Talk:Romanian language/Archive 2

skatae. etc.
If anyone can decipher "spoken in the skatae's of Prodromos and Lacu" in the article, could you please clarify? -- Jmabel 05:01, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * It was actually a typo in skatae. It's sketae (being a plural, no need of an ending s). A sketa is a community of monks, and apparently two of these communities, Prodromos and Lacu also speak Romanian. Found some background information here (RO) Defrenrokorit 14:04, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Word origins
I notice that unlike some other languages we have no discussion of (or separate article on) the range of word origins in the language. I always find this kind of thing rather fun, but for Romanian, I'm not too knowledgable. Does anyone know (1) the approximate percentages of Latin, Slavic, and other roots in modern Romanian? How many of the Latin words got there in time immemorial and how many in borrowings from French?

I'll admit that the languages from which only a few words creep into common use border on trivia, but I for one find it fascinating trivia.

This crossed my mind because I had occasion the other day to hear the Arabic word for orange and it is very close to the Romanian portocale, which I would guess (but don't know) comes from the Arabic... or maybe both from a third language?

Anyway, as I say, for Romanian, I'm not too knowledgable on this sort of thing, but I'd be intrigued. -- Jmabel 00:24, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Here's an estimation: --Vasile 12:48, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * It's hard to estimate, but I think there are about (just guessing):


 * 2000 of Latin inherited words (most of the common used words like casa, frate, familie, etc) -- many of these words have internal derivatives (such as "a (se) casatori = to marry")
 * 3000 Slavic words (many of them obsolete)
 * 700 Turkic (many of them obsolete)
 * 400 Dacian (with direct Albanian cognate; many common words, like copil, a baga, a scoate, etcc)
 * 200 Greek words (both from ancient and modern Greek)
 * 200 Balkanic (probably Thracian, Illyrian, Turkic Bulgarian or other sources -- most of them are in common with the South Slavs, especially with Bulgarian)
 * a lot of other words of uncertain origin

Some words are even of Latin origin, but borrowed from the Slavs, such as:
 * rom. cufa~r (coffer) <- sl. <- lat. cophinus
 * rom. o&#355;et (vinegar) <- sl. <-lat. acetus

Regarding to the quantity, if you take a random (old or new) text and count the words of Latin origin, you'd get more than 70%.

For example, in the poetry of Eminescu:

Vocabulary     Usage 1. latin inherited: 48,68%      83,00% 2. slavic           16,81%       6,93% 3. french           11,97%       2,52% 4. latin literary    3,41%       1,13% 5. hungarian         1,63%       0,84% 6. neogreek          1,33%       0,29% 7. turkish           1,20%       0,28% Bogdan | Talk 13:22, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Those numbers on Eminescu don't come near adding up to 100% in either column. What's the missing roughly 14%/10%? unknown origin? -- Jmabel 17:27, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * A few are from German (such as "&#351;urub" = screw) and Italian (such as "barca" = boat), but probably most of those left are probably from the substrate (Dacian). Bogdan | Talk 17:58, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Obsolete words shouldn't be included in those figures (such as "3OOO Slavic words"), because they have been dropped out of usage and are not part of the spoken language or contemporary written language. It would be interesting to know the approximate number of Slavic words in the contemporary Romanian language (approximate, because of course a number of etymologies are incorrect). Also, sometimes it's a question whether to include in that number non-Slavic words that entered via Slavic (otzet> Latin 'acetum'). Decius 07:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Assistance
The Romanian section of Romance copula needs some attention. If you can describe how the verb "to be" works, go to it! Chameleon 22:58, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Etymology needs Revision
Many Romanian words assumed to derive from Slavic are not definitely derived from Slavic, but in fact derive from native Dacian (and a few from Gothic). Decius


 * I am not sure what words are you talking about. If it's "st&#259;pân", "jupân", etc., they are still under dispute. Bogdan | Talk 12:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Decius, I find it very confusing when you make major changes to your remarks in a talk page after other people have responded, especially because (1) you seem never to timestamp your remarks and (2) you simply substitute new text with no indication that the remark has been edited. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:22, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'm revising some phrases. Decius 06:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Da
Classical Latin did not have a direct word for "yes", true, but Proto-Romance (and therefore, probably Vulgar Latin), did&mdash;*si. The descendant of that word can even be seen in Romanian! So, da came from Slavonic, but not for quite the reason given. Robert Staubs 13:31 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * *si (<'sic') did not originally meant "yes", but rather "thus". Romanian uses it with the meaning "and" (&#351;i < si). Bogdan | Talk 11:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed, Proto-Romance did not have a direct word for "yes", but instead each region evolved its own. While the Iberian Peninsula and Italy use "si", Northern France used "hoc ille" and Occitania "Hoc". The situation is much more fragmented than Mr Staubs asserts. Crculver 11:49, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just because I like to upset people's ideas, let me throw this one at whoever reads this page: da may be from Dacian. If we apply Occam's Razor, then yes, I suppose we would say "da" comes from Slavonic. But that's not a foolproof method. -Decius, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I read some Aromanian texts (I don't have an Aromanian dictionary to look for it) and I couldn't find a "Da" meaning "Yes", but only with the meaning "to give" and "but" (Romanian: "dar"). However, I can easily find "Nu". Is this the proof that you needed ? Bogdan | Talk 11:22, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If indeed the word & its kindred were absent from Aromanian, then most likely (but not definitely) Daco-Romanians picked up Da from neighboring Slavic people. Yet, as you say yourself, the word is not quite absent: because Romanian Dar (meaning 'yet','but') is related to Romanian Da (meaning 'yes'), a parallel case being Latin 'Sin', 'QuodSi'. So, the presence of Da (meaning 'but', 'yet')in Aromanian shows that the source of Romanian Da may be Daco-Thracic. If Da meaning 'yes' is absent, perhaps the development from "but" to "yes" (as Quodsi to Si) happened in Daco-Romanian but not in Macedo-Romanian. So, the Slavs aren't getting this one yet, by any stretch. By the way, isn't it annoying that there is no Aromanian dictionary readily available? I don't know if you can find one in Romania, you probably can, but in the U.S. you can't find one.This is ridiculous. It's slowing down everybody's research. So far on the net, I've found one Aromanian-English dictionary advertised on an Aromanian-American website, but it's overpriced. Anyway, what I need is a complete Aromanian-Romanian dictionary, no english needed. I guess I'll have to look. Decius

Just wanted to point out something interesting, but not exactly relevant: Baghdad was named by Iranian speakers, not Arabs, and Baghdad meant 'given by God': Bagh=God,as in Slavic 'Bog'; Dad=given, as in Latin 'Datum'. According to linguists, the Slavs probably in prehistoric times picked up their word for Divinity from Iranian speakers. In fact, Iranian speakers also had the word Bogat, meaning the same thing but I'm not sure how they spelled it. Decius


 * "The word bog is an Indo-Iranian word signifying riches, abundance, and good fortune." (Britannica)
 * That was the original meaning, as then, it became a title of the Mithra and then had the meaning of "God". Bogdan | Talk 11:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The name Bogdan also of course derives from this Iranian source, but it's a Slavic not Iranian name so far as I know. The Slavs took the word 'bog' from Indo-Iranians at some time in the past. They did not inherit that word from an IE root. Then the Slavs either didn't have a name for God, or the word/name they had was replaced by the borrowed word over time. Decius


 * "The adoption of the foreign word "bog" probably displaced from the Slavic languages the Indo-European name of the celestial God, Deivos (Ancient Indian Deva, Latin Deus, Old High German Ziu, etc.), which Lithuanian, on the other hand, has conserved as Dievas." (Britannica)

Interesting. Thanks for the info. So, if it originally meant 'riches, abundance', then the Slavs obviously borrowed it at a later time when it meant 'God'. Decius

And like I said, if they borrowed such an important word from Indo-Iranians, why isn't it possible that they took 'Da' from Dacians? Especially considering that Da meaning 'but', 'yet' IS present in Aromanian, and the Aromanian form may be the root of the Daco-Romanian form. It makes sense to me, & I don't know of a solid objection, so: until proven to be Slavic, I will consider 'Da' to be native Romanian. Decius

Dacian remains a big unknown for the time being. The fact that Aromanians have da as "but" is not such a strange event, as it is probably a mere contraction from the long-form "dar". Da' is used in many parts of Romania, especially in Wallachia with the meaning of but, and is a trait of speaking very fast (Both Wallachians and Aromanian are very fast speakers). This is another unknown ethymology, probably not related to da=yes. Da is used in all slavic languages for approval. It is used in Russian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Croatian and so on. How could, given the routes of the Slavic Migrations, Russian be affected by early Romanian? It is physically impossible. And backspreading, as some authors would suggest it, from Dacia to the East, West and South, can only be regarded as a bad joke. A very bad joke. Bog and Bogdan (I am not a linguist) could be taken from the Iranians, but only indirectly as these people have never met. Slavic tribes were Christianized starting with the 6th Century AD until the 8th Century AD. Before that gods would have names like Triglaw, Svarocic, Svarog, Dazbag, Jarowit, Rod, Rozanicy, or Periun. So NO Bog or Bogdan. Bog appears early in the 9th Century, and most historians consider that it is an extention in meaning as bog presumably meant rich or powerful, and bog was transformed to the All Powerful. It is presumed to be AVAR, not IRANIAN (most historians think so, at least). Avars were closely related in language to Iranians, and, I have done a little research, Bogh in early Persian meant rich, wealthy, Bogh-Dad meant not given by god (god in Ancient Persia, now Iran was Deivos, but by the 6th century BC they were Zoroastrian, and god was called Ahura Mazda, and Deivos became the term for demon). Bogh-Dad can be translated as "Given in Wealth" NOT "Given by God". The transformation from wealth = power to The Powerful, The All-Mighty was probably done by the slavs. The cult of Mithra was a secret cult that spread all over the Roman Empire in the early days of The Roman Empire, a long time before the slavs. And I have never heard of the attribute "wealthy" attributed to Mithra in Persia. BTW, the cult was more widely known not by the name of Mithra but Deus Sol Invictus and it was mostly celebrated by Roman soldiers. And it vanished by 400 AD, therefore I can see no link between the Persians (Iranians) and Slavs. Frankly speaking, this is the first time I have heard of a direct link between Persians and Slavic tribes. My personal belief is that Dacian was a mixture of Thracian and either some kind of early Latin or similar. This is the only plausible explaination why it is the only surviving Romance Language in the area - while Moesia, with longer latinisation fell to slavic peoples. Dacians didn't know anything else to speak but a mixture of Roman and Thracian. Dacian-Roman relations existed since before 65 BC, so language refreshing, and updating could have happened. Anyhow, dacians DID NOT invent the weel, hot water, writing, phylosophy, mathemathics, war tactics, the rocket plane nor the atom bomb as some STUPID historians assess. And as probably most words have been updated before, during and after collonisation, WE ARE THE FOLLOWERS OF ROME. One tell-tale sign is this : Romania is Christian. Not Zalmolxian. Christian. And Christianity is one of the great legacy of The Roman Empire. There is strong evidence that Dacians patented smoking pot (also known as weed, marijuana, etc. - it was written along other medicinal plants - Dacians were quite good at these - featured in latin works and attributed to Dacians) and wine (as part of the Thracian Family). That's why Romania is All Play, No Work. Good Night (Xanthar)

I'm not sure about smoking pot (that was more among the Scythians), but Thracians and Dacians did patent drinking wine. You disagree that 'bog' is from Indo-Iranians---well, that's not my theory, that's actually the accepted theory in any contemporary treatise on the Slavic languages, so email them something if you can disprove the idea. It's actually certain that Slavs once were in long contact with Indo-Iranians, because there are a number of Slavic words of Indo-Iranian origin (gushter, tabar, etc. I have the list somewhere). As for 'Da' being native to Daco-Thracians, I wasn't totally serious, but I'm not totally joking. It is good to question an old unproven assumption. I read those parts of the Strategikon (by Emperor Maurice), and I read about the history of the Slavs, and it wouldn't surprise me if they borrowed the word 'Da' from another people. That translation of Baghdad (true or not) was taken from a book, so it's not my skin. As for the Dacians inventing the A-Bomb, I have no idea where that's from, but that would make a good sci-fi movie. Decius

If being Christian means you are a follower of Rome, then most Australian Aborigines are followers of Rome. And don't forget what Christians went through before being accepted within the empire. You can't use religion to prove genetic descent---I'm sure we Romanians are more Dacian than Roman, and we should be proud of that. BTW, I hope you already know this: when the Romans conquered Dacia, they were still pagans; Christianity is not a legacy of the old Roman Empire. Christianity came many centuries later. Decius

As for 'Slavic migration patterns', you obviously are not the authority on that, because you would have known that Slavs encountered Indo-Iranians (as they certainly did). A word like 'da' could easily have went from Dacia, to what is now Ukraine and Russia, no big deal. Anyway, if somebody can bring me actual proof that 'da' is native to Slavic, I'll accept it. Decius

loanwords
In the examples of loanwords, where the original foreign-language word is not identical, it would be nice to have the original word as well. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:45, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Done :-) Bogdan | Talk 21:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

German nouns
Why remove the capitals on the German nouns? Aren't German nouns always capitalized? -- Jmabel | Talk 09:26, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Though the Romanian word is probably from German, the German word Bier is from Latin Bibere, as stated in linguistic references. See also Beer. Decius 08:15, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

du&#351;man
Decius, you can let "cutie" there, but you should know that "du&#351;man" is for sure from Turkish, no matter what some may say.
 * 1) It can be found in various Turkic language
 * 2) If it were an ancestral Romanian word, "an" ought to have been transformed into "ân", just like in romanus -> român. Bogdan | Talk 08:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The word is Indo-European, though it has entered Turkic languages. Decius


 * Turkish languages are spread out throughout Central Asia and split long time ago from the common Turkic. If a word is present in all of them, then almost certainly it is a word of Turkic. And as far as I know, the proto-Indo-Europeans and proto-Turks never had any linguistic contacts. (like the proto-IE had, for example, with the proto-Semits and the proto-Fino-Ugrics) Bogdan | Talk 07:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it entered Romanian from Turkish, though it might have: it also might not have. Decius 21:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Really common Turkish word, not (to the best of my knowledge) in any other Romance language; I'd be astounded if it got to Romania some other way. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:28, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Seriously, Decius, you seem to have little training in comparative Indo-European linguistics. Can you find evidence that "dusman" is IE in any legitimate IE work, e.g. Pokorny's dictionary? Crculver 07:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Sanskrit word was 'Durmanah' (>literally "ill-mind"; enemy) and in Ancient Greek the word was 'Dusmenes' (enemy), and 'Dusmeneia' (ill-will), et cetera. It is known that Greek 'Dusmenes' is a compound (and Sanskrit 'durmanah' from the same roots), the first part from PIE *Dus (used only as a prefix, and meant 'bad, negative') and the second part is from *Men, 'to think; of the mind'. Literally, Ill-minded, of Ill-will. Dusman is definitely an Indo-European word, and I don't beleive in such fantastic coincidences. The word is Indo-European, and it entered the Turkic languages. How it entered Romanian is an open question. I have a linguist that backs me up, so to be cautious, I replaced the dubious 'dusman' with the certain 'cutie'. Culver, don't assume what I know or don't know. You all can beleive what you want. In the meanwhile, I'm busy. Decius 08:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here: in Sanskrit: *dus was found as 'dush', 'dur' (>durmanah); Avestan, 'dus', 'duz'; Latin 'dis'; Greek 'dus' (>dusmenes). Both *Dus and *Men are listed in "Pokorny", if that makes it legitimate to you: even though Pokorny's work (from 1959) is quite outdated, and even though Pokorny wrote propaganda pamphlets in favor of pan-celtic and pan-germanic, pseudo-scientific visions of history, and even though Pokorny for no sound scientific reason constantly referred to Albanian as an "illyrian" language. But if Pokorny makes it reliable to you, yes, you'll find it in Pokorny. Why don't you read his book more often, and get some more training in "comparative Indo-European linguistics". Decius 08:39, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dushman is a well-known Persian word, borrowed into Romanian via Turkish. Of course it's Indo-European, but that's not the point. - 208.147.76.23 07:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And you just thought about that, genius? I already considered that, as I also considered the word having entered from Cuman, Avar, Bulgar, or some other Turkic language, but not necessarily Turkish. The Cumans had many Persian loanwords as well. To recap: Dusman is an Indo-European word, and there is no real evidence that it entered Romanian from Turkish, as I said before. Decius 07:38, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Curiously ,"cioban" means "shepherd" in both Turkish and Romanian languages. Stefan Udrea 20:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

kum te kiama
hi there, i think these two "common phrases in romanian" are a must: - cum te cheama (how do they call you/what's your name) and ce faci (how are you/whatare you doing) ... the italian version would be "como te chiama" and "que fai" ...ehrm, but i don't know how to transcribe them phoneticaly :") -- Criztu
 * "che fai". "Que" is Spanish. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:24, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

It's 'Come ti chiami?' in Italian, but there are variants. In Portugese, it's 'Come se chama?'. In Spanish, 'Como te llamas?'. In Aragonese (considered a seperate Romance language), 'Como te clamas?'. This is from a website that listed a long list of examples, but the link doesn't work. Decius 04:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Although in Spanish, in most places, at least for adults it's a lot more likely to be "&iquest;Como se llama?", because they are more formal: there's not a lot of chance of using the informal form with someone whose name you don't know. And just for giggles, in Argentine/Uruguayan Spanish that's pronounced more like (using Romanian phonetics here) "Como sei ciama". -- Jmabel | Talk 05:56, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * ok, i'm just gonna' put the "cum te cheama" and "ce faci" on common phrases, Jmabel, "como te ciama" is silly, forgive me for reverting to kum te kiama, this romanian "che" is pronunced as "ke" (romanian "ci" is pronounced like in english "chill"), and romanian internauts already use "kiar" (like in romanian neologism 'kilometru') instead of romanian "chiar", i hope in a few years the RO Academy will offcialize this "tz" "kiar" "shi" and other evolutions in romanian writing :) -- Criztu 10:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, I was just joking around: obviously the pronunciation in rioplatano Spanish, written with Romanian orthography, was intended to be obscure and useless. I didn't realize you were serious about needing a phonetic transcription. We should use theInternational Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), and what's in the article isn't correct. I'm not expert with IPA, but I'll try to fix it. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:10, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

You (Criztu) put 'komo te kiama' originally. I just changed the k's to c's (though in phonetic practice, the 'k' is used to represent the sound, I didn't like how it looked). Decius 21:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

UN text
Thanks for your input, obviously these things are are not fundamentally different to the point where they are likely to alter meaning in any substantial way, it simply caught my eye as something not quite "right" about:

"...trebuie s&#259; se comporte unele fa&#355;&#259; de altele în spiritul fraternit&#259;&#355;ii."

Ele trebuie.........fraternitatii? The sisters of the brotherhood?


 * "Ele" simply replaces "fiin&#355;ele umane" (human beings). It does not changes the meaning. Anyway, in Romanian there is no such word as sisterhood.
 * Anyway, "frate" can be sometimes used to mean both genders. Bogdan | Talk 12:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * From the dictionary http://dexonline.ro/search.php?cuv=frate
 * (La pl.) Nume dat copiilor (în cazul când se afl&#259; între ei &#351;i b&#259;ie&#355;i) n&#259;scu&#355;i din aceia&#351;i p&#259;rin&#355;i sau numai din acela&#351;i tat&#259; ori din aceea&#351;i mam&#259;. 2. Termen familiar, prietenesc, cu care cineva se adreseaz&#259; unei persoane (indiferent de sex).

That's all, I'm sure the UN got it as "right" as they always do...:)

Take care.

I would like to suggest a correction however the process by which to acomphish this, is not readily apparent. So I will post it here instead. I welcome your opinion on this suggestion.

In the Romanian language examples section, the following example was used. First, in English:

"English text:


 * All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
 * (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)"

Then, it was translated into contemporary Romanian as:

"Contemporary Romanian - highlighted words are French or Italian loanwords:


 * Toate fiin&#355;ele umane se nasc libere &#351;i egale în demnitate &#351;i în drepturi. Ele sunt înzestrate cu ra&#355;iune &#351;i con&#351;tiin&#355;&#259; &#351;i trebuie s&#259; se comporte unele fa&#355;&#259; de altele în spiritul fraternit&#259;&#355;ii."

Here is the issue I have with this. In the Romanian translation, "human beings" took on a feminine gender "fin&#355;e umane" when in fact the original neutral gender from English could have been retained by using "Omeni" instead of "fin&#355;ele umane" which takes on the feminie gender of "o fin&#355;&#259;, dou&#259; fin&#355;e, etc" when conjugated.


 * Actually, that is the official UN translation to Romanian, taken from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights website.
 * "Human beings" is best translated to Romanian as "fiin&#355;e umane". "Oameni" means something like "people", "men". The feminine gender of "fiin&#355;e" ('beings') does not influence in any way its meaning. Bogdan | Talk 09:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * So, as a suggested correction to the translation, I submit that the following translation might be closer to the original English text used for the example.


 * "To&#355;i oameni se nasc liberi &#351;i egali în demnitate &#351;i în drepturi. Ei sunt înzestra&#355;i cu ra&#355;iune &#351;i con&#351;tiin&#355;&#259; &#351;i trebuie s&#259; se comporte uni fa&#355;&#259; de al&#355;i în spiritul fraternit&#259;&#355;ii."

- Note: I'm not entirely certain but it is possible that "oameni" may require a second "i" to distinguish one term "oameni" - As in: "All people are mammals./To&#355;i oameni sînt mamifere." and another version which seems to demand it - As in: "Who is responsible for pollution? People are./Cine este responsabil pentru poluare? Oamenii."

Again, I am not certain but in spoken Romanian there is a definite emphasis on the last "i" of the second variation, sufficient to make me suspect that a second "i" may be required.


 * Yes, it would need a second "i" as definite article. Bogdan | Talk 09:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous (209.147.192.47) edits

 * "archaisms" -> "less used today"

I don't see the point of this change. bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 22:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * ..."Da" meaning "yes" is obviously a Slavic borrowing...

Already mentioned in the following paragraph. bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 22:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Besides vocabulary, however, there are strong Slavonic influences, both on the phonetic level and on the grammatical level that set the language apart from its cousins in Western Europe

Not true. There is little to no influence on the phonetic level. The phonemes that set appart Romanian from Italian such as "î/â" and "&#259;" were developed before the Slavic contact.

The only important influence on the Romanian grammar since the split from Western Romance is the Balkan linguistic union, and most of those features are not of Slavic origin. bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 22:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)