The Bulgarians that were assimilated by Slavs were Turkics, are you fricking Turkic now?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Both our countries are made up predominantly of native Balkanic peoples, with Slavic and a small amount of steppe Turkic admixture.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Lmao, if Romanians are Turkic now then go embrace your Hungarian and Bulgarian brothers
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Poo poo pee pee.
If you are incapable of arguing like a grown up we might as well do this instead.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Pagan names like Igor or Vladimir didn't regain popularity until the 19th-20th
When did Vlad thr Impaler live, anon?
>Re-Latinization was just importing neologisms from the West for all the new concepts in medicine, engineering, etc.
Half the truth and you know it homosexual. Re-latinization saw a lot of imported words for daily use outside of your cited fields.
Hence we got words like: speranta, functie, secret, misiune, a permite, abonament, biscuit, mister, pudoare, silaba, model and so on
Yes, we imported words but many of them were borrowed because we had no counterpart, like some of your examples: abonament, biscuit, pudoare.
A ton daily words use by romanians originate from vulgar latin: >time (timp) >sky (cer) >milk (lapte) >to feel (a simti) >kindness (bunatate) >to move (a misca)
But there are many words with slav origin as well: >road (drum) >to smile (a zambi) >luck (noroc) >kid (copil) >to hit (a lovi)
He have to accept our slavic heritage the same way as our latin one.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>>road (drum)
it's greek actually from dromos >pudoare
ruşine from latin had already existed. there were also sfială and jenă
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I thought drum comes from the slav 'drumu', but I would not be surprised if it was borrowed from greek.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Well we have words like ‘hypodromos’ which predate even the first records of slavs
Romanian identity as a daco-roman nationality exists since the 19th century, it's a fairly recent invention
This daco-roman concept has no ancient or even medieval roots with any continuity whatsoever
Vlachs didn't actually hide in the Carpathian mountains or in Albania or in the hills of kosovo.
They were perfectly active both culturally, politically but not in ways modern romanians can readily identify with.
Sadly, medieval vlachs are better understood in Bulgaria than in modern Romania. It really is a shame how vlachs cucked their identity. It's irreversible.
Depends on who you ask, they were either there the whole time doing nothing or they migrated north from Latinized areas of the south balkans. A lot of Vlach were wandering tribes as well. Magyar and Romanians have been fighting about this forever.
I find it amusing how in these discussions it is always Romanians who are singled out as the anomaly or the freaks in this region but never South Slavs, as if the later are somehow the default or normal in the region.
Because I'm asking how did they not get assimilated or genocided during the slavic migration, they, the hungarians, and the germans the a linguistic break in the slavs. I know Austria was reconquered by germans and hungarians assimilated their slavs, but what about Romania?
Nobody cared about that shithole ever basically
Their Slavic admixture is way lower than in Hungarians because even slaves didn't want to migrate there so there was never really a pressure to change languages
Real mystery is how Hungarian language survived when they're 90%+ Slavic today, the same happened in Bulgaria and of course they speak Slavic today
So to put in very simplistic terms, as also implied, the lands of former Roman Dacia were "leftovers" while Moesia, Dalmatia and Thrace were the "main prize"
Alright
A possible explanation is that Slavic migration and later state building focused on the regions to the South of what is today's Romania, because those were richer and more heavily populated provinces. So that is where the bulk of Slavdom went, while the regions of today's Romania were less significant and acted more as a buffer between the various emerging early medieval states.
So Romance elements in Bulgaria and Yugoslavia were greatly diminished while less Slavic pressure existed in today's Romania. That isn't saying there was no Slav influence, there definitely was all over the region , as there are Slav toponyms in all Romanian regions, and Slav populations were present, but the idea is that the main Slav colonization was in the South and that's where Slavs outnumbered Latins.
Wait. They had a cyrillic alphabet before this? But they aren‘t Slavs? So are they similar to Bulgarians, who aren’t technically Slavs either. But what actually are they? What were they before they were Romanians? How he frick did they survive while having no political entity under which they could organize?
They are descendants of Illyrians who migrated to present-day Romania in the 13th century. They used Cyrillic writing in the past because they got psyopped into Slavic Orthodox Christianity. They speak a Latin language with a massive amount of Slavic loanwords. Illyrians were Romanized in antiquity so that's why they spoke Latin.
It didn’t ‘survive’. You have it backwards. Medieval Vlach, which was a dialect continuum spanning from Dukla Pass (Goral people formerly spoke a Vlach language) all the way to Greece, was a heavily altered form of Latin and was only spoken by a handful of isolated peoples.
The majority of persons in Wallachia and Bulgaria spoke Bulgarian Slavic language. Romania itself was also home to many, many Cuman, Pecheneg, Turkic Tatar speakers as well. In facr this was the vast majority of romania population. With few Ukrainian or Rusyn Slavs in Moldova or in the north. In Transylvania, there were more Vlachs, but still a minority.
Well, when the principalites were freed from Turkey, they wanted something to justify their independence. So they invented the “Romanian” fake ethnicity. With a complete fake language. They purged Vlach and made it very French and Italian, with many loanwords. They altered the grammar structure. This is the true story of how “Romania” (fake country) was born. In reality, it should have become part of Austria Hungary and Bulgaria.
So “Romanian” did not “survive”, it was artificially spread to become language of people living in the principalities. In the 19th century.
Why are people itt acting like Genetics has anything to do with language? The Romanians could all be descended from a tribe of Native Americans who rowed across the Atlantic in canoes and that wouldn't change the fact that they speak a Romance language.
Slavicists will without a hint of irony tell you Bulgarians and Byelorussians are part of the same extended ethnic group.
Or even worse, that most Greeks are genetically Slavic.
I don't thing I have the time and energy to debunk every single lie and nonsense in this thread, but I was thinking just yesterday about an analogy.
Suppose that most of Gaul and large parts of Northern Spain and Italy were completely overrun by Germanic speakers, leaving the only Gallo-Romance people as a remnants in the Massif Central region.
You would have Gothic in Southern coast of France and Northern Spain, Burgundians in the East and Provence, Lombards in Northern Italy and Franks in the North, cutting of Gallo-Romans from the other romance populations further South
Centuries later the Germanics in these ecountries would start claiming these Gallo-Romance people are somehow a foreign or artificial element and claim their lands for themselves
Because they have imposed the state language in the past few centuries as part of modern nation-building, yes. At the time of the Revolution most of France did not speak French, or only in the loosest sense of the word.
A very rough sketch
Blue = Germanics
Shades of red, orange and pink = Romance
I usually hate alternate history maps, becasue they are mostly garbage and confuse people on the internet, but sometimes they can be useful to visualize things.
Not him but I think it has to do with the Jireček Line. But in Roman times the North Balkans was more latinized than Hellenized. Could be these settlements are the origin of Romanians and not the Dacians. But it maybe Magyar propaganda.
Honestly basal Romanian was probably some stray (so conservative) Celtic, and old Celtic easily switched to Latin. Look at Cisalpine and Narbonensian Gaul.
All the Dacians switched to Latin under the Empire and when the Empire left, they kept the Latin to keep the trade going.
‘Brașov’ and ‘Necșul’ are names so
I can understand ‘ot’ as I remember from the high school but you can look for cognates and still recognize a few words like: >cistitomu
cinstit >zupan
jupân >zdravie
zdravăn
Still not enough to resemble romanian thoughever
They added a lot of Italian and French words in the 19th century to replace most of the Slavic and Turkish origin words Romanian language had.
Modern Romanian is an artificial Frankenstein.
Cause indian languages didn't die with muslim invasions
you three are such fricking brainwashed Black folk, all of you subhumans belong to rot in hell
>Romanian
>not Slavic
I'm a Slavic speaker and I understand 100% of this Romanian letter
"Wise and noble and highly regarded and God gifted zupan (like a royal title) Hanas Begner of Brasov, Lots of health from Necsul of Dlugopole"
Wow, you speak Romanian?
no its just very close to slavic
The passage you're quoting is literally in Slavonic. The letter used two languages.
It's the oldest known letter in Romanian, but keep coping
Yeah, and the beginning and the ending of this letter are literally in another language (because Slavonic was the official language of Wallachia back then). Nobody has ever claimed that the first passage of the letter is in Romanian. You're the one coping.
Yes, I know that Romanians used Cyrillic. What are you trying to say? Mongols write with Cyrillic too, doesn't make them Slavic.
>oldest text is from 15 fricking 21
talk about a fake nation, lol!
Agreed, your nation is ancient and real, so time for you to go back to your real ancient homeland in Central Asia
KEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK
I speak Romanian and can't understand a word of that except Brasov
The Romanian language part comes after that fragment
it literally says in the notes that the parts written in italics, as in the thing you screenshot, was slavic in the original letter. scroll down a bit to the non italics transliteration for the actual romanian part of the letter
>implying
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-latinization_of_Romanian
>fake ethnicity
>fake language
>stolen land
what did I even expect
>"fake"
Who is it backed by and why? I'm Hungarian btw. The Gesta Hungarorum describes Vlachs as already living in the land when we arrived.
>something something habsburgs! even though the habsburgs lifted hungarian up to co-official language of their empire.
What? meds
The Gesta Hungarorum was still written 300 years after the fact radu. Nobody except romanian "historians" consider it a reliable source on the period.
Vlachs had been living in the Balkans for centuries when the mongoloid Magyars arrived on their small ugly horses, what are you gonna do about it, Slav-LARPing-as-mongol boy?
your ancestors fricking goats on the balkans for centuries and not achieving anything of note is not as much of a boast as you might think
>not achieving anything of note
I wish this meme would die. Irrelevance is comfy today and I see no reason to believe it hasn't always been comfy. Muh achievers just frick shit up for themselves and everyone else.
„Facerea de bine este futere de mamă.”
Stolen from whom?
Hungarians are the indigenous people of the Carpathian Basin for thousands of years
Magyars who came in the 9th century were Turkic invaders who settled there and then adopted the local language (Hungarian)
I know you're trolling and shitposting, most of this thread is that, but your post in a contradiction because it was the Magyar (Finno-Ugric) component that came in the 9th century that brought the Hungarian language, and it was many Turkic elements that existed here before that, not the other way around.
There is zero proof that Magyars spoke Finno-Ugric, all their words that we know were actually Turkic, feel free to post proof to the contrary (you can't)
And even traditional scholarship agrees that there's nothing Ugric in Magyar material culture, it was completely Turkic (tools, art, clothing etc)
>asks for proof of what it opposes
>posts 0 of their own
Do turkic theorists really?
Did you read the article? It's not like it was a slavic language before that.
Romanian is a bastard language, much like French or English. It's far too contaminated by outside influences to be a true Latin language, but it's also clearly not Slavic.
That's not how it works. Linguistic descent doesn't depend on loanwords. Language isn't just a bag of words.
t. linguistics degree holder
>Romanian is not a direct descendant of Latin, it's a direct descendant of the language(s) that ancient Dacians spoke
Also nonsense.
Did I even mention loanwords?
You'd think someone with a linguistics degree should be able to parse a sentence.
"Too contaminated by outside influences to be a true Latin language" is not how it works. Genetically, it's descended from Latin. There's no more or less descended, short of maybe creoles.
You sound like you've never heard of a Sprachbund.
I'm perfectly well aware of it. Sprachbunding does not affect what a language is genetically.
>bastard language
moron logic
They just wanted to make Hungarians and Pan-Slavists seethe.
they were lying, as always.
Having tons of loanwords doesn't change the origin of the language. Like 60% of Japanese is Chinese words, but it doesn't make Japanese a fake language.
>change the syntax of the language specifically to make it look older and support your lies about your origins
>n-no faking going on!!
most truthful romangutan gypsy on the internet
none of those are loanwords. they are forced latinisms, like the recent spelling changes to make the copula, when written, look like the latin one.
Polish also started borrowing more and more phrases and grammar structures from Latin as time went on but it wasn't called a "re-latinization" because the language was never a Romance language in the first place. And the same thing happened here. Romanian is not a direct descendant of Latin, it's a direct descendant of the language(s) that ancient Dacians spoke, which were similar to ancient Latin, other Italic languages and ancient Greek. Romans conquered them for a while and it got more Latin influences during that time because it was already quite similar.
roman originating pseudo history on steroids
I’ve heard the theory that Latin and Celtic were more mutually intelligible in ancient days than they were now and that they diverged later on. Could this be true?
No.
It's kind of hard to explain it at 3 AM but the gist of it is that as much as we know about continental celtic languages they had different phonetics, insular ones show different grammar including word order shift. We have 2 options. The insular celts had a grammatical shift after 200-300 AD but before the 600's, or that the celtic languages were sort of understandable between different celts despite differences in grammar before that period, only then a situation where italic and celtic languages would be sort of understandable for speakers of each(think Old English and Old Norse as an example) anywhere close to the historical times.
It is actually true. Italic and Celtic were a dialect continuum rather than two seperate branches of a family. Julius Caesar had to code his messages in Greek because the Gauls could read Latin. There is also the fact that written classical “Latin” itself as we know it is ALSO an artificial, fake language. Real Latin as spoken by people day-to-day was different. “Classical” “latin” was deliberately concieved as a poetic script. Real latin was mututally intelligible with Gaullish.
Real Latin, at least from the very late Republic and later, was also quite close to modern Italian and Spanish, much closer than the artificial Classical Latin.
>“Classical” “latin” was deliberately concieved as a poetic script.
A good modern example of this would be Received Pronunciation.
Not really, spoken Latin and Classical Latin had massive differences in vocabulary and grammar, not just pronunciation. It's more like Chaucerian English vs colloquial English.
But Chaucerian English reflects how English was spoken in those days, if with a bit more polish and poetic quality.
Please don't be autistic. It's an analogue of the difference between between spoken Latin and Classical Latin. I wanted to illustrate how big the linguistic difference was between those two.
If Classical Latin isn't based on how Latin was spoken at some point, what is it? Are you saying it's just a conlang?
Kind of. It's based on earlier forms of Latin, with artificially fossilised features, irregularities were deliberately selected for and preserved to make it more complicated and "prestigious".
How do you know?
What?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book
I'm asking from what specific historical sources the thing you're claiming is known.
It's not history, it's linguistics.
It's historical linguistics, but my point is it has to be known somehow, how is it known?
Graffitos and other fragments written in spoken Latin show what spoken Latin looked like.
Mistakes that people made when writing Classical Latin also show us what spoken Latin looked like.
Daughter languages like Italian and Spanish can also be used to reconstruct spoken Latin.
Very ancient monuments and tombstones show us what ancient Latin looked like (Priscas Latinitas).
Finally we of course know what Classical Latin looked like. Then you just have to put all these together and draw conclusions.
>Italic and Celtic were a dialect continuum rather than two seperate branches of a family.
So Italic is just a branch of Celtic? What’s the purest of the Latin and Celtic language?
>So Italic is just a branch of Celtic?
No.
>What’s the purest of the Latin and Celtic language?
You'd have to define more clearly what you mean by "purest".
Would love to hear those transitional languages between Italic and Gallic. Most have been sexy.
no, there were never celtic language
gauls and latins speak similar one tho
>no, there were never celtic language
What are Irish, Welsh, etc?
Anglo-Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Dane rape babies in denial...
Okay but what do you call the branch of Indo-European that Irish, Welsh, Breton etc belong to if not "Celtic"? I'm asking about the language, mind, not the genes of the people who speak it.
Sanscrit.
What? That's a language, not a branch, and from an entirely different branch.
>Indo-European
>Indo
Yes, but the Indo-Aryan languages are an entirely different branch of IE than Celtic. I'm not sure what you're saying here.
"Indo-Aryan"
"Indo-Aryan" is the name of a specific sub-branch of IE, being part of the larger Indo-Iranian sub-branch. Do you know anything about Indo-European linguistics?
It's Indo-European. "Indo-Aryan" is cope, but you're related 101%.
Celtic is Sanscrit
How is "Indo-Aryan" cope? You don't think it's a valid subgrouping of IE?
>Celtic is Sanscrit
How? They're from different branches of IE.
>Romanian is not a direct descendant of Latin, it's a direct descendant of the language(s) that ancient Dacians spoke, which were similar to ancient Latin,
One of the most insanely idiotic ideas ever conceived about this subject. Whoever made this shit up probably intended to poison all discussions on the subject.
They always gypsy nomad with goat cheese fetish
Haven't lots of languages had linguistic purism movements?
The language was still like 50% Latin 25% Slavic by word origin in the Middle Ages and almost entirely Latin by grammar.
Re-Latinization was just importing neologisms from the West for all the new concepts in medicine, engineering, etc. that were entering society during that time.
More like 75% Slavic... all the well known Romanian names are Slavic... Radu... VLAD....
Names are imported from other cultures including Hebrew like for many European countries.
The vocabulary has been studied and it's always been predominantly Latin.
Names are either imported via religion (Greek, Hebrew) or are indigenous to your culture. In your case that should be Latin, but somehow it is actually Slavic...
What about Roman names in the English-speaking word, like Julius, Emily, etc?
Just ignore the millions of French, Spaniards and Italians with German names.
Britons with Latin names.
Finns with German names.
This, probably millions of native Americans have Germanic names like Rodrigo/Roderic
There are actually a lot of Germans with Latin names as well.
Like Remus (mythical founder of Rome) is more common in Germany than in fricking Italy.
It happens naturally from friction between neighboring cultures.
>Names are either imported via religion (Greek, Hebrew) or are indigenous to your culture. In your case that should be Latin, but somehow it is actually Slavic...
Romaninans still have a small number of names that are Latin-derived and aren't borrowed. Also, sometimes religion can cuck the people out of native names completely. For example, virtually all Russian names since the 17th century have been Greek/Latin/Hebrew. Pagan names like Igor or Vladimir didn't regain popularity until the 19th-20th cc.
I see the Romanian defence force is here. You're all just Bulgarians speaking a made up language.
Bulgarians are still our relatives even though they were assimilated by the Slavs while we were not.
The Bulgarians that were assimilated by Slavs were Turkics, are you fricking Turkic now?
Both our countries are made up predominantly of native Balkanic peoples, with Slavic and a small amount of steppe Turkic admixture.
Lmao, if Romanians are Turkic now then go embrace your Hungarian and Bulgarian brothers
Poo poo pee pee.
If you are incapable of arguing like a grown up we might as well do this instead.
>Pagan names like Igor or Vladimir didn't regain popularity until the 19th-20th
When did Vlad thr Impaler live, anon?
He's talking about Russia you fricking idiot.
>Re-Latinization was just importing neologisms from the West for all the new concepts in medicine, engineering, etc.
Half the truth and you know it homosexual. Re-latinization saw a lot of imported words for daily use outside of your cited fields.
Hence we got words like: speranta, functie, secret, misiune, a permite, abonament, biscuit, mister, pudoare, silaba, model and so on
You guys should just embrace the fact that you got cucked into a Slavic religion and stuffed your language full of Slavic words.
>Slavic religion
it's judeo-greek
stuffed your language full of Slavic words
not anymore since re-latinisation and newer english words 😉
>Slavic religion
Romanians worship Perun?
Worse, they worship Cyril and Methodius.
Yes, we imported words but many of them were borrowed because we had no counterpart, like some of your examples: abonament, biscuit, pudoare.
A ton daily words use by romanians originate from vulgar latin:
>time (timp)
>sky (cer)
>milk (lapte)
>to feel (a simti)
>kindness (bunatate)
>to move (a misca)
But there are many words with slav origin as well:
>road (drum)
>to smile (a zambi)
>luck (noroc)
>kid (copil)
>to hit (a lovi)
He have to accept our slavic heritage the same way as our latin one.
>>road (drum)
it's greek actually from dromos
>pudoare
ruşine from latin had already existed. there were also sfială and jenă
I thought drum comes from the slav 'drumu', but I would not be surprised if it was borrowed from greek.
Well we have words like ‘hypodromos’ which predate even the first records of slavs
they hid in the hills until they could form a state
Romanian identity as a daco-roman nationality exists since the 19th century, it's a fairly recent invention
This daco-roman concept has no ancient or even medieval roots with any continuity whatsoever
Vlachs didn't actually hide in the Carpathian mountains or in Albania or in the hills of kosovo.
They were perfectly active both culturally, politically but not in ways modern romanians can readily identify with.
Sadly, medieval vlachs are better understood in Bulgaria than in modern Romania. It really is a shame how vlachs cucked their identity. It's irreversible.
Depends on who you ask, they were either there the whole time doing nothing or they migrated north from Latinized areas of the south balkans. A lot of Vlach were wandering tribes as well. Magyar and Romanians have been fighting about this forever.
they can keep this language for themselves, but genetically they are predominantly Slavic.
They’re gigamutts.
>R1a/I2 Slavic
>R1b Celto-Germanic
>J2 Arab/EEF
>E1b1b Nafri
You are moronic. E1b1b is from EEF, J2 is from Greeks, and R1b is from Yamnaya.
they are literally South Slavic, J2, E1b and R1b are native and similarly found among, for example, Montenegrins.
E1b is thracian, J2 is illyrian and greek
Because it wasn't ruled from Constantinople when Phocas allowed the balkans to be overrun
it's a fake language created in the 19th century
I find it amusing how in these discussions it is always Romanians who are singled out as the anomaly or the freaks in this region but never South Slavs, as if the later are somehow the default or normal in the region.
Because I'm asking how did they not get assimilated or genocided during the slavic migration, they, the hungarians, and the germans the a linguistic break in the slavs. I know Austria was reconquered by germans and hungarians assimilated their slavs, but what about Romania?
Nobody cared about that shithole ever basically
Their Slavic admixture is way lower than in Hungarians because even slaves didn't want to migrate there so there was never really a pressure to change languages
Real mystery is how Hungarian language survived when they're 90%+ Slavic today, the same happened in Bulgaria and of course they speak Slavic today
So to put in very simplistic terms, as also implied, the lands of former Roman Dacia were "leftovers" while Moesia, Dalmatia and Thrace were the "main prize"
Alright
A possible explanation is that Slavic migration and later state building focused on the regions to the South of what is today's Romania, because those were richer and more heavily populated provinces. So that is where the bulk of Slavdom went, while the regions of today's Romania were less significant and acted more as a buffer between the various emerging early medieval states.
So Romance elements in Bulgaria and Yugoslavia were greatly diminished while less Slavic pressure existed in today's Romania. That isn't saying there was no Slav influence, there definitely was all over the region , as there are Slav toponyms in all Romanian regions, and Slav populations were present, but the idea is that the main Slav colonization was in the South and that's where Slavs outnumbered Latins.
the Romanian language was heavily influenced by Slavic languages, about 40% of our vocabulary is influenced by Slavic
Wait. They had a cyrillic alphabet before this? But they aren‘t Slavs? So are they similar to Bulgarians, who aren’t technically Slavs either. But what actually are they? What were they before they were Romanians? How he frick did they survive while having no political entity under which they could organize?
They are descendants of Illyrians who migrated to present-day Romania in the 13th century. They used Cyrillic writing in the past because they got psyopped into Slavic Orthodox Christianity. They speak a Latin language with a massive amount of Slavic loanwords. Illyrians were Romanized in antiquity so that's why they spoke Latin.
…
Romania is the result of Latinized Balkanians fleeing away from the Slavs into the Carpathian mountains.
And let's not forget about untouchables fleeing from India to the same place
Shit map. Albanians are from the Caucasus.
t. serbroach
Latinized Albanians?
It didn’t ‘survive’. You have it backwards. Medieval Vlach, which was a dialect continuum spanning from Dukla Pass (Goral people formerly spoke a Vlach language) all the way to Greece, was a heavily altered form of Latin and was only spoken by a handful of isolated peoples.
The majority of persons in Wallachia and Bulgaria spoke Bulgarian Slavic language. Romania itself was also home to many, many Cuman, Pecheneg, Turkic Tatar speakers as well. In facr this was the vast majority of romania population. With few Ukrainian or Rusyn Slavs in Moldova or in the north. In Transylvania, there were more Vlachs, but still a minority.
Well, when the principalites were freed from Turkey, they wanted something to justify their independence. So they invented the “Romanian” fake ethnicity. With a complete fake language. They purged Vlach and made it very French and Italian, with many loanwords. They altered the grammar structure. This is the true story of how “Romania” (fake country) was born. In reality, it should have become part of Austria Hungary and Bulgaria.
So “Romanian” did not “survive”, it was artificially spread to become language of people living in the principalities. In the 19th century.
Why are people itt acting like Genetics has anything to do with language? The Romanians could all be descended from a tribe of Native Americans who rowed across the Atlantic in canoes and that wouldn't change the fact that they speak a Romance language.
This whole board is based on medieval fantasies of language = genes so go away
Are they latinized Albanians?
This chart really freaks me out. Especially since the weeks are flying by like how days used to. What’s happening to me?
It's only natural. Don't get stressed over it
If you take care of yourselves you have a good chance of reaching longevity escape velocity and live forever. I'm assuming you're both under 40.
It's plausible enough to give hope, but it's not certain. You should sign up for cryonics just in case.
I doubt we can live forever. Eventually you will be run over by bus
Slavicists will without a hint of irony tell you Bulgarians and Byelorussians are part of the same extended ethnic group.
Or even worse, that most Greeks are genetically Slavic.
I don't thing I have the time and energy to debunk every single lie and nonsense in this thread, but I was thinking just yesterday about an analogy.
Suppose that most of Gaul and large parts of Northern Spain and Italy were completely overrun by Germanic speakers, leaving the only Gallo-Romance people as a remnants in the Massif Central region.
You would have Gothic in Southern coast of France and Northern Spain, Burgundians in the East and Provence, Lombards in Northern Italy and Franks in the North, cutting of Gallo-Romans from the other romance populations further South
Centuries later the Germanics in these ecountries would start claiming these Gallo-Romance people are somehow a foreign or artificial element and claim their lands for themselves
Everyone in this thread has more chance of touching a boob than touching an actual fricking linguistics textbook
With textbook prices nowadays, you could probably touch a hooker's boob for much cheaper anyways
Libgen and Sci-Hub, my friend.
What's up with the light blotches? Curious... You would assume that ancient Romanian lands are full of Romanian speakers...
Is there any language in Europe that's actually spoken in a clean, contiguous area without blur and overlap?
Most countries don't have massive chunks of the country where the state language isn't spoken at all.
Because they have imposed the state language in the past few centuries as part of modern nation-building, yes. At the time of the Revolution most of France did not speak French, or only in the loosest sense of the word.
A very rough sketch
Blue = Germanics
Shades of red, orange and pink = Romance
I usually hate alternate history maps, becasue they are mostly garbage and confuse people on the internet, but sometimes they can be useful to visualize things.
Because Romanians didn't enter the region until the Ottoman invasions of the Balkans and a mass migration of Vlach people entered the region
Okay bozgor
Every famous medieval "Romanian" ruler was Cuman or part Cuman
Even if that was true, it has 0 relevance for the earlier claim
It shows you the real people that were living there
More than one group can live in a large region, anon.
Right so you agree the Vlachs moved north into what is modern Romania after the 1500's
No
This claim is beyond moronic but sadly expected in any thread regarding Romanians
Tell me more about this theory. What part of the balakns were they living in before? Rumelia? Maceodonia? Albania?
Not him but I think it has to do with the Jireček Line. But in Roman times the North Balkans was more latinized than Hellenized. Could be these settlements are the origin of Romanians and not the Dacians. But it maybe Magyar propaganda.
Northern Greece, Albania and Macedonia
Honestly basal Romanian was probably some stray (so conservative) Celtic, and old Celtic easily switched to Latin. Look at Cisalpine and Narbonensian Gaul.
All the Dacians switched to Latin under the Empire and when the Empire left, they kept the Latin to keep the trade going.
You're coming with things that are way too esoteric for the level of this board, anon.
‘Brașov’ and ‘Necșul’ are names so
I can understand ‘ot’ as I remember from the high school but you can look for cognates and still recognize a few words like:
>cistitomu
cinstit
>zupan
jupân
>zdravie
zdravăn
Still not enough to resemble romanian thoughever
meant for
>thread is still up, for almost a week now
Balkanoids still can't stop shitflinging lmao
>WE ARE NOT SLAVS
>their most famous ruler is called Vladislav
>Hungarians
>WE ARE NOT SLAVS
>All their rules and every single fricking male is called Laslo which means Ladislav
What language would Magyars be speaking if they didn’t get Hunned?
Pannonian Slavic. It would be the missing link between West, South and East Slavic. It survives in the 20% of Hungarian vocabulary which is Slavic.
How long will the Magyar serfs reject their Slavic blood? Come home István!
They are too busy jerking off to 0.001% Hun blood some of them have
They didn't, "Romania" was born out of enlightenment era larp
They added a lot of Italian and French words in the 19th century to replace most of the Slavic and Turkish origin words Romanian language had.
Modern Romanian is an artificial Frankenstein.