Should Italians and Romanians be considered as Latinos?

martin76 · Mar 21, 2016

At Each Kilometer said:
@martin76 I do believe that language defines identity to a certain extent and thus romance speaking people feel close to each other because with a bit of efforts (learning) they are able to communicate and understand each other. Language! In this sense you are able to understand a guatemalan without any effort I believe

By the way hungarian belongs to finno-ugric language group along with finnish and estonian.

yes, you are right. Hungarian is a finno-ugric languages but it is funny.. Hungarian can speak in hungarian with turks.. and Turk understand them and hungarian understand Turks!!! If you speak Turkish..hungarian understand to you better than if you speak English...

God Emperor · Mar 21, 2016

The oldest Celtic texts are the Lepontic scripts from Italy and Switzerlands...

Tulun · Mar 21, 2016

martin76 said:
yes, you are right. Hungarian is a finno-ugric languages but it is funny.. Hungarian can speak in hungarian with turks.. and Turk understand them and hungarian understand Turks!!! If you speak Turkish..hungarian understand to you better than if you speak English...

sadly it is not true. there are maybe around 1000 Turkic loanwords in the language (maybe more if we count derived words) but those entered from different Turkic languages (most of them not from Turkey Turkish) and many of them 1000+ years ago so most of them are not even recognized by modern Turkic speakers and even their meanings changed a lot. In grammar there are many similarities, though most of those are valid to all Uralic/Finno-Ugric and Altaic languages (agglutination, sound harmony, no grammatic gender etc). That maybe makes them easier to learn than indo-european or semitic languages but it doesn't change that Hungarians is practically a language isolate in terms of intelligibility, both with Uralic and with Altaic languages. There are probably more slavic loanwords in our vocabulary but it doesn't help in understanding Slavic languages either.

Yôḥānān · Mar 21, 2016

deaf tuner said:
1. I don't see why should I apologise to someone unwilling to read and understand what I said.

2. What I learned from You is that it seems You don't see the difference between "German" and "Germanic". When You will, You might understand that that difference exist on "Latin" and "Slav" and "Fino-ugric" and so forth too. Then You might understand that nobody claimed on this bord anything about Lazio.

Ps: You still didn't told me what language You speak: Celtic, Iberian or Celtiberian

I think the point here, and I don't know much of genetics, is that the same way Egyptians were colonized by Greeks and Romans but it seems the majority of the population didn't change that much the Iberians also preserved a large percentage of the Celtiberian population despite of further colonizations and migrations. And the same to the Germanic people I imagine. So assuming genetics are credible while you could put latin and germanic denomination in the same foot based on language it doesn't make sense if you are thinking of the main origin of the population.
The problem is that history usually doesnt tell the story of the majority of the population but of the elites.

martin76 · Mar 21, 2016

Tulun said:
sadly it is not true. there are maybe around 1000 Turkic loanwords in the language (maybe more if we count derived words) but those entered from different Turkic languages (most of them not from Turkey Turkish) and many of them 1000+ years ago so most of them are not even recognized by modern Turkic speakers and even their meanings changed a lot. In grammar there are many similarities, though most of those are valid to all Uralic/Finno-Ugric and Altaic languages (agglutination, sound harmony, no grammatic gender etc). That maybe makes them easier to learn than indo-european or semitic languages but it doesn't change that Hungarians is practically a language isolate in terms of intelligibility, both with Uralic and with Altaic languages. There are probably more slavic loanwords in our vocabulary but it doesn't help in understanding Slavic languages either.

Maybe you are right.. but I write what I´ve lived... and yes, I´ve seen my dear friend Andrea G., from Budapest, speaking in hungarian with Turks in Great Bazaar and she told me it was easier for her they spoke Turkish with her than not English... but of course, I don´t speak Hungarian (only a little) and I don´t speak Turk.

According what I read, Magyars and Turks were relatives in Asian Steppes but the Hungarian today are not Magyars..not from a Biological Point of view... because lot of hungarians today are Slavs and Germans.

The European characteristics in the biological composition of the recent Hungarian population and the lack of Asian markers are not solely due to the thousand years of blending. Biologically, the population around 1000 AD in Hungary was made up almost exclusively of Europeans.

Probably Arpad and Bela were "biologically" more closely related to the Old Turks than to the modern Hungarians...
In fact, they are specialist as Istvan Rasko, who said the Hungarians (as my friend Krisztián or my friend Gati, or Valasz) are not Magyars (and they never were) but descendant of the Populations conquered by Magyars and magiarized later. They are people think Magyars (Bela or Arpad) were Turks (as the Bulgarians, Pechegos etc etc).. for this theory.. Arpad, Bela etc etc were not Hungarians but a small-numbered Turkic-speaking people. (From Wikipedia)

God Emperor

The oldest Celtic texts are the Lepontic scripts from Italy and Switzerlands...

Very interesting.

martin76 · Mar 21, 2016

Yôḥānān;2466317 said:
I think the point here, and I don't know much of genetics, is that the same way Egyptians were colonized by Greeks and Romans but it seems the majority of the population didn't change that much the Iberians also preserved a large percentage of the Celtiberian population despite of further colonizations and migrations. And the same to the Germanic people I imagine. So assuming genetics are credible while you could put latin and germanic denomination in the same foot based on language it doesn't make sense if you are thinking of the main origin of the population.
The problem is that history usually doesnt tell the story of the majority of the population but of the elites.

Yohana.. is something more.. Biology proves Iberia was settled by Celtics and Iberian...Celts arrived the first (about XV century maybe?), Iberian later (About IX Century maybe?) and both groups stablished the biological substratum of the Spanish (Portuguese) Population. Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Romans, etc came in little groups didn´t change the main genetical characteristic of Population. The Peninsula is inhabiited by the same Celtics and Iberian arrived here.. they have changed their culture through centuries.

Why Spanish (Portuguese) and Finn are the European with more genetics rarities in their Genoma? Why?
Because the Peninsula didn´t change from a biological point of view from the arrival of the Iberians... (Spanish and Portuguese are the product of the Celtic and Iberians).

From Nature Magazin:

The degree of rare-variant differentiation varies between populations. For example, within Europe, the IBS and FIN populations carry excesses of rare variants (Supplementary Fig. 6b), which can arise through events such as recent bottlenecks, ‘clan’ breeding structures and admixture with diverged populations

So, Spanish (and Portuguese) IBS and Finns (FIN) have ecesses of rare variants because of: (Theories)

Bottlenecks
Clan breeding structures
Admixture with diverged populations.

In any case, the population in Peninsula don´t come from Lazio or from Latins Tribes.. it is a scientific certainty.

Yes, they speak a "latinic" language... as Jamaican speak a Germanic languague...but I doubt Jamaican are a Germanic Tribe...

Regards

TupSum · Mar 21, 2016

martin76 said:
About bulgarians, i don´t know much.. but always I read they are Turks.. Turks tribes from Asian Steppe (In fact, the Bulgarians spoke a Turk language till XIII century maybe? But these Turks named Bulgars settled in Balkan and Danube and they were "slavized" from a language point of view... but Bulgarians are not Slavic People (Not from DNA).
About hungarians (I lived there) and they like to think they are Magyars (as Arpad or Bela) as you can see in Kecskemét, for example, but I am afraid most of them are not Magyars (From DNA) but "Magiarized" Germans and Slavs...because I think Old Magyars are Turks and Tartarian relatives.

Ok Martin, I will just briefly make a list of the main errors and misconceptions you managed to squeeze into a couple of sentences.

- Bulgars were not turks.
- Bulgarians did not speak a turkish language until the 13th century

- Magyars are not Turks relatives
- Magyar language is not turkic, but finno-ugric.

Yôḥānān · Mar 21, 2016

repeated

Yôḥānān · Mar 21, 2016

martin76 said:
Yohana.. is something more.. Biology proves Iberia was settled by Celtics and Iberian...Celts arrived the first (about XV century maybe?), Iberian later (About IX Century maybe?) and both groups stablished the biological substratum of the Spanish (Portuguese) Population. Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Romans, etc came in little groups didn´t change the main genetical characteristic of Population. The Peninsula is inhabiited by the same Celtics and Iberian arrived here.. they have changed their culture through centuries.

Why Spanish (Portuguese) and Finn are the European with more genetics rarities in their Genoma? Why?
Because the Peninsula didn´t change from a biological point of view from the arrival of the Iberians... (Spanish and Portuguese are the product of the Celtic and Iberians).

From Nature Magazin:

The degree of rare-variant differentiation varies between populations. For example, within Europe, the IBS and FIN populations carry excesses of rare variants (Supplementary Fig. 6b), which can arise through events such as recent bottlenecks, ‘clan’ breeding structures and admixture with diverged populations

So, Spanish (and Portuguese) IBS and Finns (FIN) have ecesses of rare variants because of: (Theories)

Bottlenecks
Clan breeding structures
Admixture with diverged populations.

In any case, the population in Peninsula don´t come from Lazio or from Latins Tribes.. it is a scientific certainty.

Yes, they speak a "latinic" language... as Jamaican speak a Germanic languague...but I doubt Jamaican are a Germanic Tribe...

Regards

I get your point but we should consider that conclusions based on genetics may be wrong. Besides conclusions based on genetics point to a considerable African influence for instance. So it is not like there were no considerable external influences:

In terms of autosomal DNA, the most recent study regarding African admixture in Iberian populations was conducted in April 2013 by Botigué et al. using genome-wide SNP data for over 2000 individuals, concluding that Spain and Portugal hold significantly higher levels of North African than the rest of the European continent. Estimates of shared ancestry averaged between 4 and 20% whereas these did not exceed 2% in other western or southern European populations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_Iberian_Peninsula

Tulun · Mar 21, 2016

martin76 said:
Maybe you are right.. but I write what I´ve lived... and yes, I´ve seen my dear friend Andrea G., from Budapest, speaking in hungarian with Turks in Great Bazaar and she told me it was easier for her they spoke Turkish with her than not English... but of course, I don´t speak Hungarian (only a little) and I don´t speak Turk.

According what I read, Magyars and Turks were relatives in Asian Steppes but the Hungarian today are not Magyars..not from a Biological Point of view... because lot of hungarians today are Slavs and Germans.

The European characteristics in the biological composition of the recent Hungarian population and the lack of Asian markers are not solely due to the thousand years of blending. Biologically, the population around 1000 AD in Hungary was made up almost exclusively of Europeans.

Probably Arpad and Bela were "biologically" more closely related to the Old Turks than to the modern Hungarians...
In fact, they are specialist as Istvan Rasko, who said the Hungarians (as my friend Krisztián or my friend Gati, or Valasz) are not Magyars (and they never were) but descendant of the Populations conquered by Magyars and magiarized later. They are people think Magyars (Bela or Arpad) were Turks (as the Bulgarians, Pechegos etc etc).. for this theory.. Arpad, Bela etc etc were not Hungarians but a small-numbered Turkic-speaking people. (From Wikipedia)

God Emperor
Very interesting.

Sure and Germans themselves are not Germans, Slavs themselves are not Slavs (most German migration to Hungary came from South Germany, who were probably Germanized Celts before, who were Celticizied... before who knows what)

Árpád and the Árpádians themselves were a very mixed group. I don't really see much importance to biological point of view here, since pure bloodness apparently never mattered in the nation's history, exogamy and admission of auxiliary peoples was always practiced. as far as it is known the old Magyars of the 9th-10th century were a heterogenous tribal federation with Uralic, Turkic and likely Iranic mix (and subduing Eastern European Slavs likely already started slightly before the land-conquest too) and were probably bilingual in that period.
And ad to these that the proto Hungarian language likely separated from our closest relatives around 1000-500 BC (at least glottochronology says that), so before the people of Árpád there was already more than 1500 years of past behind the proto-Magyars, who knows what mixings and population replacements happened during it. It just also continued after the land conquest up to the recent times. i think every Hungarian has at least some ancestors who just immigrated to the country in the 18th century or later (esp. those who has some German ancestry, and many people has here that).

martin76 · Mar 21, 2016

TupSum said:
Ok Martin, I will just briefly make a list of the main errors and misconceptions you managed to squeeze into a couple of sentences.

- Bulgars were not turks.
- Bulgarians did not speak a turkish language until the 13th century

- Magyars are not Turks relatives
- Magyar language is not turkic, but finno-ugric.

Well, I don´t believe too much in Wikipedia but...

Bulgars were not turks.

The Bulgars were semi-nomadic warrior tribes of Turkic

In fact, in Wikipedia bulgars are classified as Turkic Peoples

Magyars are not Turks relatives
- Magyar language is not turkic, but finno-ugric.

The Hungarian social structure was of Turkic origin; moreover the Hungarian language was affected by Turkic linguistic influence

But Bulgars and Magyar lacked of relation with Turks...

Tulun,

Thanks for information. I´ve learnt a lot with your post about Magyars. Yes, most of hungarians I know they had a Germanic or Slav ancestor... from Servia, Croatia, Slovakia, Austria, Germany etc etc Pure Magyars as they were in X Century.. maybe I only met one...

Yohana,

a considerable African influence

I just wrote that.. but if you think the 2% population (in Spain) and 3% population (Portugal) is considerable influence... What do you think about R1b? Between 54 (minimun) to 95%?
Or do you think an "african" genoma is more important than the Haplogrup R1b because is not african?

About the thread:

Latins are in Lazio... right? Spaniards (and Portuguese) are not latins (not in blood, not in origin etc etc). The Spanish Languages are very influenced by Latin (as people in Madagascar speak a Latin Language, so they are latins) and Jamaicans are Germanic.. of course.

Languages are one issue and people are another one, very different.
Regards

deaf tuner · Mar 21, 2016

martin76 said:
…Languages are one issue and people are another one, very different.
Regards

A people (as in "un peuple", "ein Volk") is a bunch of guys, gals and kids sharing a territory, a language and a culture. Not because they share a certain type or proportion of genes.

Obama is not an African because of his genes, but an American because of his language and his culture.

Naomasa298 · Mar 21, 2016

Azarius Balios said:
This is a thought i came across on the internet and even asked my fellow Hispanics. Can Italians, Romanians, and even French (including french creole, Cajun, and Canadian french) especially be regarded as Latinos?

I mean Spanish, Portuguese, French, Dalmatian, and Romanian are romance languages and are Latin. Since Latin is spoken by the Romans and well...Latins, in antiquity. Of course i don't want to bring controversy.

Well what do you think?

Also no politics. This is sharply an honest conversation.

Americans make this "Latino" distinction, but Europeans do not.

Yôḥānān · Mar 21, 2016

martin76 said:
I just wrote that.. but if you think the 2% population (in Spain) and 3% population (Portugal) is considerable influence... What do you think about R1b? Between 54 (minimun) to 95%?
Or do you think an "african" genoma is more important than the Haplogrup R1b because is not african?

About the thread:

Latins are in Lazio... right? Spaniards (and Portuguese) are not latins (not in blood, not in origin etc etc). The Spanish Languages are very influenced by Latin (as people in Madagascar speak a Latin Language, so they are latins) and Jamaicans are Germanic.. of course.

Languages are one issue and people are another one, very different.
Regards

From what I read the North African ancestry is not evenly distributed in the Peninsula and in some places it may reach 10-20% and in the average it is higher than the rest of Europe. Besides the problem here is that we are talking of averages, and assuming the interpretations are correct. I know people of Italian ancestry in Portugal. It is not possible to make absolute statements. Adding to that the Celts are not even considered an homogeneous group it is mainly a distinction based on language :

Recent Mitochondrial DNA studies coincide in that the Iberian Peninsula holds higher levels of typically North African Haplotype U6,[26][27][38][39] as well as higher frequencies of Sub-Saharan African Haplogroup L.[14][40][41][41][42][43] However, high frequencies are largely concentrated in the west and south of the Iberian peninsula and therefore overall frequency is higher in Portugal (5.83%) than in Spain (2.9%) with a mean frequency for the entire peninsula of 3.83%. There is considerable geographic divergence across the peninsula with high frequencies observed for South West Castile (18%), Southern Portugal (10.80%), Central Portugal (9.70%), Western Andalusia (14.6%)[42] and Córdoba (8.30%).[43]
Current debates revolve around whether U6 presence is due to Islamic expansion into the Iberian peninsula or prior population movements[26][26][27][28] and whether Haplogroup L is linked to the slave trade or prior population movements linked to Islamic expansion. A majority of Haplogroup L lineages in Iberia being North African in origin points to the latter.[14][41][44][45][46] In 2015, Hernández et al. concluded that "the estimated entrance of the North African U6 lineages into Iberia at 10 ky correlates well with other L African clades, indicating that U6 and some L lineages moved together from Africa to Iberia in the Early Holocene."[47]

History Craft · Mar 21, 2016

martin76 said:
My point is the people nowadays live in European countries came from the old tribes before Rome (at least in some places in Europe).. Roma gave the language and the religion but not the blood (as DNA evidence shows). Celtics and Iberian (in Spain), Vlach and other people in Romania, Thracian in Bulgaria etc etc gave the blood but their languages are lost.

First of all, check post #70.

Secondly, the point I'm trying to make now and was trying to make earlier when talking about the tens of millions of african-americans who speak a germanic language while also having at least one germanic ancestor is that, even if in a small amount (some not small at all actually), the spanish and romanians (and bulgarians, and french, and british, etc) are, to a degree, heirs of the original latins (which doesn't even traduce fully into ''the original romans'' which is what is relevant in this case) and dismissing them as ''non-latin'' like that (judging by a criteria which is wrong from the start, by blood that is) is profoundly wrong.

martin76 said:
The DNA evidence shows very very very clear Rome lacks of heritage in the Spanish DNA. That´s my point. A scientific Point of view.

Mod edit: Genetics removed.

(I do realize the original romans were a mix of etruscan, latin, sabine, etc... and this chart ignores the legacy of some members of ''the original Rome'' but It's just an example)

martin76 · Mar 21, 2016

deaf tuner said:
A people (as in "un peuple", "ein Volk") is a bunch of guys, gals and kids sharing a territory, a language and a culture. Not because they share a certain type or proportion of genes.

Obama is not an African because of his genes, but an American because of his language and his culture.

Sincerely, I don´t know what´s a people...it is very difficult to say, I think...
In each country there are different cultures, languages etc etc..

Yohana,

From what I read the North African ancestry is not evenly distributed in the Peninsula and in some places it may reach 10-20% and in the average it is higher than the rest of Europe.

Right, but the highest proportion of African ancestry in Europe is in Iberia (Portugal 3.2±0.3% and Spain 2.4±0.3%), consistent with inferences based on mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomes and the observation by Auton et al. that within Europe, the Southwestern Europeans have the highest haplotype-sharing with Africans

So, the average is 2,4 in Spain and 3,2 in Portugal...and R1b1a2 (R-M269) is between 54 to 95%.. and average 68% higher than England, for example.. So, you can´t compare the 2% and the 70%.. i think, when most of the african DNA is in Canary Islands: The highest level of North African ancestry (20%) was found in the Canary Islands.

In any case, the hegemony of the R1b1a2 in Peninsula shows how the inhabitants came from Celts (Keltois) and Iberians.. but not from Latins..although they adopted latin language in a very slow course.

When somebody say Spaniards and Portuguese came from Lazio.. it is manipulation and falsehood as if we say Jamaicans and Gambians are Germanic People because they speak a Germanic Language!

History craft

Secondly, the point I'm trying to make now and was trying to make earlier when talking about the tens of millions of african-americans who speak a germanic language while also having at least one germanic ancestor is that, even if in a small amount (some not small at all actually), the spanish and romanians (and bulgarians, and french, and british, etc) are, to a degree, heirs of the original latins (which doesn't even traduce fully into ''the original romans'' which is what is relevant in this case) and dismissing them as ''non-latin'' like that (judging by a criteria which is wrong from the start, by blood that is) is profoundly wrong.

Sincerely, I don´t understand you... Are afroamerican Germanic People for you, yes or not? Do you think Jamaicans and Gambians belong to the Germanic Peoples?

I can agree with you that Europe have been highly influenced by Rome and Latin culture and by Christianism... but the people in Europe are not Latins.. save the people are the Latins tribes offspring.

Are Romanians from Latins? I doubt it. Are Romanian influenced by the latins culture? Yes, of course...
Are bulgarian from Latins? I doub it. Are bulgarian influenced by the latins culture? Yes, of course...How much time was Rome in Bulgaria? 300? 400 years?

deaf tuner · Mar 21, 2016

History Craft said:
…Even people as far as N Europe share 5-10% DNA with the origina…

and You fall into the trap …

You start to demonstrate because of martin's insistence the un-demonstrable: language, culture, people trough genetics.

If You are Romanian, You are Romanian because of the language You speak, the culture You formed into.

And Romanians are said to be "Latin" because of their language, that is an evolution of ancient Latin. One can call it "Latin", as in one of the languages of the larger linguistic group called "Latin languages", or "romance", or "Neo-Latin", or one of the surviving variations of "latina vulgata". As the Spanish are also called "Latin" for the same reason, as French, Italians, Portuguese aso. Because of the linguistic heritage.

You personally could have 0,01% of Roman blood. It doesn't change Your ethnicity, Your language, Your culture.

Heck, if we look trough martin's genetical glasses, Hungarians, Romanians, Bulgarians are one, single people

History Craft · Mar 21, 2016

martin76 said:
I can agree with you that Europe have been highly influenced by Rome and Latin culture and by Christianism... but the people in Europe are not Latins.. save the people are the Latins tribes offspring.

Are Romanians from Latins? I doubt it. Are Romanian influenced by the latins culture? Yes, of course...
Are bulgarian from Latins? I doub it. Are bulgarian influenced by the latins culture? Yes, of course...How much time was Rome in Bulgaria? 300? 400 years?

martin76 said:
Sincerely, I don´t understand you... Are afroamerican Germanic People for you, yes or not?

By the dictionary definition yeah.

By blood? Yes. Tens of millions have at least one germanic ancestor, while some have more germanic ancestors than african, either way yes.

The point is also that former roman colonies are even more latin than the given example (regarding your blood orientated argumentation).

I'm not saying Spaniards or Romanians or Bulgarians or the French come from Lazio, however, I am saying that they are all descendants of the original latins, despite the fact the latin part (give me extra points for scientifically formulated conclusion) isn't predominant. Hell, a lot (most actually) of people living in today's Lazio are closer the the tens of millions of slaves brought there over the centuries (or the millions of pesants who relocated from S-N Italy to leech off Rome, or the tens of millions of people who migrated there for the economy, etc) rather than the original people of Lazio, does that make them non-latins?

I'm trying to show how flawed the ''direct descendnt'' point of view is, in case you're still wondering.

martin76 said:
Do you think Jamaicans and Gambians belong to the Germanic Peoples?

By the dictionary definition, yeah.

deaf tuner · Mar 21, 2016

martin76 said:
Sincerely, I don´t know what´s a people...it is very difficult to say, I think...
In each country there are different cultures, languages etc etc..…

Then, if You don't know, why keeping pushing the genetics, and not listen to some others opinions ? Maybe Your "IDK" with my "IDK" and other "IDK" could help us clarify a bit things?

One good start would be to think at the fact that "country" doesn't superpose always with "people".

Another good start would be to think that "language", "culture", "people", "nation" are very fluid things. They evolve every single second.

martin76 said:
…When somebody say Spaniards and Portuguese came from Lazio …

You are the only one saying that, martin !!!

History Craft · Mar 21, 2016

deaf tuner said:
and You fall into the trap …

I repeat, like every post, that what you are comes down to the language you speak and your culture.
However, I was trying to show how flawed the ''direct descendnt'' point of view is.

Search

Search

Should Italians and Romanians be considered as Latinos?

martin76

God Emperor

Tulun

Yôḥānān

martin76

martin76

TupSum

Yôḥānān

Yôḥānān

Tulun

martin76

deaf tuner

Naomasa298

Yôḥānān

History Craft

martin76

deaf tuner

History Craft

deaf tuner

History Craft

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions