Origins of Slavs: Archaeology, Linguistics, Anthropology, History

Kotromanic · Nov 7, 2013

arras said:
Well, other nations were first on the Moon. But we were the last!

Eugene Cernan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arras, Are you referring to Slovakia or the West Side of Chicago?

Gene Cernan represents both of those Outer places ! Just after Cernan was born the American FBI caught up with one of the most famous West Siders, John Dillinger.

Tulun · Nov 7, 2013

the Romanian asca/esca is really from late Latin -iscus to form adjectives

-iscus - Wiktionary

in Italian the dialect of Rome (Romans) is called dialetto romanesco, or if it would be called the language of Rome, it would be lingua romanesca. the Romanian "limba Romaneasca" is also Latin origin.

Perix · Nov 7, 2013

fakirbakir said:
You accused Mosquito of being nationalist...

I think he would feel insulted if you'd call him not nationalist

fakirbakir said:
...however he just wrote what scholars usually say about Slavonic elements in Romanian language.

which scholars? you suggest no scholar had a different opinion- in fact the most of them are against your suggestion

fakirbakir said:
He even provided sources for his statements.

where, where? maybe you could let him manage himself: he is a big boy

fakirbakir said:
Mosquito is right, prior to the re-latinization the Romanian language was only about 40 percent Latin and the other 60 percent being largely Slavonic.

Gratuite assertio! no sources...at least reliable ones. Anyway, assuming you confuse Mosquito with Domen(I have to take care of your thoughts, as you can see), he even claimed around 1/2 ratio slavic/latin, which is more slavic than your source less 40/60(2/3)

fakirbakir said:
According to Wikipedia:

"Although a number of Slavic loanwords have fallen victim to a strong re-latinisation process since the 19th century, the proportion of Slavic loanwords is still around 15%. The ratio of Slavic loanwords is especially high in the semantic fields of house (26,5%), religion and belief (25%), basic actions and technology (22,6%), social and political relations (22,5%), and agriculture and vegetation[note 36] (22,5%). About 20% of the Romanian adverbs, nearly 17% of the nouns, and around 14% of the verbs are of Slavic origin. Slavic loanwords often coexist with a synonym inherited from Latin which sometimes give rise to semantic differentiation. "

Schramm, Schulte and István Schütz, are fidels to Rosler theory. They took majority of the datas from Rosler, without giving other sources, and, most important, ignoring the real specialists schoolars in romanian language.

The reality is like I said previously, sustained by the most accurate studies: the ratio latin/slavic before standardisation was 65/25, but in real use 85/5. Is right many slavic words have old latin sinonims, that could be used relatively different from case to case, so, if I'd force myself, I still could use 25% of slavic

Domen · Nov 7, 2013

Usually one can recognize nationalists when they become angry and cannot talk without emotions about history of their own country. So in this case we have a few Romanian nationalists in this thread - you become heated and start to insult others when talking about influences of Slavic language on Romanian. One of you even called Slavs "slaves" in your extreme rage, which started when only I mentioned Slavic people in Romania.

Perix said:
Domen said:

Even as late as 16th century in Moldavia there were still more sheep than people (like today in Australia).

Click to expand...

sources, man!

Sources are posts of your own countryman - user Romano-Dacis - from another forum:

Check post #126

1,5 million sheep when population of the principality was few hundred thousand people.

he even claimed around 1/2 ratio slavic/latin

Wikipedia says this, it might be wrong but in such case you should present a proof that it is wrong, instead of insulting others.

I also provided a link to an article which says about 2350 words of Slavic origin in Romanian language in the 19th century.

which is more slavic than your source less 40/60(2/3)

40% Slavic 60% Latin is impossible, because apart from Slavic and Latin there were also other words in Romanian language.

Unless by 40/60 you mean the ratio of Slavic words to Latin words, rather than total % share of Slavic and Latin within the language.

no sources... at least reliable ones.

"Reliable" sources = Romanian sources ??? Or something more than this?

Domen · Nov 7, 2013

Harap Alp said:
On their way the romanain shepherd was surprised to see that vlachs/rumani from Cehia knew to speak romanian(daco-romanian) even today.

Oh, OK. And on their way back were they also surprised, that vlachs/rumani from Transnistria know to speak slavic even today?

Mosquito · Nov 7, 2013

The same thing happened in Lituania

Domen said:
What thing do you mean ???

In the end of XIX century Lithuanian language had many Polish loan words. Lithuanian intelectuals started to create new Lithuanian language, basically removing from vocabularies Polish words and replacing them with other words, coming from one of the Lithuanian dialects.

The main creator and enginier of modern Lithuanian language was Jonas Jablonskis. In the first books written in the Lithuanian language from XVI and XVII century there is a lot of Polish words, including first Lithuanian vocabulary from 1620. But in his new Lithuanian vocabulary Jablonskis (btw this is Polish surname Jablonski) removed most of the Polish words.

According to things which I have read in the past, the same thing were doing Romanian linguistis in the XIX century, they were removing from vocabularies the words of Slavic origin and replacing them with the words of Latin and French origin.

Mosquito · Nov 7, 2013

Perix said:
I well believe you! Also I remember I never heard about sarmathian origins of the poles...anyway, you gave me many examples
I don't know to whom romanian i should guide you in order to get an answer satisfactory for yourself! As for mine answers, I'm sure you'll never be sattisfied! I guess you should read more about relationship between nationalism and megalomania, just a thought

I belive that you belive in your words and that you belive that you say truth and that Im wrong. However I have a doubt if you are right and if Im wrong.

Harap Alb · Nov 7, 2013

Domen said:
Oh, OK. And on their way back were they also surprised, that vlachs/rumani from Transnistria know to speak slavic even today?

Domen no one was insulting her.? were? when?

You want me to quote the post when i say you were wrong when you provide some information?

You are insulting your self when you say romanains remove slavic words, when you say easca is slavic..when you say ..etc...The second picture from your post, your first post for me on this topic...is also a insult.

And now you are ignoring my questions from my last post to you, by asking me a "sublime" question

Now about your question. They pas Transnistria on their way back?

Mosquito · Nov 7, 2013

Perix said:
I think he would feel insulted if you'd call him not nationalist

By calling me nationalist you are suggesting that my posts are agenda based, that Im blind and deaf on arguments of other people in the discussion, not able to accept the point of viev of other people even if Im wrong.

fakirbakir · Nov 7, 2013

Boia

Even the Romanian Lucian Boia states that "Romanian was more Slav (and of other origins) than Latin: two-fifths Slavic elements, one-fifths Turkish, one-fifths Latin." (History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness, p. 106)

Ergo, according to him the Romanian language in the 19th century consisted of 40 percent Slavic, 20 percent Turkish and 20 percent Latin elements.

Domen · Nov 7, 2013

or russian colonist brainwashed soviet times..the rest.

Ruthenian settlement in what is today Transnistria dates back to times of Kievan Rus. They are not "Soviet colonists".

Slavic-speaking populations in other parts of modern Moldova also date back to Middle Ages:

Ethnic groups in Moldova in 1989:

Ethnic groups in Moldova in the 15th century:

Entire territory of modern Moldova and southern part of modern Odessa Oblast of Ukraine were ethnically mixed (Vlach-Ruthenian):

By comparison - Vlach-Slavic ethnic boundary in period 800 - 950:

Harap Alb · Nov 7, 2013

I made a edit i was confusing with Moldova

Domen no one was insulting her.? were? when?

You want me to quote the post when i say you were wrong when you provide some information?

You are insulting your self when you say romanains remove slavic words, when you say easca is slavic..when you say ..etc...The second picture from your post, your first post for me on this topic...is also a insult.

And now you are ignoring my questions from my last post to you, by asking me a "sublime" question

Now about your question. They pas Transnistria on their way back?

Harap Alb · Nov 7, 2013

Mosquito said:
By calling me nationalist you are suggesting that my posts are agenda based, that Im blind and deaf on arguments of other people in the discussion, not able to accept the point of viev of other people even if Im wrong.

Do you don't believe this mosquito?

by Perix:
Anyway, the whole vocabulary is one, the usual use another thing: all the studies of the 19 cnt contemporans works revealed that latin words(old romanian), were used in 85-90 % ratio, and only 4-5 % with slavic ones: so this is the "mighty" slavicisation - around 5%. I hope this mighty 5% will help you to understand our temperamental answers when you call our ancestors as slavs(is nothing to do with race, propaganda, or whatsever)

Also your definition about nationalism i don't believe exist on Perix agenda..is just what you think.

Also after me a nationalist can have a good discussion, he is not blind and can accept others point of view.

fakirbakir · Nov 7, 2013

Harap Alb said:
all the studies of the 19 cnt contemporans works revealed that latin words(old romanian), were used in 85-90 % ratio, and only 4-5 % with slavic ones: so this is the "mighty" slavicisation - around 5%.

Really? Any source about it?

What about Boia? I have to repeat my comment:

Even the Romanian Lucian Boia states that "Romanian was more Slav (and of other origins) than Latin: two-fifths Slavic elements, one-fifths Turkish, one-fifths Latin." (History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness, p. 106)

Ergo, according to him the Romanian language in the 19th century consisted of 40 percent Slavic, 20 percent Turkish and 20 percent Latin elements.

Harap Alb · Nov 7, 2013

fakirbakir said:
Even the Romanian Lucian Boia states that "Romanian was more Slav (and of other origins) than Latin: two-fifths Slavic elements, one-fifths Turkish, one-fifths Latin." (History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness, p. 106)

Ergo, according to him the Romanian language in the 19th century consisted of 40 percent Slavic, 20 percent Turkish and 20 percent Latin elements.

AHAHAHA

Please read the page 107. Not Boia say that but he quotes from others!

Also like in page 107 say.."language structure it is not about the words lost in dictionary but about the words used in circulation!"..were latin elements were by far the used ones.

Also what fonetic has to do with lexical..language is a complex thing. NOT just words.

Take your time and read careful..not Boya said that but Alexandru Cihac. There were discussion about this..is not official.

History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness - Lucian Boia - Google C?r?i

Mosquito · Nov 7, 2013

Harap Alb said:
Also your definition about nationalism i don't believe exist on Perix agenda..is just what you think.

Also after me a nationalist can have a good discussion, he is not blind and can accept others point of view.

There is a difference between being patriot and being nationalist.

Harap Alb · Nov 7, 2013

Mosquito said:
There is a difference between being patriot and being nationalist.

So ..nationalist means to be blind, not to accept a discussion..or ignore other point of view?

Why you to are ignoring my questions?

Domen · Nov 7, 2013

Check my edited post #791.http://historum.com/european-histor...history-etc-80.html#post1638122?postcount=791

Mosquito · Nov 7, 2013

Harap Alb said:
So ..nationalist means to be blind, not to accept a discussion..or ignore other point of view?

Why you to are ignoring my questions?

I dont. I just have no idea who is right and who is wrong. You guys seems to belive in what you say but it doesnt mean that you are right.

Harap Alb · Nov 7, 2013

Domen said:
Check my edited post #791.http://historum.com/european-histor...history-etc-80.html#post1638122?postcount=791

what 791?!

The one with the map..i don't understand the connection. You just want to jump the discussion..no way.

Search

Search

Origins of Slavs: Archaeology, Linguistics, Anthropology, History

Kotromanic

Tulun

Perix

Domen

Domen

Mosquito

Mosquito

Harap Alb

Mosquito

fakirbakir

Domen

Harap Alb

Harap Alb

fakirbakir

Harap Alb

Mosquito

Harap Alb

Domen

Mosquito

Harap Alb

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions