Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (26) 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> On the origins of Romanian language
D13-th_Mytzu
Posted: August 13, 2005 11:43 pm
Quote Post


General de brigada
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1058
Member No.: 328
Joined: August 20, 2004



Might that specific time frame has anything to do with the fact we were overrun by comunists who wanted to impose their views on us ? I do remember our parents telling stories that at some point the russians were trying to prove romanians are not latins but are of slavic origins :)
PMUsers Website
Top
dragos
Posted: August 13, 2005 11:47 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE (sid guttridge)
In Romania, wasn't there a deliberate effort to keep the spelling of Romania with an "a" even though a change in orthography in the rest of the language would have spelt in with an "i"? (i.e. as in vinatori/vanatori?). (An open question, because I may be wrong on this one).


While I am not knowledgeable in linguistics, I think the only effort in this respect was actually in the opposite direction. After the communist regime came to power, after the war, the spelling with "î" instead of "â" in the vocabulary was forced.
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Imperialist
Posted: August 14, 2005 12:07 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (Dénes @ Aug 13 2005, 11:24 PM)
I just wanted to illustrate, Imperialist, that you were wrong also in this statement of yours, as based on the official coins, the country's name was spelled 'Rominia' at least between 1955-1961.

Take care,

Gen. Dénes

I have no problem with you considering my statement wrong, though I think it was fairly cautionary and not a decisive ruling on the issue. I just offered the view offered by the sources I had at that moment.
My interest was directed especially towards the 19th century documents and speeches I mentioned, documents published in the second half of the 20th. Given Sid's statements regarding the changes of Rominia in Romania made for nationalists reasons, I was curious whether Rominia was written in that time-frame, only to be changed in the transcriptions of the documents by the nationalist plotters.
I found the links with the stamps, which disproved that possibility.
The second thing was to put a timeline on that communist era books and their frontpages.
However, I dont think I would have found books from the 1950s in my bookshelf.
Nor was I aware of that particularity in the 1955-1961(64?) period.
So if the cost of finding that out is for that whole post to be considered erroneous, and not incomplete, I have no problem with it.

The only problem in my view is with the "also in this statement" part.
Are you referring to other wrong statements on this thread or in general?

take care
PM
Top
Carol I
Posted: August 14, 2005 06:23 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2250
Member No.: 136
Joined: November 06, 2003



QUOTE (Dénes @ Aug 14 2005, 12:24 AM)
I just wanted to illustrate, Imperialist, that you were wrong also in this statement of yours, as based on the official coins, the country's name was spelled 'Rominia' at least between 1955-1961.

According to Romanian coins, the orthographic changes of 'România' into 'Romînia' (as well as 'român' into 'romîn' etc.) lasted from 1954 until 1963. They thus appear on all coins issued within this period.
PM
Top
johnny_bi
Posted: August 15, 2005 02:31 am
Quote Post


Sergent major
*

Group: Members
Posts: 214
Member No.: 6
Joined: June 18, 2003



QUOTE ("Sid")
As a matter of minor interest, the Academie Francaise approved the Quebecois term "courriel" for use in metropolitan French insted of "E-mail" only a couple of years ago.


There is a big difference between Quebec and France, because Quebec is much more exposed to the "danger" of bringing unnecessary English words within the French language. So they adopted couriel, pourriel, dépaneur, etc and it seems that those words really work...

QUOTE ("Sid")
With so few Romanian-language books available, it must have been relatively easy to influence the teaching of Romanian literacy through centrally directed national policy. For example, is modern Romanian not based on the Bucharest dialect?


Well, it is hard to say that. As far as I know, I heard once from a teacher that the "most" Romanian language is spoken somewhere around Brasov. In the same time do not forget about "Scoala Ardeleana" which had a huge influence on what we call today the Romanian language. And they were not from Bucharest.

QUOTE ("Sid")
However, to do so it has to find alternatives to mostly Anglo-Saxon words that are already in use by the French population. In that sense they are engaged in purification.


As far as they can find a word such courriel (which is widely use in Quebec for example) that really WORKS, I see no problem... Same for télécopieur, dépaneur, etc... Those words really work. This could prove that it is not necessary to brutaly embrace a word just because at the beginning there is no equivalent word in your language...


QUOTE ("Sid")
There is no disgrace in having French grammarians helping. The whole modern concept of Grammar was formulated by the French Port-Royal Grammarians in the late 17th Century and French Grammarians and their methods were later employed widely, not just in Romania. You must also remember that the French began pushing the concept of the natural unity of Latin-based language during the 19th Century because they saw these countries as their natural constituency in power politics. They were thus keen to promote conformity amongst Latin countries.


As far as I know the French guys began to latinize their language as soon as the 16th century or even sooner, far before the word "nation" was invented... There was a big difference between the French language spoken in the north (due to the Germanic influence - Francs, Normands, etc) and the language spoken in the south - influenced more by the Latin and maybe Italian languages... So they tried to replace the northern spoken language which had a more "Germanic" sound with the more soften southern French language... Aparently they succeded... Those times, I suppose that "the light" came from Italy... it was more desirable to approach the language to the Latin and Italian than to German language...
As for Romanians, you know also that there were many problems with the excesses of "frenchisation" of the Romanian language... During the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, in Romania, the French language was the reference, not the Latin language... Tell me about the Latin words introduced those times (not the French words - most of them neologismes) by "force" and which non-Latin words were eliminated? Many words were eliminated, but this was a natural phenomena... I could give you an example about a Latin based name: Paulina. How many young ladies have today this name ??? Almost none, because Paulina just sounds... so old... There are many words (especially tools and objects) used today only by the elders- non-Latin based words which will disappear within the next 20 years because those tools or objects will cease to exist... What remains, it will be the hard core of the language, common words, etc many of them being Latin... Other words will be invented or assimilated from other languages, etc... This is a natural phenomena which is present not only in Romanian language.


This post has been edited by johnny_bi on August 15, 2005 02:55 am
PM
Top
sid guttridge
Posted: August 15, 2005 11:39 am
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 862
Member No.: 591
Joined: May 19, 2005



Hi Guys,

I have found the following source on the current composition of the Romanian vocabulary:

http://romania.ibelgique.com/langue-roumaine.htm

It gives the following breakdown of the origins "of the current composition of the Romanian vocabulary":

20% Latin
38.4% French
14% Slav
3.7% Turkish
2.4% Greek
2.3% German
2.4% classical Latin
1.7% Italian

In total, 63% is derived directly or indirectly from Latin.

However, of interest here is the high French input - 38.4%.

Perhaps Imperialist would care to explain where this high French content came from, given that France had little contact, let alone influence, on what became Romania before the 19th Century?

Cheers,

Sid.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Iamandi
Posted: August 15, 2005 11:52 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1386
Member No.: 319
Joined: August 04, 2004



Sid, in history of our country, like a poor armed country encircled ... in some ways, we desperatly hook about France. And this was not only a millitary action, we generalized that... if you understand what i want to say.

:D Now we don't say "furculision", we evolved... now we say "furculishon" :D

One "apropos" to an old satiric theatre scene.

Iama
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
sid guttridge
Posted: August 15, 2005 11:53 am
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 862
Member No.: 591
Joined: May 19, 2005



Hi Imperialist,

What, no Romanian dialects?

Linguists apparently recognise three south of the Danube and five north (from Muntenia, Moldova, Ardeal, Banat and Oltenia). Want a source?

Cheers,

Sid.
PMEmail Poster
Top
sid guttridge
Posted: August 15, 2005 12:00 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 862
Member No.: 591
Joined: May 19, 2005



Hi Iamandi,

I am making no value judgement on Romania and Romanians here. It makes good sense to adopt loan words from related languages. My own language (English) is like a sponge in this regard.

What I don't understand is why Imperialist is trying to pretend that "Re-Latinisation" of the Romanian language was not widespread from the early 19th Century and that the main source was French.

I am as patriotic as the next man, but it serves no useful purpose to deny self evident facts, particularly when they are in no way damaging to one's country.

Cheers,

Sid.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Imperialist
Posted: August 15, 2005 12:02 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (sid guttridge @ Aug 15 2005, 11:39 AM)
However, of interest here is the high French input - 38.4%.

Perhaps Imperialist would care to explain where this high French content came from, given that France had little contact, let alone influence, on what became Romania before the 19th Century?


I dont think the issue ever was about lack of contact or influence.

The issue was french scholars coming in Romania to write the first Romanian dictionaries and grammar books in the 19th century...
You did not provide examples of those scholars, which in everybody's knowledge here, were inexistent doing the things you said they did, nor did you withdraw that dubious claim.

p.s. I will check those procentages too...
PM
Top
Imperialist
Posted: August 15, 2005 12:07 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (sid guttridge @ Aug 15 2005, 12:00 PM)


What I don't understand is why Imperialist is trying to pretend that "Re-Latinisation" of the Romanian language was not widespread from the early 19th Century and that the main source was French.


Because that was not a forced, deliberate, nationalist plot to make the language look more like Latin, as you claimed.
Dont transform my reaction to that absurd claim into a statement that the romanian language did not interact and borrow organically/naturally from other languages.
PM
Top
sid guttridge
Posted: August 15, 2005 12:23 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 862
Member No.: 591
Joined: May 19, 2005



Hi Imperialist,

So you now recognise that "Re-Latinisation" of the Romanian language DID occur.

Progress!

Now, does your "interaction" and "borrowing organically/naturally" include the work of the Academia Romana, which was set up in the image of the Academie Francais, to foster the Romanian language and produce its defining vocabularies, dictionaries and grammars?

To me, in a country where no such institution exists, this look likes official intervention. What do you think?

Cheers,

Sid.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Imperialist
Posted: August 15, 2005 12:43 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (sid guttridge @ Aug 15 2005, 11:53 AM)
Hi Imperialist,

What, no Romanian dialects?

Linguists apparently recognise three south of the Danube and five north (from Muntenia, Moldova, Ardeal, Banat and Oltenia). Want a source?

Cheers,

Sid.

South of the danube there are macedo-romanian, megleno-romanian and istro-romanian dialects.
These are true dialects, as you would need a dictionary and a book of grammar to make sense of what those folks say. Apart from a few words that can be understood, those dialects are languages by themselves.

In contrast, a romanian from Bucharest could travel in the dialect regions in Romania that you mention, without needing neither a dictionary nor the comprehension of new grammar rules.

We dont have something like a Patois dialect, which is:

QUOTE
Les patois ont leurs propres mots et aussi des constructions particulières, une syntaxe, une grammaire.


But since the actual definition of the dialect referrs to different prononciations also, yes from that point of view one can say that the romanian language has dialects, with the noted differences.

take care






PM
Top
sid guttridge
Posted: August 15, 2005 12:47 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 862
Member No.: 591
Joined: May 19, 2005



Hi Imperialist,

I don't actually know when the first Romanian dictionary was written. In the British Library catalogue there is mentioned the "Petite Dictionaire francaise-roumain" by Jean Rizo of 1837. Perhaps there are older Romanian dictionaries. Doubtless you can tell me?

Another interesting Frenchman you might care to follow up is Jean-Alexandre Vaillant, who apparently wrote on Romanian linguistics within a multi volume work titled "Romania" published in 1844 - before there even was a state of Romania or an Academia Romana. (He also seems to have something to do with the adoption of Romania's flag.)

A couple of other French linguistic specialist of the 19th century acknowledged on the Academia Romana website are Jules Gillieron and Antoine Meillet.

Cheers,

Sid.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Imperialist
Posted: August 15, 2005 01:06 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (sid guttridge @ Aug 15 2005, 12:23 PM)
Hi Imperialist,

So you now recognise that "Re-Latinisation" of the Romanian language DID occur.

Progress!

Now, does your "interaction" and "borrowing organically/naturally" include the work of the Academia Romana, which was set up in the image of the Academie Francais, to foster the Romanian language and produce its defining vocabularies, dictionaries and grammars?

To me, in a country where no such institution exists, this look likes official intervention. What do you think?

Cheers,

Sid.

QUOTE
So you now recognise that "Re-Latinisation" of the Romanian language DID occur.

Progress!


You havent clarified what you understand by "re-latinisation". Wasnt "purification", "rooting out words", "for nationalist reasons" etc.? I dont think I ever "recognised" such baloney.


QUOTE

Now, does your "interaction" and "borrowing organically/naturally" include the work of the Academia Romana, which was set up in the image of the Academie Francais, to foster the Romanian language and produce its defining vocabularies,
dictionaries and grammars?
  To me, in a country where no such institution exists, this look likes official intervention. What do you think?


I am shocked by your attitude. Its utterly arrogant and patronising. Borrowing organically/naturally happens today too, in all languages, and it has nothing to do with Academies. The Academies are not word import firms... <_<
And you missed your target by about 3 centuries:

QUOTE

Academies in the older sense - meaning schools of higher learning - had existed in these principalities since the 16th century. The most active and long-lasting were the academies of the princedom instituted in Bucharest (around 1689) and Iasi (in 1707) which trained the Christian intellectual elite in South Eastern Europe and the Near East and would become the first universities in Romania in the 19th century.


http://www.acad.ro/academia2002/acadrom/pag_ist.htm

It also seems you have missed my post where I made a short list of romanian language books.
PM
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (26) 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... Last » Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0457 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]