Why Romanian Isn't Like Other Languages
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 พ.ค. 2024
- Looking to hire top talent from Romania? Sign up for our free weekly newsletter, the Carpathian Report, delivered every Friday to your inbox!
candidates.gocarpathian.com/s...
Ever wondered why a Latin-based language is over in the eastern bloc? How did it survive centuries of Slavic migrations and pressures from powers like Russia, the Ottomans, and Austria? Well even if you haven't wondered this already, the story of Romanian is a fascinating one!
0:00 Introduction
0:44 Latin Origins of Romanian
4:14 How the Fall of Rome Affected Dacia
6:06 The 6th Century Slavic Migrations
8:24 The Development of Modern Romanian
10:04 End
Decebalus didnt surrender, he actually lost the battle with the romans and ran into the mountains where he took his own life (better dead than a slave of the romans)
You're right, I think I got his first defeat in 102 AD, where he surrendered and accepted terms, confused with his defeat in 106 AD, where he fled and eventually committed suicide. Thanks for pointing that out!
@@GoCarpathian,I think you should pin this comment for the sake of correction
he wouldn't have been a slave
barbarian kings were publicly executed during the roman triumph parade, he just avoided the humiliation
6:10= BECEBAL = STILL UNDERSTANDABLE IN MAGYAR - HUNGARIAN LANGUAGE -> BECAUSE THE DAHA -> DACO - DÁK PEOPLE WAS SCYTIANS MIXED WITH SARMATIANS RACE , THEY HAD AN EMPIRE BEFORE THE ROMANS = BECEBAL OR DECEBAL = BECSES BAAL OR DECSE-> DICSŐ BAAL ( BAAL = KAN -> BALCAN [ NOWDAYS : THE TERITORY OF BAAL KAN ] = THE DACIANS HAVE NEVER AND ANYTHING TO DO WITH ROMANS IN RACE THEORY , EXCEPT PICKTED UP THE ROMAN LANGUAGE SOME OF IT , IN THE BAD WAY, WITH THEY BAD TERITORIAL ACCENT ! OTHER PROOF = BULGARIAN ARE NOT SLAVIC RACE , BUT USING SLAVIC LANGUAGE . POLISH PEOPLE ARE , MAYBE ⅓ OF IT SARMATIANS , THAT'S WHY ARE BEST FRIENDS OF HUNGARIANS , WHO ARE SCYTIAN - SARMATIAN MIXED PEOPLE TOO , MOSTLY - MAINLY PANHUNS ( MED'S ) + JAZIGS , HUNS + AVARS + MAGYAR . FALSE INFO -> THE POLISH - HUNGARIANS BECOME VERY CLOSE FRIENDS , SINCE BOTH PICKED UP THE JUDEOCHRISTIANITY . WAS MUCH EARLIER THE STRONG BONDS . Etc...
He also says in the intro Berebista i kid you not.
i’m a simple woman. i see a linguistics video, and i click on it
Nice 👍
Teo if this is you leave Sofia alone you utter disgrace (If you're not Teo then sorry lmao)
Same
A woman on the internet? Impossible
@@DarwinskiYT unheard of!
Greetings to Romanian 🇷🇴 brothers from Bulgaria 🇧🇬
Give us back what you guys took from us )
gib southern dobruja back or else (yt dont delete this or else)
@@Freddy_Fazbear_and_Witherred write in english, if u wanna understand
@@zew597you mad?
@@zew597 No , No, no teritorials claim between us! at all! bulgarians and romnanians are brotherts!
I’m right here now in Bucharest and visited the country for 15 days. I’m so proud that I am here in this long time sister language romanian. I’m brazilian and speak portuguese. I learned a lot of romanian back home before arriving here.
We love Brasil and Latin America, out latin brothers and sisters 🇷🇴🇧🇷
@@madalinaanton3253 I’m in Moldova now. Ejoying it a lot too.
Portuguese and Romanian are very similar in the pronunciation.💪😏💪
@@steppenwolf1872 it hardly is similar. A lot closer to the italian pronunciation of words. I’m in Moldova now. i’m done with Romania already. Sadly. 😢
Im portuguese and i can say that romanian sounds latin to me..and beatiful. ❤
Its because you speak Occitan in Portugal and occitan its where the dacian visigoths settled. The visigoths were celts not germanics, just like the gauls, they had wings on their helmets, the grew vineyards as you can see on Athanaric treasure from my city, Buzau. They settled there because the languages were intelligible by the dacians. Celts.
@@mihaiilie8808 thats new for me..
Limba romåna nu este foarte diferitã de alte limbi romanice.
This video claims that Hungarian's closest linguistic relatives are Finnish and Estonian. While all three languages are indeed related, Hungarian is a very distant relation to the other two. In fact, the family tree of Uralic at 7:00 shows that Hungarian's two closest relatives are Khanty and Mansi.
You are fully right. Hungarian is distantly related to the Finnic Branche of Uralic languages.
I think he just did this since Finish and Estonian are the only Uralic languages the average viewer will know, but he’s you are correct.
You can trace their origins around the areas of Khanty and Mansi linguistic areas. Why they migrated will forever be the greatest mystery.
I love being Romanian 🇷🇴
Why to go on laying, that romanian is a latin language.The romanian language was artifically "fabricated" by "very international social scientists" from a slavic base into latin in the second half of the 19th century,even the use of former cyrilic letters was also changed to latin letters. The name of Romania has really been a great idea suggesting that they have a lot common with thj ancient Roma.(Why not Italy is named Romania?) Small part of Romania really was occipied for about 150 years by Rome compared to West Hungary under 400 years under roman rules.Nobody here pretends here to be of roman origin!!! Why?
@@imreboros9336 😂 cheers hungarian neighbour let's drink something when you're less frustrated and stop banging your head against the wall
@@imreboros9336s-a detectat un BOZGOR 😂😂😂
@@imreboros9336 "Nobody here pretends here to be of roman origin!"Rhetorical question. The largest part of the population that could have done this was relocated to make room for Hungarian yurts. The remaining ones founded the Castle Culture and then were Hungarianized. As far as artificiality is concerned, you cannot associate it with an Indo-European language, and manufacturing is the same, all languages undergo reforms over time, but it was even more difficult for the manufactured Romanian to reach the isolated villages on the mountain tops.
A fi ,,română" este un adjectiv... ,,română" sau ,,românească"... Dacă tu ai scris, înseamnă că ești o persoană care se poate desemna prin cuvântul ,,româncă" (substantiv).
Deci, înainte de a te mândri cu naționalitatea ta, învață decent să scrii în limba română!!! Altfel arăți exact contrariul a ceea ce intenționezi să transmiți prin scris.
The similarly named Aromanian is a distinct, albeit related, language. Sure, it only has just over 200,000 speakers, but it does count as another!
What we speak in Romania today is more correctly named dacoromanian,aromanian istroromanian and others are part of the larger romania family languages,(similar from the italian family languages,and they are much more)
Those days a lot of the other languages are more known as romanian dialects,but they did develop independent from the current day romanian,so it should be considered their own language
Some would say Aromanian is just a dialect of Romanian and not a language. And they would be right, because a language is just a dialect with an army and Aromanian doesn't have an army.
Arguably. It is a speech only, in this moment. It has no technical , cultural literatura, except a handful of poems and some folklore songs.
Many people, scientists and simple persons, consider it as a dialect of the Romanian.
In this status, it cand be preserved by teaching it in primary schools and then study the Romanian literary language to get a full university degree, the way the Swiss German speaking persons do.
Otherwise, the Aromanian speech, with almost no schooling but some primary schooling will get extinct, already an endangered „language”.
The Swiss germanophones continue to speak their dialects enforced naturally by the tongue of closest kinship and not forced to borrow new words from French, for instance thus making their dialect viable.
This has not also turned the Swiss germanophones into Germans as many ARomanians consider themselves to be different from Romanians. Let them be, but refusing the literary Romanian language the closest of kinship as the language for full academic education, they sentenced this Aromanian dialect to disappearance, hich is next to happen. Maybe in Albania to be a small chance to survive.
@@nydydn yeah that's bullshit. There are hundreds of languages in the world who's speakers have no army. Aromanian is a distinct language that split from a common ancestor Balkan Latin dialect with Romanian. Also the arrogance of calling it a dialect of Romanian and not the other way around(neither is a dialect if the other in reality, just close sister languages), just because the much larger group has an academy and decided it is so.
@@nydydn e o limbă.
"The only romance language east of Italy"
*Cries in Aromanian, Megleno-romanian and Istro-romanian*
*Major romance language
the phillipine creoles: 💀
Istro romanian has literaly 0 speakers...megleno romanian probably a few thousands....the only notable language there is aromanian that has around 300k speakers as far as i know.
We consider those some kind of old variants of the romanian language, like if the language was frozen in time and we are looking at an older version.
Daco romanian is kind of the modern one.
@@Alexandru1996_ These languages are languages of their own, not just varieties of romanian
@@igorlopes7589 they are literaly dialects of romanian
The title is about the language, the video is about geography and history wow I wasnt eclecting that
I am Romanian and I have an Italian colleague. When we discuss about the languages, there are many common features between his language (Sardinia) and Romanian. I mean things that similar between Sardinian dialect (or whatever I can call it) and Romanian, bypassing the today's Italian language that has other forms.
For example the word „cat” : Pisică (Romanian), Gatto (Italian) and Pisittu (Sardinia). I find this very odd, to be honest.
In Italia deget _dito nas -naso Mina -mano Mașină -machina Stradă -strada Casa - casă Tractor -tractor etc etc Sint multe cuvinte cale Noastre cu puține diferențe 😊❤
In the old romanian language, the CAT was called "catuşa" (from the Latin "catta" + the suffix "usa"). It was also preserved in the southern romanian dialects (Aromanian) "Catușea" but also in certain toponyms (Ex. Lake Catușa near Galati and I saw it somewhere around Arges but I don't remember exactly). From the onomatopoeia "pis" and the suffix "ica", the word "Pisica" was formed, which was used more often so that the initial word "catușa" was replaced in current speech.
@@h.adrian8911 pisica e celtic si catusa e germanic si slav.
@@mihaiilie8808 Ai scos-o de la tine sau ai vreo sursa ascunsa? Daca vrei sa afirmi ceva, vino cu argumente etimologice (fonetice, legaturi semantice, concordante gramaticele, atestari). Am sa te dezamagesc. Limba romana nu are cuvinte mostenite direct din vreunul din dialectele celtice. Singurele cuvinte atestate cu origine indepartata celtica si preluate de limba latina si ulterior si in limba romana, sunt : cal/caballus, camasa/camisia si car/carrum. Mai sunt si alte cuvinte pe care unii autori au presupus ca au origine celtica dar nu sunt confirmate.
@@h.adrian8911 Esti nebun? Limbile celtice sunt latina vulgara din care se trage si latina.
Toti muntii si toate raurile Europei au nume celtice. Bucegi, Carpati, Dunare, etc.
Esti in urma tare pentru ca dacii sunt celti, vizigotii sunt cei mai celti dintre celti ( nu germanici).
Nice video.
Olá pessoal, greetings from Portugal 🇵🇹
I must say that the video is great.
I would only like to make a few mentions, as someone who speaks Romanian since the day he was born, about some of the words in the list from 08:05:
„plod“ means „little child".
„trebuie” means "must”. („necessary” is translated as „necesar“).
„slavă“ („glory“) is considered archaic and, for more than 100 years is slowly replaced in daily use with the word „glorie”
„nădejde” („hope”) is also an archaic word. In daily speech one would rather use the word „speranță” (pronounced sperantza).
“silă” means „nausea“, „loathing” or „🤢🤮“
„ceas” means „watch”. And in some particular situations can be used meaning „hour“ or „time”.( Ex. „Cât este ceasul? “ „What time (hour) is it?”
„lotcă” means indeed boat, and it is again an archaic, and also a regional word mainly used in Dobrogea ( pronounced similar to Dobrodjea with „J" as in „John"). Yet, the word that is most often used for „boat" is „barcă”
Otherwise, even if I may not agree with every detail in this video, I believe it is both entertaining and informative.
I actually like it!
"plod" este un regionalist?
@burner555 bănuiesc că întrebi dacă cuvântul este regionalism. Caz în care, ceea ce pot spune este că originea lui este populara și că are conotații ușor peiorative.
Dacă este sau nu regionalism, nu aș putea spune. Eu îl știu datorită faptului că l-am auzit în casă (deci nu l-am învățat dintr-un manual). Dar deși eu sunt născut și crescut în Ardeal, la fel ca și părinții mei, familia mea are rădăcini atât bucovinene cât și sudiste...
Înclin totuși să cred că este folosit mai degrabă în zona Moldovei... Dar aici recunosc că speculez.
Dacă însă întrebi altceva... Îmi pare rău, dar nu știu să îți răspund.
Multe mulțumesc, eu învat limbă română și me am ajuta multe.
Sono italiano ti ringrazio tanto 💪👍
I am romanian too and silă doesn’t only mean nausea, if you use in this context : l-a silit să-şi facă temele( He forced him do his homework) it means to make someone do something/ force someone(in one word it would be OBLIGATION). Although you are mostly right, my romanian friend, because the meaning I told now can be considered archaic( only grandpas use it now) I find it fair to tell foreigners that although the base meaning of silă is nausea, as you pointed out, another meaning, that is not usually used to be fair, is to force someone to do something( but not only force like the autor said on the list, if you want to use it with this meaning you’ve got to put it in context) . So I don’t disagree with you but I find the use of “force” a translation mistake as it’s correct translation ONLY IF YOU USE IT IN THIS CONTEXT: A fost silit de mama sa să-şi facă curat în cameră( meaning: He was forced by his mom to tidy up his room), would be “to force to” . In the end it is not important as it is an archaic word, being replaced by “ a fost forța să…” or “ a fost obligat să… in a sentence. Overall it was a good video and I am not trying to correct you, only to add something to your explanation “care mi-a sărit în ochi😉”.
Totally agree with you. And we can add that, if we want to bamboozle someone with some Romanian words, „silā "is a great word to use. Because aside from „silā" we also have the word „silitor". One might think that a man who is „silitor", is someone who does things in (with) „silā". But...NO. we are talking about someone who does things properly, who cuts no corners, someone who works as hard as he needs in order to have the work done. He is someone for whom the word „procrastination" wasn't invented. So yes... Our language is extremely simple...
This was great! More videos on România, please! :)
Very underrated video
The closest relatives of Hungarian are Khanty and Mansi
Both are in spoken in a region of Russia.
You are technically correct, the best kind of correct : )
and chuvash
@@siyacernot true
@@loganjeffrey4136 sure is
There is NO "re-latinization"! First of all you can't "re-latinize" what is already latin. The proportion of latin to slavic words are same before and after the so-called "re-latinization".
Dream on. According to a study conducted by the Ca' Foscari University in Venice (Università Ca' Foscari di Venezia) and the Italian Ministry of Universities and Scientific Research (Ministero dell'Università e della Ricerca Scientifica),[1][2] the vocabulary of the modern Romanian language contains about 90% elements of the Latin language, while before the creation of the state of Romania in 1861 through the union of the two principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, the Latin vocabulary in the written language was only 20%, something common to all European languages, and the remaining 80% were words, loanwords or derived primarily from Bulgarian, less Modern Greek, Hungarian, Turkish or Albanian.
@@kalinxristov1654 This dude thinks 20 million people who didn't know how to read suddenly changed the language spoken there for 1800 years and suddenly learned a totally new language and alphabet :))) Some dudes are really funny :)))
@@RaduRadonys If they didn't know how to read then yeah, they could've easily learned a totally new alphabet, lmao. And Romanian was traditionally written in the cyrillic alhpabet which means it did change alphabets, but that doesn't matter since cyrillic is just an alphabet, nothing more. Also I don't think that Romanian's vocabulary was only 20% latin, that seems low but it definitely wasn't 90% and still isn't (it's 75% latin/romance, 15% slavic and 10% other/unknown)
Also you underestimate how much the upper class can change a language to their liking. It wouldn't happen now, but back then most people were, as you said, illiterate and could easily change their vocabulary to fit in with the others. FFS the latinization of Romania only happened in 100-150 years and most people stopped speaking dacian to adopt latin. So it could easily relatinize the language in 60-70 years (1865-1930s)
@@kalinxristov1654 Romanian always was a latin language. Very few Romanian words come from other languages. The majority have latin and Dacian origin. In the past we may have used Cyrillic alphabet for writing but we also used the traditional Romanian script which is latin but looks more like Byzantine Greek.
@@kalinxristov1654 Bulgarian propaganda...
Good video!
7:06 Wrong. Hungarian is actually related to Finnish and Estonian, but not that close, since they belong to completely different Uralic branches. It's like saying English's closest relative was Russian. The actual closest relatives of Hungarian are the two Ob Ugrian languages Khanty and Mansi in Siberia. Together they form the Ugric branch of the Uralic languages, whereas Finnish and Estonian are both belonging to the Finnic branch. In fact, there's more phonologic resemblence between Finnic and the branches of Samic, Mari and Permic than between Finnic and Ugric, that's why these four are often grouped together into Finno-Permic, whose unity as one branch is, hower, still debated. That also means that Ugric is the second most divergent branch of Uralic, second only to Samoyedic, which is much more divergent even than Ugric (it even restructured almost its entire numeral system, their word for ten for example evolved from the Proto-Uralic word for five). So Finnish and Estonian definitely aren't Hungarian's closest relatives
Most of the re-latinisation came from the 19th C contact with Italy and, especially, 🇫🇷. "Testament" 📃 replaced "diată". "Stradă" 🚸 replaced "uliță". Some of the older Greek, Turkish or Slavic words are still used to bring some colour in literature or journalism.
PS: re-latinisation does not mean we didn't already have loads of Latin origin words, inherited from the Romans - lună 🌛, mare 🌊, nas👃🏻, verde 🟢, etc . It means we updated our language and replaced a ton of old words, most of them, non-latin.
By re-Latinization I figured he meant the alphabet
i've started learning romanian this week. it has been great so far
This is a great video. No need to mention the outlandish theories though. People who believe in the absurd idea that Latin came from Dacian are an embarrassment to us, Romanians. They are a vocal minority on the internet that shouldn't be given any publicity or credibility. They aren't representative of what Romanians believe.
Romanians are thracian ( the oldest celts).
These celts spoke vulgar latin and the romans are celts because etruscans are celts and even the trojans( founders of Rome from Turkey).
So the ancestors of the romans spoke latin and they got it from Romania.
Celts speak vulgar latin and it all started in Romania.
All indo-european languages originated in the Ukraine area ( that eventually became Latin , Celtic , Dacian etc. ) . Proto-Latin / or a population came via a migration from Nord-of-Carpathians meeting the Alps ( around Slovakia ) to enter into Italy. There is a possibility that Latin preserved some relationship to the other indo-euroean Languages and was similar to Dacian Language at least in some words. All indo-european languages have similar root worlds for some important concepts. The Theory exist and is plausible but very hard to verify as we no longer have the Dacian and Thracians languages to study.
@@CapriciousStoic2 Celtic is not indoeuropean at first. Later they got mixed with the indoeuropeans but the first celts are not. This is based on paleogenetic tests.
And these celts dont come from Ukraine, but between Romania and Bulgaria and they literally got out from under the Black Sea when it was flooded 12 000 years ago.
Lake Agassiz in Canada melted, ocean rised so as the Mediteranean and it flooded the Black Sea.
The oldest european civilisations are right on the Black Sea shore, between Romania and Bulgaria.
Bulgaria also has the oldest city in Europe, Plovdiv and Sofia is also very old.
These are the thracians and the celts that built Gobekli Tepe, Plovdiv and Stonehenge.
@@mihaiilie8808 lmao. What do Trojans have to do with Thracians? and moreover what do they have to do with Romans? You make no sense.
@@CapriciousStoic2 Latin being similar to Dacian because of the Proto-Indo European common ancestor is not a meaningful statement. By the same argument, you can say that English is similar to Hindi, because both languages originate from Proto-Indo European. But how similar is English to Hindi if we're being honest?
Thank you for the video!
To make things clear, we have entire texts written in Romanian starting with 1521, Neacsu's letter to the mayor of Brasov, about an impending Ottoman invasion.
So, not just isolated words or sentences, entire texts and entire books, including the complete translation of the Bible into Romanian, which was finished in 1688.
This was long before the decision to model Romanian lands after the Western model (especially France) in the nineteenth century.
You can analyze the texts, I dare you to compare them with Slavic texts.
Usually, foreigners who aren't linguists will dump any Romanian word they don't recognize into the Slavic bucket, even when the word is of Dacian, Latin, Greek, Turkish or even German origin.
But it is true that we borrowed some words from French in the nineteenth century, even some from Italian, and in general the modern words for new concepts are based on Latin, and to a lesser extent on Ancient Greek.
Why would we have done otherwise, if our grammar was already Latin and most of the words of Latin origin?
Politics aside, why would we have formed the words for modern concepts based on Slavic or Germanic or Finno-Ugric lsnguages, or why borrow from those languages? You couldn't give a single objective linguistic argument for that.
Yes, you are correct. I have never studied Romanian in my life, but, I speak Italian as a second language ( not a native speaker second language) and by chance I found a copy somewhere of this document from 1521 and even I could understand the odd sentence and specific phrase. Therefore this begs the question, if Romanian is not a Latin language as some hystericaly claim, why would someone who has never studied Romanian and speaks Italian as a second language understand some sentences from this document from 1521
Let me put it clear. It is impossible that some of the Dacians didn't spoke latin, especially high hierarchic men and women. Simply because money doesn't have language barrier. They would trade a lot of goods, before and after the war. It is known that dacians "stamped" false roman gold coins, that could mean that at least some of them knew latin just to help them to trade goods south of Danube. After the Aurelian retreat, is true that a lot of people migrated south, but a lot of them remained in the mountains, isolated from the influence of slavic tribes. PLUS (i don't remember the year) on the time of Bulgarian empire, wallachians come back again from the south of the Danube to occupy deserted fields left behind from the mongols (if i am not wrong). So, the people from mountains, which spoke latin + the same people who spoke vulgar latin from the south, reoccupied Wallachia and something like this gave birth to romanian language.
Great video and very documented. Very well done!!!
I'm subscribed
Reporter: Where is Ukraine?
American: [points Australia] Over here 🗿
And the face he make too 😂😂😂😂
The confidence in showing Ukraine on the map that guy ..., priceless 🤣
Aaahh...the American! 😂😂😂
* New Russia
@@Cjnw Never trust them in terms of geography.
you forgot the coastline of croatia with dalmatian as a romance language (due to roman cities/colonies/municipae) and obviously albanian, that emerged from the same era but was probably "re-albanized" later which we can see on the 60% latin word pool. the ancient people of these countries, romania included were probably much closer together and depending on the era and empires border, it could have covered almost the whole balkans. probably one of the most interesting times to dig into historically in that region
I heard that the Albanians just hid in the mountains until the collapse of Rome
That's true, Dalmatian and a couple other eastern Romance languages survived the the Slavic migrations but have since gone extinct. It's likely that the other Romance languages in the Balkans (besides Daco-Romanian) will suffer the same fate in time.
@@GoCarpathian that's kinda sad
Yes, it is. There are hundreds of languages with only a few thousand speakers or less throughout the world and a lot of them are on their way to extinction. It's very unfortunate.
@@GoCarpathian Dalmatian didn't come from Eastern Romance branch of romance languages, but from the italo-dalmatian branch.
Also take into account that Western Romance languages do have Germanic influences, which lead to confusions.
For instance, the word 'White' in Latin is 'Albus.' However, in Romance languages it is 'Blanco,' or 'Blanche,' most probably a lombard (East Germanic) influence. On the other hand, the Romanians still say 'Alb' for White, as the Romans of old did.
Before the Heraclids changed the official language to Greek in 612 AD in Constantinople you would hear mostly Latin and VL. This was a brand new fully built Roman city, officially named for 3 centuries as "New Rome". Before 610 AD most Roman emperors in Constantinople were Roman Thracians and Illyrians from the Balkans and their mother tongue was Latin and VL.
Also ridiculous to call sunken huts or pit houses, river stone ovens or poorly decorated ceramics as a clear signal of early Slavs. Even early Anglo Saxons used sunken huts in Britain. Dacian cultures used sunken huts since BC times, long before any Slavs were recorded in history. Given the spread of these material cultures most probably is about Carpi and Costoboc Dacians, originated at east and north of Carpathians in the past, obviously mixed in time with other ethnic groups.
Doamne ajuta tatâ. Sa fim sanatosi. 🇹🇩
Is doamne derived from dominus?
@@tacidian7573😂
Doamne came from the Latin vocative case “Domine”
Dumnezeu came from the Latin Dominus Deus
Domn/Doamna came from the Latin Dominus/Domina
@@UlpianHeritor
Close enough I guess. Thanks, Trajan.
Fascinating
6:35 while this picture is depicting a migration of Slavs yes (serbs to be specific),it's not the one from the 16th century. It's depicting the great migration of Serbs to the Panonian basin,as an escape from Ottoman influence
personally, i find romanian very very unique in its way of using the vulgar latin article ille after the noun instead of before. The only ones doing this are the eastern romans. While in the west and south, they placed it before the noun, resulting in french le,la, les, spanish el,la,los,las, etc. While romanian merged those articles into the noun (e.g. barbat (a man) > barbatul (the man) instead of lu barbat or something). First time i learnt romanian i was pretty confused by those -l and -le endings.
edit : the first a in barbat has an accent marker but i cant write that on laptop.
Hey ❤❤ I am your 12th subscriber❤❤
Normie!!!
Well-made video (very funny aswell)
As for the so called Slavic migration of 6 century, there is no single piece of evidence that these tribal unions spoke Slavic or had Slavic groups in them. All the names left suggest Germanic, Baltic, Iranian, Thracian populations. Their material cultures abound mostly on the territory of east and south Romania, with an extreme spread out in today's Czechia, south Poland and west Ukraine. They are clearly former Geto - Dacian tribes, Slavicized later in time.
Hungarian is actually most related to the Khanty and Mansi languages from Siberia.
"The Romans would usually invade and annex new regions on the periphery of existing Roman lands under the pretext of protecting the already existing borders from attack."
That sounds all too familiar nowadays...
The USA says it needs to attack, invade, bomb countries on the other side of the world because "we either fight them there or fight them in the USA". It's more ridiculous than even Roman logic
how this video has only 200 views ? i think it was 200k lol
I wonder whos family name that letter in Romanian Cyrillic comes from ?
This is such a great video. I love how you combine larger (the broad strokes of the history of rome) and smaller (Dacia and its languages) perspectives to give an overview of the question of why there is a romance language spoken in eastern europe. Liked and subscribed.
Thanks so much, glad you liked the video!
In greece the common oral tradition is that the "Romans' shepherds" emerged successful during the migration period because their semi-nomadic lifestyle was well suited for the lawlessness and lack of atrong authority. They wintered their herds in the plains and spend summers in the mountains, and the land in romania is good for this. Turks would also do this Asia Minor. It had a pretty profound effect of driving out or assimilating the settled peoples.
This was actually the best video i found summarizing how the Romanian language exist. Thank you so much. Love from California. I’m actually Romanian myself but immigrated into the states at a very young age with my family.
Aș vrea să știi că limba română provine dintr-o limbă indo-europeană, foarte veche, natural fonetică, încă din neolitic, foarte apropiată de limba română arhaică !
Multă sănătate !
💩
Păi, aici e vina părinților că nu te-au învățat română! Românii, cred, sunt singurii care-și uită limba după ce au emigrat. Cu siguranță copiii lor o uită, și asta e cam unic.
@@ovidiumarinelsava7928 You’re absolutely right i should. I understood what you said, but unfortunately i can’t type back to you in Romanian. I can speak it, hardly read it, but typing it/writing it out is still extremely difficult for me. Thank you so much I wish you well.
@@rusucristian1847 We immigrated into the U.S. when i was only three years old. I grew up in a Romanian household i can speak the language, but unfortunately i’m still not yet fluent. I can read your responses i just can’t answer them back in Romanian lol. With that said; it’s my fault, not my parents.
Greek was the administrative language of the Byzantines . Even the ottoman adapted Greek for administration
8:04 as a romanian i can say alot of these words arent used much
Plod - Fruct (i have never heard this word)
Slavă - Glorie (same with this so im translating the english part)
Silă (it is used but not as force, more like Mi-e silă să fac asta, I dont want to/feel like do/doing this. Thats the closest translation i could think about)
Lotcă-Barcă (based this off english translation, lotcă is another word i have never heard)
Ceas is mostly used when asking about time (Cât e ceasul?) It is sometimes used to replace hour (oră) Mergem într-un ceas (this is not commonly used). Ceas is also the word for clock
A better translation, in my opinion, would be timp. Timp is mostly used in the present: E timpul să plecăm. Its time to leave.
Trup has mostly been replaced by corp but its still sometimes used and you can see it in poetry
Nădejde i couldnt really translate but not used much from my experience
@@alex857tgg I prefer speranta.
they are more common in some villages than in towns but even then it sounds like churchly speech which kept a lot of the slavonic terminology
Cum adica n-ai auzit de cuvintele "plod" si "lotca"? Plod e folosit destul de des in media - ce-i drept, la plural:"plozii", si de multe ori cu o conotatie negativa. "Plozii politicienilor", "politicienii si plozii lor" - se refera la copiii politicienilor, desi cei care il folosesc vor sa induca indeea de "lepra/lichea", plod inseamna copil. Lotca, desi e regionalism din zona Dobrogei, e cat de cat cunoscut si-n alte regiuni ale tarii. Se vede ca n-ai prea fost prin delta. :-)
@@bbronxx da nu am fost prin delta, trebuia sa pun ca probabil e regionalism.
Before launching his theory Jirecek should have visited the history and archeological museums in Athens and Istanbul, but obviously most discoveries were made later and there was the international frenzy to serve Greek nationalism against the Ottomans.
That heavily colonization of Dacia, was not that "heavy", Roman empire occupied less than 25% of Dacian territory, the rest of the land surrounding occupied Dacia was populated with free Dacians, the Romans wanted only to steal the gold and silver from them, the land occupied by Romans had all the gold mines.
we have the most easy language on the earth. gretings from romania
I dont understand why Romanian always gets so much hate from the other Romance languages. We are very often called a fake Romance language which is sad because Romanian Is a Romance language. Sure it may have more foreign influences than the rest of the Romance languages but it still is a majority Romance language. Its still in Top 5 closest languages to latin. Some 12% slavic influences dont turn the whole language Slavic.
It doesn't have more foreign influence, it has more diverse influence, because of the fanariot period, because of old church slavonic, because the romanian states had a privileged position for the ottomans. For example portuguese is 44% removed from Latin , yet it is still a latin language while English isn't. Vocabulary doesn't make a language latin or not , even though it is easy for romanians to learn the latin vocabulary of the english language,you cannot speak english unless you learn english grammar and english sinthax and pronounciation.
Can Americans put more than 0 effort into pronouncing words from other languages? Why do they think its normal to guess
Womp womp
Ask a brit to say taco
Do a video on the Luo linguist group withim East afrika, Uganda Ethiopia,South Sudan and Kenya Tanzania is their homelands
Plod isn't even known to the vast majority.
Slavă is strictly a church word not used with the meaning of the English glory. The proper Romanian word would be glorie.
Nădejde is used, next to speranță, which technically means the same, but it's of latin origin. The 2 words are used in different contexts though. When one is hopeless, he's lacking nădejde, but when one is hopeful, he's seeking speranță. Wonder why we use these like this.
Sila is only used in one expression, that is not proper Slavonic use, probably because we misunderstood the word. We say that we have silă, when we have to do something, but we'd rather not. When we have silă, we definitely don't have force, but force is used on is to do something we don't want.
Zori is barely used, but only to express a very early start of the morning. The proper word that everyone uses for dawn is răsărit.
Ceas means wristwatch, and archaically it was used as hour as well, but it never means time. Ceas entered the language through religion and through Russian occupation forces who used to steal watches from people.
Nobody uses "plod" unless they want to insult your children lmfao.
These words are now archaic because of relatinisation, but they were used more frequently before
I use the word slavă and other arhaic words on a daily basis.
@@AleodorImparat yeah, but for you it makes sense, since you're a fictional character from an old fairy tale. I was more referring to real people.
@@nydydn 😁 You have a point.
One of the main mistakes that scientists make is to think that the Romance languages derive from Latin. In fact, the Romance languages are languages of different origin influenced in one way or another by Latin. This is also the reason why the Romanian language has a grammatical structure closer to Latin and lexical composition more distant from other Romance languages.With the Western European Romance languages, things are exactly the opposite. Due to their common origin from Celtic, their grammar is similar, but different from that of Latin.
Wrong. Romance languages are derived from Latin and then diverged
In fact? Evidence? And scientists don't study languages, that would be linguists.
Latin was much more used around Mediterranea (the territory of the former empire) until the year 1000. After this year, many states were consolidated with main languages that were not derived from Latin, and in those areas, the Latin language was marginalized and gradually disappeared. On the territory of Romania, many conquerors after the Romanian occupation had eastern languages and did not integrate with the rest of the population, they remained as a military elite. After the year 1000, and especially after the Mongol invasion, a power gap appeared between the Kingdom of Hungary and the Golden Horde where the Roman principalities could be formed and could defend their language from this point onwards.
The theory about latin coming from romanian is rubish and I m romanian. There is evidence Dacians are a subgroup of Thracian people, which spoke indo-european. Now there is a posibility Dacians spoke some kind of indo-european language. Latin is an indo-european language as well as it is Greek so people say Dacian language was close somehow to Old Latin. There is no real evidence but many people take into consideation that Dacia region was never fully conquered, yet the whole region speaks a Romance language. So it is not far fetched to say Dacian which was an indo-european language mixed with Latin and created something else. I personally do think Dacian was similar with Old Latin and when romans came Dacian got assimilated into Classical Latin which in end created the Vulgar latin of Dacia which evolved in time in Romanian.
9:54 That is not the flag of Moldova, it's just the romanian flag with its coat of arms on it
2:22
SAR-mee-ze-ge-TOO-sa
we actually name it SarmisegetuZa ... don't know why. Guess the word got some regional / modern influences.
There also was the dalmatian language.
There are various other Romance languages east of Italy, by the way. They’re just not national languages.
Mountains then , the answer is mountains
If Romanian were like another language, why would it be called a language?
Liguists consider aromanian, istro-romanian, megle-romanian, daco-romanian dialects of the romanian language with daco-romanian being the language spoken in Romania, Moldova and by the minorities in Ukraine, Bulgaria and Serbia . Now this is also of political importance, I also support studying in their mother tongue at least for aromanians, but you see, the only country protecting vlachs from the south of the Danube , albeit very poorly , is Romania , vlach has become a tool word for asimilationist policies in Serbia, Greece, I don't think in Albania and Macedonia the borderline aromanian erasure is quite that strong . I know that Romania offers scholarships for aromanians in romanian universities , I know we have oppened romanian schools in Albania and Macedonia for aromanian students and the teachers there also teach in aromanian. If you would be to suddenly declare aromanians a minority, even with the intention to protect their culture which is very cherished in Romania , it would mean to abandon them to the bastardisation that is the helenisation of aromanian culture and history, and the straight up erasure of romanians by the Serbian government who already doesn't recognise the entire romanian minority and just calls them vlachs. It would also mean to upset aromanian nationalists, which are aromanian people that consider themselves romanians and the "bravest romanians of them all " that have endured the worst discrimination in the Balkans for their romanian identity. It is true that aromanians sought refuge and and thought of the northern danubian lands as their salvation from pogroms . I also know aromanians in Romania mean well when they want to protect their language because their children don't see a use for speaking aromanian anymore , I wish we could do something for them and also for aromanians in Albania, Macedonia and Greece that I've talked to , that are so wholesome and so patriotic, they are monarchists and they always have been , they even know how to sing Trăiască Regele in aromanian, and these are people that have never been to Romania and have never been under King Michael . At the end of the day megle-, istro- and aromanian history is romanian history and they need a benevolent state to defend them and to be their voice in Europe . Just ask yourself this , for whom is eastern european latinity important other than for Romania? Aromanians don't have a state, God have mercy neither istro- and megle- romanians, why would macedonians want latin people there ? why would serbians want latin people there? why would greeks want any latin people there? when latinity is such an easy thing to take away you might just do , why not , look at this nice and round mono ethnical society that was achieved without blooshed, hopefully. Daco-romanian was possible because it managed to create some form of statehood around it. But God have mercy on us if the fate of balkan latinity is in the hands of our government. Just listen to this grandpa speaking aromanian th-cam.com/users/shortsH8Kxvv9r6rE?si=DCNPXWCChdgUUjz6 and can I get romanians to tell me how similiar it is to daco-romanian?!
N.B I did not bother to write North Macedonia, I think in this context it wasn't worth it.
A tunat si va adunat . Tot felul de pacalici au ajuns sa faca filmulete cu subiect "istoric" si sa le puna pe you tube . Daca filmuletul este de noaptea mintii , comentariile vin din putul gadirii . Nu vezi un comentariu apartinand unui istoric adevarat , in schimb citim parerile unora care se pare ca au auzit de istorie la fara frecventa . Te ia cu lehamite de atatia "istorici" .
Spune-ne ce este gresit in video, Dorule. Nu ne fa sa ghicim, daca si stii.
Hungarian is closest to Khanty and Mansi linguistically
He took over a lot from Turkish languages as well because of the neighborhood and from Ossetie like the Russians.
like
Interesting point of view, but wrong.
Faceți o greșeală când spui imperiul lui Burebista Dacia și te referi doar la daci faceți greșeală.Este vorba de geto-daci geți și daci două triburi diferite dar asemănătoare ligvistic.Primi au fost geți după aia daci uninduse formând imperiul geto-dac Dacia
In Sicilian ; unni
Romanian; unde
In English; where
Romanian is unde.
Rural north Romania is pronounced undi or uni.
Latin; unde
Romanian; unde
Portuguese; onde
Spanish; donde (de unde --> de onde)
In the eastern half of Romania and in the R.Moldova they say "undi"
Romanian and Sicilian ❤
Good video. It's colonization btw, not colonialization.
Slavic substrates and centuries of separation from western romance languages will do that.
Slavic substrate? You mean adstrate or maybe superstrate.
romanian does not have a slavic substrate
*slavic influence
The western romance languages have a gothic/germanic substrate that separate them from Latin.
@@UlpianHeritor And celtic substrate.
first, for english speakers: SARMEE-SE-JETOOSA
2nd, your theory is some 1800 logic with not so many arguments, but kept alive by some lazy people. the "romanisation" process was not so much about language, culture and gods and art, was about military organization. like in all other provinces (read some books, not written by romanians, but by history and military experts from england, france).
3rd, there were only 2 legions defending, one formed with celtic/germanic troops from modern days austria/ hungary or troops from modern days serbia (moesia back then, people closer to thracia rather than latium). their language coulnt be so much latin, isnt it? (+ a lot of auxiliary troops, like syrian archers)
4th, that so intense colonisation coulnt took place so easy so fast. there are only 170 years of roman occupation, much less than romans in greece, spain, france. more than that,... there was no peace and calm. there were uprising/riots every 10-15 years (the book Historia Augusta prove it). with modern day technology and translate, the poster of this video couldnt get the name of the dacian town right, but back in first century, a bounch of peasents and sheep herd keepers would learn a new language in couple of years? silly
5th. from year ~200, the large migration begun. lots of tribes conquered first the free dacians, than the roman provence. this migration ended up after mongol invasion (~1250).
yet, the langauge is somehow evenly utilise by all areas of romanian today. of course, with many influence from powerfull neighbors (slavs, hungary, turkey), but largely closer to romanic rather them. perhaps that the peasents and herd keepers spoke that "latin" language before?
i would like a clear, non-bias, strongly documented analysis on this ....
Only? You missed the other three
You obviously didn't watch the video. Go to 7:43.
My man went to Google Images lmao
The extinct Dalmatian language was the link between Italic languages and Daco/Romanian.
Is Burebista not Berebista! You must be from USA
You literally forgot that Istro-Romanian, Istrian and Aromanian exist...
Did you watch the whole video? I literally did not forget.
noi Români vorbim latină an rest nu contează
As someone who has never studied Romanian but speaks Italian I can say from real life experience you are completely correct
The most beautiful language ever...
Russian is.
@@m.dewylde5287 Russian is a beautiful language too but as the poem says: “Mult e dulce și frumoasă limba ce o vorbim,
@@m.dewylde5287 Russian is as beautiful as a pigs behind.
@@m.dewylde5287 Russian is as beautiful as Arabic.
@@m.dewylde5287 ruzzian is as beautiful as its countryside. It's 💩
Dakia, not Deisha.
Da-chi-a, from a Romanian.
@@radudumitru7692 Not how they said in 2000 years ago though
@@servantofaeie1569Yeah crazy how languages change in 2000 years.
It is not surprising at all.
Romanian ain’t the only Romance language east of Italy. Just look at the map you showed.
He mentioned them.
romanian people
Romanian is not the only Romance language in eastern Europe , Aromanian languages are eastern European and are not Romanian.
It will not be Romanian, but Bulgarian, Serbian, Albanian or Greek not even that much.
He talks about them in the video.
Please fo Norwegian
The theory is that the Romance languages do not come from Latin but from another older language, the language spoken by the Thracians. According to Herodotus, the Thracians were the largest people after the Hindus. Many of the emperors of the Roman Empire were Thracians. The "Romanity" was not an ethnicity. It is a mistake to say that our languages come from Latin when the "Latins" themselves were inferior in the Roman Empire. It is like saying that today we speak english because we belong to the European Union. The Roman Empire was what is today the European Union. Hundreds of people lived with their language and traditions. The Latin language was a language created to understand each other, like English today. But our languages do not come from Latin.
Why not Latin speaking in Greece? 400 years under the Roman Empire, Egypt 800 years, Britain too, and many others. Dacia? 165 years and everyone spoke Latin. This theory is illogical and can be easily dismantled if we look at the sources. But it is easier to say that we come from Latin than to write the whole history again.
Well we did have latin speakers in Britain but then a lot of Germans moved in. And Greek was a prestigious language in the Roman Empire. And who were all these Thracian Emperors? Do you mean the Illyrians? And why are we taking Herodotus as evidence for things happening hundreds of years after he died?
I do agree it is a little wild Latin would have such an impact but 175 years is not a short period of time. If Britain had never been invaded by the Saxons maybe the English would speak a Romance language today.
@@johnpoole3871
-Maximinus Thrax (The name says it all. Thrax = Thracian)
-Regalianus (There is a source that says that he was the great-grandson of Decebalus)
-Aureolus (Dacian, born in Dacia. Zonaras later wrote that Aureolus was from the country of the Getae, later called Dacia. He was a pastor when he was young)
-Galerius (His mother was from Dacia and he was born in Sofia, modern-day Bulgaria. Sources say that he was so proud to be Dacian that he even attempted to change the name of the Roman Empire into the Dacian Empire. Today you can see in the arch of Galerius in Thessaloniki, the legions of Dacians with whom he won the battle. It is interesting that the Dacians on Galerius' arch look the same as the Dacians on Trajan's column. The same clothing and banner of the Dacians; The Dacian Draco. Aren't they supposed to have been "romanized"?)
-Maximinus Daia (Grandson of Galerius)
-Licinius (He came from a family of Dacian peasants)
And there were many more but I think I gave enough names. I should also mention that the Romans sculpted more than 100 statues of Dacians. Why? It was the only defeated ancient people that Rome made statues of. The statues in the Arch of Constantine are Dacians, the Boboli Gardens in Florence, in the Vatican, and many museums around the world. Another interesting thing is that some of the Dacian statues that are made of red porphyry. It is a stone of luxury and power, brought from Egypt. Only Emperors could afford to have statues of that stone. But we find that the Romans themselves made statues of that stone to some Dacian "barbarians" who managed to defeat them after decades.
My friend, history hides many things that the vast majority do not know. It's a shame because there is so much evidence visible but people ignore it and the historians are all silent. You just have to read what the Greeks and Romans themselves said about the Thracian world and you will see that they were not at all barbarians as we imagine today.
Jesuits romanised the native population who spoke proto serbian before the 17th century.
We speak chinese before 17 century! What a moron!
Few know that even touristic objectives like the Acropolis are 20th century made, based on imagination, how they might have looked in the past. So are rather fake and for that Greek purpose, needed to prove Greek history, when the Roman purpose was no longer useful, there were destroyed 7 centuries of Roman material cultures around.
Although this video its somewhat correct ..its full of errors. What its referred as Dacians its not correct. There were around 200 related(brotherly) tribes spread across vast area and not all them felt under the Roman occupation . For example the Getae tribe was right next to Roman occupied Dacia province( in the today's Bucharest area). Although Dacian and Getae spoke the same language Getae never been "Latinized" . Nor Costobocs nor Carps nor Apuls not Roxolans..and the list can go on... Its inexplicable how this tribes learned Latin since most of them didn't even saw a Roman for 170 yrs. The Romans didn't left because they had problems in the Empire. The Big Aurelian retreat was caused by the relentless attacks of free Thracians that came to help their enslaved brothers. In 170 yrs of Roman occupation are documented around 25-30 brutal attacks to Roman's occupied Dacia province. That mean that at every 5-6 yrs a major was an invasion of free thracian. Regarding the slavic words in Romanian ...for every single slav word we have a Romanian word...vina-culpa , slava-glorie , ceas-orologiu, trup-corp, nadejde-speranta, bogatie-avutie , vreme-timp, trebuie-necesar, zori-rasarit, ulita-strada. Its possible that the slavs took some words from local population they encountered when they arrived . Its know that slavs and hungarians are arrived pretty late . Bulgars settled over South Danube's Thracians , Hungarians settled over Panonians , Russians over Cimmerians. In Serbian constitution Romanians are recognized as co-founder nation. Chirilic alphabet was used in the church service. Also the Latin and Greek alphabet was used .This way slavic and Greek words were introduced into Romanian vocabulary.
What is this deal with Thracians? One guy says lots of Roman Emperors were Thracians and then this other guy says they played a key role in the 3rd century crisis. It is Thracians all the way down. Maybe we're all Thracians speaking a dialect of Thracian right now.
@@johnpoole3871 Romanians have been always been shy about their (our) history to not "upset' their neighbors(who were migrants from asia) . Let me quote Herodotus:" Thracian are the most numerous after Indians and they bear the name of the region they inhabit". So... under the name Thracians are around 200 related (brotherly) tribes. But the list incomplete. The ancestors of Romanians left their mark other the entire Europe. Things that are easy to verify even online . For ex the Nordic Countries Sweden Holland Demark Finland for 300 yrs were named North Dacia because they said they are descendants of Daco/Thracians. Even today they bear the name Duch(duch-daci...any clue?) Spanish legends keep the name of Zamolxe and Decebal . To have the right to claim the Spanish throne the claimer had to prove first that he its the proud descendant of Getae(ancestor of Romanians that lived in Bucharest area) . The legend of Rome speak about the King Aeneas of Troy who fled Troy (actually its Illyria). And indeed there few Thracian kings that ruled Roman Empire . One king its Maximinus Thrax (ring a bell? Thrax-Thracian?) Trojans were brother with all the other Thracians tribe. Apollo Artemisa , Spartacus , Achilles , Dionysus etc are actually Thracians not Greeks. Alexander Macedon was not Greek . He belong to the Thracian Family. Go to map and look at Greece....island Samothrace and Carpathia Another example...Dardans who gave to Dardanelle straight. Hm..I wonder why? And about language...u try to make fun...but think about it...there words that are common in all European languages and as far as Pakistan India Iran Palestine . So...I think the romance languages comes from an older language Makes u think. Like I said...all those above are verifiable
The only real east Romans are the Vlachs aka Romanians. For obvious political reasons some prefer to hide the fact that the Latin speaking Eastern Roman empire ceased to exist in 610 AD and a Greek state, of Greek language, took its place. Within 10-20 years these Heraclid Greeks lost control over most Balkans and Anatolia and for almost a century fought for survival behind Constantinople walls. The Roman claim served the Greeks in the next 3-400 years, to conquer former Roman lands.
The Eastern Part of the Roman Empire always spoke Greek though. This is kind of an arbitrary distinction. No magical language transformation happened in 610 AD.
@@johnpoole3871 That is completely unsubstantiated. By the end of 2nd century AD even most Greek areas used Latin as lingua franca. As I said in 780 years of Roman rule over Balkans there were more than 40 generations of Roman soldiers also settled in Greek areas. By end of 6 century Greeks represented a mere 7% of the total Roman population of the east Roman empire., which after 476 fell of the west to Ostrogoths was no longer an empire but a homogenous state of centuries old stable borders and Vulgar speaking Roman citizens. By early 7 century the only Greek areas were north east Africa - Alexandria and the Levantine cosltal line to Antioch. Even Athens, by 2nd century AD was a thoroughly Latin speaking Roman town, proven by every stone found there after being rebuilt by Hadrian.
5:48 "Istanbul" didn't exist until 1930
The city was officially known as Kostantiniyye in Turkish until 1923, this is true. But "Istanbul" is was in use before then. People both in the city and in the surrounding region referred to anything within the old walls as "εις την Πόλιν" (eis tin polin) or simply "in the city" and this phrase became "Istanbul" in Armenian and later in Turkish. The name "Istanbul" was far more commonly used than "Konstanyiniyye" by the 18th century, and was used before then as well. In 1930 the post office started rejecting any mail addressed to Constantinople, cementing a switch which had been centuries in the making.
@@GoCarpathian my mistake
@@GoCarpathian
No offense, but what is your nationality?
Because of russians and turks
Supine is Romanian and latin only merge is latin and Romanian only
video suggestion: dracula was romanian or hungarian ?
how is this even a thing, he was born in moldova and was a ruler of wallachia
Romanian
Not a bad video idea, thanks!
he was romanian.He’s father Vlad Dracul was a romanian from Wallahia,and he was even the ruler of the country before Vlad Tepes(dracula) was born.He’s mother was Cneajna,a romanian woman from Moldova.Is it true that Dracula was born in transilvania,more specifically Sighisoara,and that the Valahian royal house and Magyar royal house had actually good relations at that time.But we should not confuse the birthplace with his parents nationalities.Even tho his wife was a hungarian woman Justina Szilágyi,and later on he converted from Orthodoxy to Catholicism,he was romanian.But it was normal at that time for rulers to have other nationalities than the country they rule.Even the most popular and strong hungarian rulers in the middle ages had little or non hungarian descendent.For an example Robert Albert de Anjou-french,Sigismund of Luxembourg-german,Bela II-Ukrainian and magyar,Janos Hunyadi-Romanian and magyar.Even Stefan cel Mare the greatest ruler of Moldova had some polish blood.History is very complicated my friend:))
@@warcroafthe was born in Transylvania (most likely) not Moldova, but his family was still from Wallachia
Pure ignorance, in the Balkans and even in Romania, old Balkan peoples mixed with the ancestors of the Slavs, meaning I2 and R1, have lived in the Balkans and in Romania since ancient times, and that arrival in the 6th century is insignificant, it is nowhere near as massive as it is said, it was the arrival of the Slavs to their brothers , and now why is it not known and there are no clear traces of the Dacian and Thracian language because it was one of the variants of the Slovenian languages, it is not talked about as if it is not known? in today's Romania there are thousands of Slavic toponyms for rivers, forests, mountains, places, and not a single one in the Dacian language? how to ?
The town of Trgovište means nothing in Romanian, but in Slovenian it means the city of Craiova, the town of Slatina, the river Bistrica, the region of Bukovina. ???? it means nothing in Romanian.
The Slavic language was the official language in Romania until the 17th century, and Cyrillic was the official alphabet until 1860, the first printed books were created in the 16th century in the Slavic language.
The Romanian language was a minority, but the Catholic missionaries led by the Vatican forced it in schools and all important institutions until it became the official language, because the goal was to separate the East and South Slavs, the same story is with the Hungarians, to separate the West and South Slavs.
Romanians are 85 % eastern orthodox! You are delusional! You smoke bud stuff! 😂😂😂
By mid 6 cent AD Iustinian forbade the use of any other language than Latin and destroyed the last pagan temple in Athens, imposing death penalty for pederasty and homosexuality, still specific to an ethnic group that time. Based on ethnicity in the eastern Roman empire, military historian Aghatius mentions that in the Roman army of Belisarius there were 7% Greeks, also considered effeminated.
I don't know ab the origins of romanian language, but the fakt, that Romania (or half of it, transilvania is Hungarian) was part of Bizantion empire or Bulgarian empire, they use old church Slavonic (old Bulgarian) for correspondence, and for church affairs. We can speak about some Romanian statehood after falling of Bulgarian empire under ottoman rule.
💩
I don't think the Romans ever seriously controlled any territories north of the Danube after the 3rd century.
@@johnpoole3871
Romanians, even if they speak a Latin language, they are not the descendants of the Romans, nor did they learn Latin from the Romans, nor have we spoken it for 1 year 2 , maybe a few centuries at the most, we have been speaking it since before the formation Rome !
The Romanians did not form south of the Danube !
Things are as follows: Romanians, Italians, Moldavians, Macedonians-Armânii, Spaniards, Catalans, etc... are part of the great race of the Pelasgo-Thracians which numbered over 220 tribes !
Our ethnogenetic space stretched from Portugal - Spain to Asia Minor - Mesopotamia and from the Baltic Sea to present-day Greece!
Herodotus:
"The Thracians are the most numerous nation after the Inzi (Indians) ! "
If you visit the National History Museum of Greece and read some real history would notice that the entire territory of today's Greece and north west Anatolia was fully Romanized before 1st century AD. Until early 7 century AD every stone in the most Greek places was written in Latin. The only Greek centers in the Roman empire left were Alexandria and Antioch.
So why was Greek the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean and the language of the eastern Roman Empire? Justinian being the last native speaking eastern roman emperor?
@@user-nc6qj9tj3k Starting from 1st century BC until 2nd century AD Latin mostly replaced Greek as lingua franca in most east Mediterranean. Greek was still spoken only in Alexandria and Antioch.
@@user-nc6qj9tj3k The Latin speaking eastern Roman empire ended in October 610 AD and a Greek state of Greek language took its place.
@@Sofia-0001 How about Constantinople and the "Nike" riots. not the "Victoria" riots but the "Nike" riots, or the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed of 386 which formed the basis of standard Christian beliefs and was written in Greek. or the secret history of Procopius which was written in Greek, or every Emperor after Justinian who were all native Greek speakers? But most telling are the Nike riots as these were ordinary people screaming "Nike! Nike!" not "Victoria! Victoria!"
@@user-nc6qj9tj3k Your history knowledge is sparse. Yup, Nika riots of the Monophysite Greeks, trying to replace the Roman Orthodox Iustinian, with the Monophysite Hypatius. And if you mentioned Procopius as written in Greek you forgot to mention that same author mentions that Iustinian forbade by law the use of any other language than Latin destroyed the last pagan Greek temple in Athens and imposed death penalty for Greek pederasty and homosexuality. According to military historian Aghatius by the end of 6 century the ethnic Greeks in the only Roman army left after 476 AD were 7%, which represented in fact the size of the entire ethnic Greeks in the eastern Roman empire.
You are also funny to believe that whatever was left as copies written after 7th century onward the originals were actually in Greek before early 7 century AD.
At least after 2nd century AD there is strong evidence that Latin replaced Greek in most eastern Roman empire, EXCEPT Alexandria and Antioch!
The most solid argument are the Latin written everything, 1000s of stones from all over current Greece, the rebuilt ROMAN town of Athens by Hadrian, the entire ROMAN city of "New Rome" Constantinople, between 330s - 610 AD, but even much earlier than that, even though mostly the port of Byzantium, where Greek was also spoken along Latin.
Most Anatolian languages survived late into Roman times and if someone tells you that Greek was the language in Anatolia and the Balkans in the AD time that is complete BS.
Greek was used in the coastal areas in the port cities but even the Jewish religious texts like Tora, written before in Greek, by 2nd century AD appear to be written in Latin from then onward.
And if you heard about the Greek Nika riots would also acknowledge that was the first and last time when the Basilica Sophia was burned and destroyed in history, by the Monophysite Greeks, rebuilt by the Orthodox Iustinian and the fact that from the same shout and other documents resulted that by 532 there was no longer about a Roman empire, an Imperium Romanorum but a state of the Romans, simply called "Romania".