Timeline for Why do so many core Romanian words with Latin roots come from different roots than in the other Romance languages?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 7, 2022 at 15:16 | comment | added | cipricus | The intended conclusion of such speculations is that Romanians=Dacians, and Romania=Dacia, for reasons of patriotic nature which can be reduced to the fear that the Roman origin of Romanians cannot be equated with perfect territorial continuity in Dacia/Romania. Because the language is so obviously Roman, the trick is to explain this fact by equating Dacian and Latin languages. In fact Romanian patriotism doesn't need this crazy fixation, and territorial continuity as well as Latinization of Dacians can operate as a reasonable hypotheses (as said in other comment) without this absurdity. | |
| Nov 7, 2022 at 15:07 | comment | added | cipricus | For a logically-twisted, informative, interesting and complete Romanian etymological dictionary see Mihai Vinereanu: all Slavic and Latin roots are there considered "on the basis of IE studies", meaning they are identified as "IE" and thus (!) of pre-Latin, that is Dacian origin! Were the same method to be applied to Italian or any IE modern language, it could be proven Dacian-based too (in fact any ancient IE language could serve as base). Anyway the result of such "studies" is that more or less Dacian=Latin, a craziness which is in fact the most sacred part of the credo of this sect! | |
| Nov 19, 2019 at 12:18 | comment | added | cipricus | For Romanian readers: take a look at this very funny but very interesting book: Dacopatia şi alte rătăciri româneşti | |
| Nov 19, 2019 at 12:17 | comment | added | cipricus | That Dacia had one language (imposed in the same way as Latin was in Italy) before the Roman conquest is hard to imagine. The rapid Latinization of that area is more easily explained by the fact that Dacians were a federation of tribes with different languages (which explains why only exceptionally were politically united) and that linguistic unification came only with the Roman conquest, through Latin, in the same way as French and English have been adopted to this day by millions of Africans in less than 200 years. | |
| Nov 19, 2019 at 12:15 | comment | added | cipricus | The relation between Dacian (if there was one single Dacian language) and Latin cannot be more than between two different Indo-European languages. This is the protocronist view on Dacians, the Romanian version of Protochronism. Latin was imposed by force even in Italy, were tens of very different languages were spoken. | |
| S Sep 14, 2016 at 13:54 | history | suggested | Ken Graham | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Improved formatting.
|
| Sep 14, 2016 at 12:31 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Sep 14, 2016 at 13:54 | |||||
| Nov 28, 2015 at 9:27 | comment | added | user4938 | Your post inspired me to look up some of the languages of the region and their history. It appears that there is really not enough information to come to any conclusion either way. My guess would be that the Roman influence started much earlier than the Roman occupation and that Dacians used Latin as a literary language rather than writing in Dacian. So maybe we can think of Dacian as a 'dialect' of Latin in the relaxed, mostly sociological sense that is used with 'dialects' of Chinese. Maybe the normal way to become a Dacian intellectual involved years spent in Roman settlements or even Rome. | |
| Apr 8, 2013 at 2:36 | comment | added | hippietrail | Despite being almost a "wall of text" and having just a bit of admitted bias, I find this to be a good and interesting answer. There are many cases where the flow of language has taken a different path from the flow of genetics but the current lack of much knowledge of Dacian and Thracian language definitely leaves a gaping hole that is not easy fill in, especially with the many official theories pushed by dominating powers through history. | |
| S Apr 7, 2013 at 20:11 | review | Late answers | |||
| Apr 16, 2013 at 0:29 | |||||
| S Apr 7, 2013 at 20:11 | review | First posts | |||
| Apr 9, 2013 at 19:23 | |||||
| Apr 7, 2013 at 19:54 | history | answered | Mihai S. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |