On the origins of Romanian language

Hi Imperialist,

1) You at 1054AM: "The five subdialects mentioned........ are subdialects in relation to the daco-roman dialect, which is at the basis of the Romanian language". Meaning: Daco-Romanian had five sub-dialects.

2) You at 1132AM: "The Romanian language, based on the Daco-Roman dialect, has 5 subdialects....". Meaning: Current Romanian has five sub-dialects.

You see the problem?

I appreciate that you are writing here in a second language, so I am not going to make a big issue of it, but I would appreciate clarification as to which you mean.

Cheers,

Sid.

Jesus Christ Sid!
You take the whole doodoo out their context and you posted a conclusion based on that! And then you wonder why this discussion started.Unbelieveable how tard some people are.

No, I see no problem.
There are 4 dialects -- 3 south of the danube, 1 north of the danube. The one north of the danube has 5 subdialects. The same north danube dialect, due to particular historical development has lead to the development of the Romanian language.
So you either accept that the Romanian language developed on the basis of the daco-roman dialect has 5 sub-dialects, either you accept that the daco-roman dialect, the basis of the Romanian language, has 5 subdialects. Either way, its pretty much the same things, hence, I see no problem. Why do you want to create a probelm out of this too?

I think you should open a new thread for this Olaf, especially if someone has some images with those clay tablets.
Yes, some say they are the earliest, but they certainly are not written in Romanian...

Hi Imperialist,

Why am I not suprised that you see no problem in giving two diametrically opposed renditions of exactly the same piece of Romanian and then contending that both are accurate?

I will continue to ask D13th Mytzu and/or Victor how the passage actually translates, as you are patently incapable of giving a straight answer.

Cheers,

Sid.

OK, this is a gratuitous personal remark. I hope the moderators will take the appropriate measures.

I have gone at length to find sources, give explanations and examples so as to answer to your questions or assertions. My patience has limits. This is another deliberate attempt of yours to flame the thread by using personal remarks.

This was my message to which you replied:

Are there ANY personal remarks from me against you? No, just a "patently incapable" explanation...

But then I ask what are the 5 subdialects of the Daco-Roman dialect?

And Sid, cut the **** and stick to the conversation.You are drifting away again and you put your own words into somebody else's mouth. Please.

What do you mean?

Avoid the personal remarks and stay on topic.

What do you mean?

Sid drawn this conclusion:

And I wonder which are the five subdialects of the Daco-Romanian.

The second translation is the correct one:

"The Romanian language, based on the Daco-Roman dialect, has 5 subdialects"

Personally I feel that this discussion has long since lost its purpouse. I am also fascinated by the interest shown in this topic, not really related to the forum's direction, although I feel that it is more of a stubborn desire of some to have the last word.

Imperialist, calm down, you are not being insulted.

Amen to that. I feel the same.

Hi Guys,

Now that that is cleared up by a straight answer.....

The earlier promised quote regarding the origins of the current Romanian national language in the dialect of the region around Bucharest is as follows:

"The Rumanian literary language is based mainly on the Daco-Romanian dialect of Walachia. It assumed importance only at the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th centuries. Before that all literary output was dialectical." Encyclopedia Britannica (1962), Vol.19, p.653.

And before anyone thinks that this is some sort of value judgement, I would draw your attention to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol.13, p.701:

"The term dialect carries no connotation of opprobrium to the linguist, and he uses it about the standard literary language of a world capital ("the dialect of Paris") as well as about the language of some isolated mountain village".

Cheers,

Sid.

I am sorry ,but you can do better than that.This reffer to the literary language.You were so quick in dismissing Mytzu's example,now you see he was right.
But that's just a remark.You still failed to give a quote stating that Bucharest "dialect" is the backbone of today's Romanian.

On a related note here , it is said that the purest Romanian is spoken in 2 counties,Arges and Dambovita.

Hi Zayets,

Would that be the "Dambovita" in the former Walachia, that borders today on the municipality of Bucharest? And is it the "Arges" also in the former Walachia that borders today on "Dambovita"?

Thank you for your unexpected support.

Cheers,

Sid.