How Latin is Romanian?

[@Terry-pz1op]

SPOILER ALERT: In this video I argue that Romanian is just as Latin as and in some aspects even more Latin than other Romance languages. Sadly, that conclusion seems to have escaped some people who decided to get mad over the (admittedly slightly provocate) beginning instead of watching the video until the end.

[@ilieitu]

I stopped watching this video when noticed the superficiality in understanding the origin and evolution of Romanian language.

[@Terry-pz1op]

@@ilieitu Good job doing the exact thing that I criticized in my message.

[@i93sme]

Maybe you might just reconsider the way you started the video. Starting the way you started will clearly put off a lot of viewers. Especially is funny that you are now throwing rocks at people that were put off by your style. If the real message is that Romanian is more Latin than other Romance languages, just start with that.

[@Terry-pz1op]

​@@i93sme Or maybe you should just hear out someone's argument before exploding in rage over some loanwords.

[@CipiRipi-in7df]

Wish to make a point... 1. The so-called "relatinization" is a misnomen. Back the in mid to late 19th century, there were two opposing schools of thoughts. A) Ultra-latinists, that advocated for complete replacement of non-latin words with borrowed or reconstructed latin-based word. This school, represented by people like Timotei Cipariu and Aron Pumnul quickly lost any traction and was defeated early on. B) Popular-based language supporters, that advocated the return to popular language as the base for Romanian official language. This school of thought was represented mostly by Titu Maiorescu and his followers. Their main innovation was the standardization of official language, following these rules: a) where there is a Latin and a non-Latin word for the same notion, the Latin word will be use while non-Latin word will be discarded. For example: "bunavestire" instead of "blagovestenie" (Annunciation). b) where already is a Latin word, no Latin import will be provided. For example: "binecuvantare" instead of "benedicțiun” (Blessing). c) where only a non-Latin word exist, the non-Latin word will be used. For example: "ciocan" instead of "malleus" (hammer). d) where no Latin or non-Latin word exist, a word will be borrowed from neo-Latin languages: French or Italian. This went for most neologisms (new words) that made their way into Romanian language. For example: ”șofer” (driver) from French ”chauffeur”, ”aviator” (flyer) from Italian ”aviatore”. B. Related to the above, note that most non-Latin word were related to activities and lifestyle that became obsolete. Like subsistence agriculture, pastoralism, craftsmanship. In the same time, Latin loans were (and still are) related to modern and contemporary activities, starting with Industrial Revolution. So is not strange that number of non-Latin words dwindled by the day, while number of Latin related words swelled rapidly.

[@octavianracu]

There are also old Latin words that have disappeared with modernisation. For example the medieval verb "a cumpli" - to finish, destroy. Also, "muiere" is not used as it is considered offensive to women.

[@zarzavattzarzavatt9309]

it mostly means "married woman", "housewife" and it's considered offensive for educated, urbanized women. it is still used in rural areas in this meaning

[@octavianracu]

@@zarzavattzarzavatt9309 Now is meaning more peasant, dumb. Now it's offensive in rural areas too. Urbanisation has reached there too.

[@lunadeargint540]

"știință" is not from French, it is inhereted from Latin scientia, meaning knwoledge; the meaning science is inhereted from French, not the word.

[@crislaus]

"Știință" vine de la a ști. De unde o veni "Scienza" în italiană, sau "science" în engleză? La fel cu "ciencia" în spaniolă. 🤔 Limba latină este o limbă inventată, hibrid, era folosită în administrație. Ea trebuia studiată ca să poată fi vorbită. Soldații imperiului roman, erau din teritorii cucerite de acesta. Mai mult, așa-zisa latină vulgară, nu este decât o altă invenție. Toată istoria oficială, este o mare minciună. Citiți cartea lui Anatoly Fomenko, el expune totul, trei perioade separate de 300 de ani au fost copiate din istoria europeană și s-au transformat în istoria grecească/romana/Sfântul imperiu Roman, iar o parte a motivului a fost acela de a oferi bisericii catolice/iezuiților o bază mai puternică în istorie, care le-a dat putere politică/economică/religioasă.

[@crislaus]

@CipiRipi00 Dacă "știință" vine din latină, trebuie să existe și verbul "a ști", evident în latină. Îmi puteți spune care este acesta în latină? Oxford Languages: 1. the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained. "tworld of science and technology" branch of knowledge area of study discipline field 2. ARCHAIC knowledge of any kind. "his rare science and his practical skill"

[@crislaus]

@CipiRipi00 După comentariul incult, bag de seamă că n-ați citit aceste cărți 😏

[@crislaus]

@CipiRipi00 Dacă ați fi citit acea "maculatură", am fi putut discuta, altfel, n-avem ce..

[@ciprianpopa1503]

@@crislaus Cand spui sa citim cartea lui Antoly ... ne poti cita si titlul pentru a intelege despre ce vorbim aici.

[@octavianracu]

We have to take into consideration that many slavonic words are bookish and were not part of the spoken language. They appeared in the 16th-18th centuries with the translations of church books into Romanian.

[@zarzavattzarzavatt9309]

true. and often overlooked when someone speaks about re-latinisation

[@StatistikaInfo]

in Moldova we use much more slavic words as in Romania and we consider them romanian. Slavă, Biruință, Războinic are used at the same level as Glorie, Victorie or Luptător. Once I spoke with a friend from Craiova and he told me that when he talks with me he has the sensation that he speaks with his grand-father. The guy was 10 years older than me. We preserved in our romanian language from Moldova, the vocabulary from the '30s used in Romania.

[@zarzavattzarzavatt9309]

"razboinic" is rarely used in republic of moldova these days ;), but overall, yeah, i agree :)

[@octavianracu]

@@zarzavattzarzavatt9309 It is used very often

[@zarzavattzarzavatt9309]

@@octavianracu when did you hear it in spoken language last time ?

[@octavianracu]

@@zarzavattzarzavatt9309 Every day

[@MarcoS-ow3gs]

8:15 im actually vlach not romanian, means that we never went through the re-latinisation process like romanians. I just want to mention that we also use omorî (to kill) as well as ucide (more with the meaning to hit or fight someone rather than kill) so i think this word might be inherited from latin rather than a french loanword. But all in all it was a very informative video 👍

[@zarzavattzarzavatt9309]

this word ("a ucide") appears in old romanian texts (17 cent).also in was used by old generations in rural areas(which tended not to use recent neo-latin words)

[@lunadeargint540]

There was no re-latinization process, Romanian borrowed words mostly from French that where needed to describe new modern realities in the XIX c. like the English words today; only words that were not needed disappeared or became obsolete, they were not replaced; that means that even inherited words of Latin origins suffered the same process, as for instance a asuda" asudare is obsolete today, it was replaced by transpira, transpiratie, to give only one example.

[@BogdanPatrut]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-latinization_of_Romanian@@lunadeargint540

[@InAeternumRomaMater]

You are a Romanian, Vlach is an *exonym* (search the definition of what an *exonym* is) it means "Latin-speaker" and was borrowed by the Proto-Slavs from Proto-Germanic word Walhaz that was used for Romans and Celts as meaning (non-Germanic, "foreigner, stranger"). We called ourselves always a Rumân, Român, Romăn, Romîn, Rumîn (etc.) And the language Limba Rumîneascî, Românească, Rumănească (etc.) The idea that you are "Vlach" as an ethnical meaning, is done by the Slavs to distinguish us from one and another, as our forefathers (the Romans) ruled the entire Balkan region and they do not want us to unite under a banner to destroy this barbarism yoke in our lands. You just fell for their ideology process, you should read more about Principality of Moldavia and Wallachia, those two were called "Vlach lands", and they founded modern Romania, we were also referred as "Vlachs" just as you are now, but we have our nation and now internationally we are recognised by what we have always called ourselves "Român" from Latin Rōmānus meaning "Citizen of Rome", the ethnonym Romanian is directly inherited from Latin, the same ethnonym used by our forefathers, the masters of Europe. While Vlach has no inheritance in our tongue. Be proud of the ethnonym Român (or probably in your pronunciation, Rumân), as it comes from Latin Rōmānus (see also Sicilian word for a "Roman": Rumunu).

[@InAeternumRomaMater]

_Dictionarium Valachico-Latinum_ written at Caransebeș "Transylvania" in the XVIIth (17th) Century "1601s AD" into Old Romanian language. This "Latin" is Church Latin, not Classical Latin spoken by the Romans. rumân>Romanus. Valachus rumânesc>Romanus/Valachicus rumânie>Valachismus rumânește>Valachice

[@wouldnt_you_like_to_know]

Lucian Boia is not necessary a historian whose words you take for granted. Romanians usually exaggerate in both directions. I would say the same applies for Boia. In the quest of clearing out the myths, they proceed to destroy the entire statue. 20% percent latin i think it is too less.

[@Terry-pz1op]

I know that some Romanian authors like Boia are sometimes too critical of national myths out of a kind of anti-nationalism, but if you take into account the fact that around a quarter of English words come from Germanic, then it looks quite plausible. As I stated, Latin words are the core of the Romanian vocab, just like Germanic words are for English.

[@InAeternumRomaMater]

Yeah. I really don't believe that the Old Romanian language had 20% Turkish words and just 20% Latin. It sounds more plausible that between 10-15% was of Turkic influence and most of those would be through political words such as Beilic from Turkish Beylik. While I believe Latin had the Majority words in Old Romanian between 32-46% while Slavic would be between 27-36% amongst other influences like Hungarian, Greek and German

[@CesaristChannel]

@@InAeternumRomaMater Neacsu’s Letter (1521) contains 85% Latin inherited words. So yeah, 20% Latin inherited words definitely seems way too small a percentage.

[@InAeternumRomaMater]

@@CesaristChannel Probably not even 85%, maybe more. I know that we Romanians understand it completely, clearly the accent and the grammatic is different but it is like listening to modern Romanian but with Timok accent. And I have probably changed my mind, Old Romanian might have had above 60% latin derived words. Romanian has the record of being one of the most unchanged language. The so called *"re-latinization"* was mostly a *"standardisation"* of the language. Taking in consideration that Old Romanian was already predominantly latin, "re-latinization" is just wrong

[@cosmincasuta486]

@@InAeternumRomaMater PERSAN influence maybe more than tutkish, and I have several examples... I give you one... LIGHEAN is pronounce the same in persan but different in turkish though the turks take it from persan also... The sarmatian (persian) influence was before the turkish... Also please consider the influences of scithians (proto-slavs and proto-tirkish).

[@ubuntuposix]

Before relatinization the word for woman was "muiere", instead of the now "femeie". Notice it was also Latin. Also, before relatinization, words like auzi, vezi, zeu, etc, were written and spoken as audzi, vedzi, dzeu, etc. Notice this was even closer to Latin (audi, vedi, deus) than the current form (which removed the Latin consonant and kept only the "wrong" palatalization). Most Latin root words I find in Romanian are not found in western Romance, and western Romance speakers don't recognize them as Latin (even though they are). That means they were not implanted by relatinization intellectuals (it wouldn't make any sense). To change so much of the language you need a lot of people receiving a lot of education (school). Good luck finding Romanians centuries back going to school. My 90yo grandfather has 4 years of school. Btw this is precisely why the Russians couldn't get rid of Romanian spoken in Moldova (too few people going to school). And because Romanian is basically the same language as Moldovan (and Moldova which was captured by Russia from 1812 ..and Russified) this means that this relatinization thing isn't so major. Or did this relatinization happened in R. Moldova very quickly before it got separated by Russia? (Its an ironic/rhetorical question, since that's impossible). The written form is irrelevant.. The ordinary people didn't write, so the Orthodox church did all that (and it also pushed a lot of Slavic influence). And again, its irrelevant since you can easily write English with Cyrillic alphabet. It upsets me.. that when I hear Bulgarian (which formed together with Romanian), I don't understand what they're talking about. Yes there is some occasional word once in 5sentences, but that's way too little.

[@adrianirimescu988]

i still call them muieri

[@pokeshark]

yeah, maybe it's a bit misleading to call it "relatinization" since every nation in Europe borrowed words from French and scientific Latin, which in the case of Romanian mostly supplemented our vocabulary with modern terminology for administrative, technical terms and city life which did not exist previously in feudalism.. however it did cause a minor rift between the language spoken by the Francophile bourgeoisie and the peasants.

[@lunadeargint540]

There was no relatinization, it is a big confusion; the words of culture and science borrowed from French, Latin etc, but the same words were also borrowed by all the languages, even Slavic, Germanic, etc. The Wetern Romance languages borrowed words from Latin all the time, and at a very early stage; "femeie" has always existed along "muiere", and it is not from French, it is inhereted from Latin from familia "dz" was pronounced in Transylvania not in South Romanian

[@lunadeargint540]

@@pokeshark execellent observation

[@lunadeargint540]

Bulgarian is the "odd" language of the Slavic family, but its verb system is very conservative (and difficult), the noun became symplified as it lost its cases while recieving the postponed definite article. It is a Slavic language after all, no reason for a Romanian to understand it.

[@anamariabalaj7621]

The verb "a nevoi" is at best very archaic, I have never heard it used. What we use to convey this meaning is a verbal phrase , "a fi nevoie de" or the verb "a trebui" with the meaning of "to be necessary". Also, for "muncă" there is an inherited Latin counterpart, "lucru", but "muncă" prevails in writing.

[@zarzavattzarzavatt9309]

or "a avea nevoie să" - > "am nevoie să plec"

[@RodiniaA]

Dont say "Slobozie" without the "-ie" ever

[@pah967]

what about Slobozia ?

[@RodiniaA]

@@pah967 if you remove the "ie" it becomes "sloboz" which is a whole other word (a certain female fluid)

[@pah967]

@@RodiniaA so .. sperma?

[@RodiniaA]

@@pah967 no cause ita female not male gonad fluid

[@RodiniaA]

@@pah967 *it's

[@mihaelac2472]

A quick comment. In the early 90s, we suddenly gained access to a lot of economic texts from the West, some on concepts that did not exist in our previous marxist based texts. So I had a lot of translations to do and wandered how can I translate certain words? Same in other fields. So, the easiest way out was to either take the exact word and put on a Romanian sounding ending, or to try to use several words for it. After a time, standard forms emerged, which I may say are very similar to the original. Did we go through an Anglicanization of our language? Probably. We did adopt terminology from all the newly emerging technologies from English. Was it a coordinated attempt to wipe out words of other origin? No. This phenomenon takes place in other languages too.

[@danielvanr.8681]

A very interesting aspect you brought up there -- multumesc frumos ! :) Because while it's no big secret that languages evolve (wherefore one doth not speak Elizabethan no more), it's usually over at least a few centuries. Romanian got a linguistic cold turkey, as it were, and had to catch up in less than, say, 10-15 years -- not even one generation. But, like you indicate, while it cannot be avoided that some inloans end up replacing vernacular words ("romgleză", if you will), I also find it comical when Anglification took place without any real need for it -- like when "numerar sau card" was replaced by the shorter "cash? card?". Okay, I see the practical merit if you're a cashier and have to ask the same thing x times a day. But every time I hear it, my mind can't help but see it written as "cheș". :D

[@ekesandras1481]

yet it is "calculator" and not "computerul".

[@mariusfilip1847]

There was no relatinization for Romanian. There was no body governing it, there was no decree, there was no standard to measure its success. It was simply a modernisation of the language, with the main source of modernisation being French and Italian languages. French because it was the prestige language in Europe and italian because some italian forms were closer to Romanian patterns. Languages that were intentionally 'purified' were Turkish, Hungarian and Greek. Romanian wasn't one of them, it happened organically and undirected by any body to oversee it.

[@cheeseflavoredsoda3262]

Very, to me as an Italian, Romanian sounds very Latin, very close to old Latin, especially in structure.

[@WillBeUnknownToYou]

As a Spanish speaker I always thought Italian was the closest to Latin. That was until I started studying Romanian.

[@camelianedelcu5640]

ABBIAMO LE STESSE RADICI,ROMENI,ITALIANI,SPAGNOLI,PORTOGHESI, FRANCESI E RETRO-ROMANI.

[@carron979]

8:37 same in French (ex: sommeil - somnolence; by the way "somnul" is sleep in Romanian which makes "somnolence" look like a Romanian neologism in French...)

[@RhiannonSenpai]

I will put this here from another user that I agree with: It's a bit misleading to call it "relatinization" since every nation in Europe borrowed words from French and scientific Latin, which in the case of Romanian mostly supplemented our vocabulary with modern terminology for administrative, technical terms and city life which did not exist previously in feudalism.. however it did cause a minor rift between the language spoken by the Francophile bourgeoisie and the peasants.

[@RhiannonSenpai]

@CipiRipi00 Wow, very good comment. I agree!

[@nicolaramoso3286]

​@CipiRipi00first Italian and then french? Wasn't actually the opposite?

[@havaoren2468]

This is not necessarily true. Some European languages (German, Dutch, Russian...) did not borrow words from French or Latin, but rather they coined new words using roots from their own language. An example: If many languages have variations of the word oxygen, German has Sauerstoff (=sour substance), similarly Dutch has zuurstof, and Russian has kislorod (=which produces acid)

[@lunadeargint540]

@@havaoren2468 Not entirely true, Slavic and Germanic languages can create own words but even so they borrowed massively from french and latin. Some of the Latin/French words in Romanian were intruduced by the Russian officers, during the "Protectorate" era in the XIXc.

[@robm7163]

my parents were born in Romania in the 50's and they were forced to learn russian in school, a process which can only be described as the de-latinization of Romania. If it wasn't the Slavs, it was the germano-hungarians, the turkic tribes you name it. so much thrown at these people historically yet they persist as the most most numerous people in south east europe.

[@Adrian-aTak.19]

Nup, nu prea stia lumea rusa nici pe vremea lui nea Nicu 😂, plus mare parte din cuvintele slave sunt similare cu slavi din sud(sarbii, bulgarii) nu din est(rusi, ucrainieni)

[@camelianedelcu5640]

ERA CHIAR ASA CUM AI SCRIS.EU AM INVATAT 7 ANI LIMBA RUSA ( OBLIGATORIU), MI A FOST DE AJUTOR CIND AM FOST IN VIZITA LA MOSCOVA,SA POT CITI ALFABETUL LOR CHIRILIC, PENTRU CA IN METROU ERA SCRIS DOAR IN LIMBA RUSA NU CA IN JAPONIA UNDE INTII E SCRIS IN JAPONEZA SI APOI IN ENGLEZA,SCRIS SI VORBIT.

[@zarzavattzarzavatt9309]

@@Adrian-aTak.19 "in the 50' " - e pana la nicu. rusa a fost obligatorie pana in '65. plus erau si influente indirecte, am vazut un manual pentru subingineri de pana la revolutie editat la bucuresti - din text se vedea clar ca a fost tradus din rusa.

[@SeamanX-qh9bw]

@@zarzavattzarzavatt9309 Nu stia lumea limba rusa si nici vorba sa o vorbeasca cineva , chiar daca era obligatorie in scoala . "Cunostintele" de limba rusa se rezumau la cateva cuvinte . Vorbesc si din experienta parintilor mei care au facut scoala in anii 50 si de a mea , care am facut scoala in anii 70 si am invata rusa ca a doua limba straina .

[@bmjupiterboardmod492]

Sono italiano . Per me è molto latino .

[@GholaTleilaxu]

Un italiano vero!

[@bmjupiterboardmod492]

@@GholaTleilaxu 😉

[@TarebossT]

@@GholaTleilaxu Un italian veritabil.

[@alinc3491]

The import of french words is valid for most European languages in the 19th century, after the industrial revolution. The percentage of original latin words is overwhelming which is surprising considering the neighbors and is a testament to the strong Romanian culture.

[@zarzavattzarzavatt9309]

imo "amic" is more like a good acquaintance (like russian "приятель "), while "prieten" is a "true" friend, one that you trust (like russian "друг").

[@CesaristChannel]

That’s just a matter of perception. “Amic” means “true friend” in all other Romance languages, so it could very well be intended to mean “true friend” in Romanian as well. This duality in Romanian is because of perception and circumstances…

[@mariusmitrea1309]

More often usef in the paste with meaning of good frend was "fârtat" derived from "frate". "Nefârtatul" îs another mame for Devil.

[@naturalianoss]

CYKA

[@cezar211091]

Amic is not even inherited, it's just Italian.

[@zarzavattzarzavatt9309]

@@cezar211091 yes, but the point of my comment was that they are not full synonyms (which someone can understand from the video)

[@a.n.6374]

4:39 - I'm Bulgarian, that looks pretty much how I wrote when I was learning English in 4th grade and was still having difficulties remembering which letter is "bulgarian" and which is "english". Mind you, my spelling in Bulgarian was still bad at the time they were already forcing us to learn a second language in a different alphabet. I imagine there were lot's of inconsistencies in these transition texts and mixed alphabets themselves were probably not just one but took several phases to get to latin only.

[@SionTJobbins]

As a Welshman, and Welsh speaker who was in Oradea and Cluj this summer this is fascinating. Welsh has a lot of Latin words - many nouns as Welsh, or ancient Welsh (Brythonic) was the language of Britain at the time of the Roman occupation. So, it's as if Welsh then decided to adopt and adapt more Latin words from the late Middle Ages, when, in fact, we almost went out of our way not to adopt common Latin or Greek words, as, they are, from our point of view (and the English people) thought of as English words and people then say, "Welsh isn't a proper language, it doesn't have a Welsh word for ambulance/museum/committee" etc etc. We also have a strong corpus of law, court poetry and literature in Welsh from the middle ages from which to borrow from. Thanks for sharing this. Diolch yn fawr i chi.

[@maria-esterakarpathian7198]

Btw slavs called Romanians Vlaks from the word Vallach which they borrowed from proto Germanic, the proto Germanic word meant Foreigner, and the saxons called the Welsh Welsh from the same root. Wallachia (southern Romania) and Wales have that in common if etymology is to be believed

[@JohnnySmith-to7jw]

"muncitorul viteaz pomeneste povestea orasului pustiu" = "lucratorul curajos aminteste istoria urbei vide" (the same sentence only with latin words ) :D

[@florinalfonse4163]

Viteaz...vitalitate...vitalitatis(lat)

[@majstter7420]

I agree, viteaz cannot be Slavic. Because the word víťaz in Slovak/Czech and very similar in other languages means winner, so nothing even close to the worker. We would say robotník or pracovník for worker.

[@valevisa8429]

@@majstter7420 Viteaz e cuvant slavic la origine.Nu te mai contrazice cu fapte deja dovedite,numai copiii fac asa.

[@mariusmuresan8248]

Most of the Slavic words you're mentioning as replaced by French/Latin/Italian are actually still very much in use and simply have 'dublets', a phenomenon from English. At a certain point in history the language 'purification' was certainly on the agenda, however it was given up quickly. A counter-trend of over-slavonization can also be witnessed, e.g. the current prayer 'Our Father' has lost at least 3 Latin words compared to only 40 years ago when I first learned it. All in all, Romanian is decidedly Romance, since one can simply not speak without using the Latin part, while one could anytime speak using only the (old) Latin part of the basic vocabulary (albeit in a simple and not very differentiated way).

[@gorgioarmanioso151]

Agree, my mother tongue is Spanish and I can understand some written Romanian due to its Latin base, nevertheless when you speak it it costs me a lot due to your heavy slavic, turkic and magyar loan words. You can also see how related it is in base to latin as many romanians learn easily other romance languages, yet the opposite is not that clear...

[@camelianedelcu5640]

@@gorgioarmanioso151 Ai ragione,adoro la lingua spagnola,,nata in Romania, vivo in Italia da 45 ani ,mah la lingua spagnola mi è sempre attirata( non lo so perché) .Ho amato tanto il viaggio che abbiamo fatto in auto intorno al vostro paese,Barcellona,Madrid,Sevilla ,Granada,Alicante e poi ancora Barcellona e ritorno a casa ,a Verona.

[@danascully6698]

How many illiterates (80-90%) existed in the Romanian countries in the 19th century, plus the lack of ways of spreading and communication, who believes in the theory of the re-latinization of the Romanian language? I feel like laughing out loud when I hear this nonsense! The Romanians continued to speak what they had been speaking for centuries. There is no question of a "re-Latinization". What are the real means by which the illiterate Romanian peasant who could not read and write introduced new words into his vocabulary, not taking into account the fact that the means of communication and dissemination at that time were extremely limited in number and efficiency? In a completely exceptional and limited way, yes, some words of Latin origin would have been reintroduced, but not to the extent that some try to explain to us, that in fact we did not have a Latin language but we "re-Latinized" it! La cati analfabeti (80-90%) existau in tarile romane in sec. 19, plus lipsa cailor de raspandire si comunicare, cine crede in teoria re-latinizarii limbii romane? Mie imi vine sa rad in hohote cand aud prostiile astea! Romanii au vorbit in continuare ceea ce au vorbit de secole. Nici vorba de o "re-latinizare". Care sunt mijloacele reale prin care taranul analfabet roman care nu stia sa scrie si sa citeasca a introdus noi cuvinte in vocabularul sau, nemai tinand cont si de faptul ca mijloacele de comunicare si raspandire la acea vreme erau extrem de limitate ca numar si eficienta? In mod cu totul exceptional si limitat da, s-or fi reintrodus ceva cuvinte de origine latina, dar nu de proportia in care incearca sa ne lamureasca unii, ca de fapt noi nu aveam o limba latina ci am "re-latinizat-o" cica!

[@pokeshark]

Romanian was relatinised through French and scientific Latin. there's no shame in that, most European languages, from Greek to Swedish, have a ton of French/neo-Latin borrowings. razi in hohote degeaba, pune mana pe un dictionar si studiaza etimologiile. dai dovada ca nu-ti cunosti limba. taranii nu vorbeau in termeni stiintifici sau despre tehnologii si forme de administrare care nu existau in lumea lor. proportia slavonismelor si turcismelor a scazut o data cu extinderea vocabularului pentru a cuprinde avansul tehnologic si transformarile sociale de la feudalism la monarhie constitutionala.

[@lunadeargint540]

@@pokeshark It is not a relatinization though, because even old Romanian words were replaced by neologisms or are not very used; relatinization is a superficial name for this process because it sounds as if it was imposed, but Romanian only took the words it needed to descibe modern realities. Those who really re-latinized their languages are Western Romance, very early in their hisitory, they followed Latin all the time, they were early codified and their academies mentained old forms or reintroduced them, or even copied Latin structures, not to speak about the continuous borrowing from Latin. The Slavic elements in Romanian are important but there is no need for exagerating them (as it was done during soviet for instance or by hungarians). Romanian is extremely well preserved comparing to Western Romance, taking into consideration its late codification. "proportia slavonismelor si turcismelor a scazut" normal, cum sa se exprime realitati noi, au disparut cuvintele care nu mai aveau acoperire in realitate, institutii, imbracaminte, etc

[@BogdanPatrut]

Thank you for your research and video. It is very good, I really appreciate your work. Our language is very interesting, because many words have two variants (one from Latin, one from Slavic language/Hungarian/Turkish/Greek/German). Regarding the Romanian word for city: alternatively, you can use „cetate” (Latin origin) for city („oraș” (Hungarian origin)), or you can say „cetățean” (inhabitant of a city), „citadin” (urban), „cetățuie” etc. Also, some researchers claim that „da” comes from Latin (I do not remember how, something related with the word "ida", but I do not find this word as being Latin).

[@florinalfonse4163]

Oras vine de la URBIS.

[@BogdanPatrut]

@@florinalfonse4163 DEX spune ca vine din maghiara "varos", ceea ce e mai credibil. De la urbis vin cuvintele urban, urbanizare etc.

[@BogdanPatrut]

Urbe vine de la urbis

[@ionbrad6753]

Eram convins și eu - bazându-mă pe DEX și pe .. auz - că oraș vine de la varoș (maghiar). Apoi am văzut un comentariu în care cineva lua peste picior ipoteza asta: ”da măi, că ungurii la oraș au trăit când umblau nomazi de la Urali spre Europa...”. Corectă observația - mi-am zis. Am mai cercetat: m-am uitat la cuvintele pentru ”oraș” în limbile fino-ugrice. Ghici ce? Nu seamănă a ”varoș”. Atunci, de unde știm că nu e luat invers? Nu bag mâna în foc pentru nici o variantă. Vezi și BAKOS, FERENC. A magyar szókészlet román elemeinek története. (The History of the Rumanian Elements in the Hungarian Lexicon). - arată mii de cuvinte unguresti de etimologie română.

[@BogdanPatrut]

@@ionbrad6753originea cuvantului trebuie sa fie strans legata de ceea ce defineste el. Orasele au aparut in Transilvania. In Moldova erau niste targuri. In Transilvania maghiarii locuiau in orase, nu vlahii. Stiu ca e greu de acceptat, ca romani, dar e o mare mistificare a istoriei noastre. Nu sunt istoric, dar am prieteni istorici sau cu vaste cunostinte de istorie. Cred ca unele lucruri sunt si de common sense, cand te plimbi prin Ardeal le simti la fiecare pas. Pe de alta parte, m-ati facut curios cu cartea respectiva.

[@hagenbonner6560]

As an american who learned Romanian it is so cool to actually think about these words and their roots. I really just learned to speak from talking to people and never thought about where these words come from.

[@camelianedelcu5640]

👵🏻👍👏👏👏🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴❤❤❤❤🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹

[@axisboss1654]

This is basically like saying how Slavic is Czech due to all the Germanic words or how Germanic is English due to the Latin words.

[@Vercixx]

can you explain? Cause the main idea I see is how Germanic is English and how Latin is Romanian due to the Germanic/Latin grammar and Germanic/Latin basic words

[@cleitondecarvalho431]

bear in mind that the core vocabulary of english is germanic, whereas the romanian core vocab is slavic and had to be even reformed to increase the amount of latin basic words !

[@jura0300]

@@cleitondecarvalho431 in romanian documents before the so-called "re-latinization" (which was more of a standardization if anything, most languages in the balkans did the same thing too like bulgarian and greek), the majority of the words and grammar are still of latin origin. check neacșu's letter, which was written in romanian alongside bulgarian/church slavonic, the majority of the words are indeed of latin origin, with the exception of "i pak". the main thing is that romanian was written in cyrillic back then, but that is meaningless since by that logic, kazakhs would be slavs too. also, romanian grammatical gender is clearly from latin, as it does not correspond with slavic grammatical gender

[@CipiRipi-in7df]

@@jura0300 ... and Poles, Czeks and Croatians are Latins, because they use Latin alphabet. Are they Latin? Bet no!

[@Adriatico90]

This guy it’s just another imbecile who’s looking for attention in here

[@Bianca-gz9uv]

Da (yes) isn't slavic, it's from latin Ita. In old slavic word for Yes is Tak like in polish, ukranian, belarussian. Slavic words in romanian are from old slavic not from russian as ones might think. Da (yes) is used mostly by southern slavs who were part of the roman empire and also got exposed to latin influence (see Jirinek line)...bulgarian, serbian, croatian.

[@Terry-pz1op]

That's just a theory and I don't buy it.

[@cornerro]

@@Terry-pz1op buy some logic, then: there are two basic words in any language: those that mean affirmation and negation.so we have to presume that until the arrival of the Slavs in the area (that is, for hundreds of years), the native populations did not have a word for affirmation (of Latin parentage, possibly), or they did, but they preferred to replace it with "Slavic" DA. then, let's admit that the Slavs are only the Russians, practically, and by no means their small nations from the west, who do not use, we do not try to understand for what reasons, the "ancestral" DA (but, for example, the equivalent of the ide Latin, the "tak" in Polish.)

[@Terry-pz1op]

@@cornerro Words get replaced and change meanings all the time, as I discussed in the video. I'm not saying proto-Romanian didn't have an affirmative. It is a fact that the Latin derived affirmative 'sic' is the basis for 'și'. So it probably replaced an older word for 'and' (like 'et') and was itself replaced as an affirmative by Slavic 'da'. I am also not disputing that 'tak' is likely the original Slavic 'yes', but it makes no sense that both Russian and South Slavic languages all adopted 'da' from Latin, while adopting so few other words. Also, why did Albanian, which does have a large Latin influence, not adopt 'da' if it's from Latin 'ide'? One final point, Slovenian is the only South Slavic language that doesn't use 'da' (at least not in every speech) but 'ja' from German, which is a another example of the same phenomenon.

[@zarzavattzarzavatt9309]

@@cornerro Unfortunately your "logic" doesn't compensate for the lack of knowledge. Not all languages have/had an affirmation particle ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_and_no ). The exact origin of the word "da" is unknown, but: - there was no "affirmaton word" in cassical latin ( kzbin.info/www/bejne/rl68Y3l-gaybe7s ) - there are no romanian texts older than 300 years that use the word "da" - other closely related to romanian languages don't use "da" - for example aromanian - romanian borrowed a lot of slavic words during middle ages (not much vice-versa) - the general trend for latin->romanian sound changes is consonant devoicing, i don't know if there are any words that changed "t"->"d"

[@MasDeLoMismo-x2n]

i am the 1 k subscriber! ty for your work about Romanian lng ..good lucj with your chanel

[@Terry-pz1op]

Wow, thank you too for subscribing!

[@octavianracu]

In Romanian the proportion of Slavic, Slavonic, Old Latin and Neolatin words depends on the style of the text and literary genre. For these reasons it is quite complicated to estimate the proportion of words by origin. In the lyric genre, for example, Slavicisms are more often used. First of all, we need to determine what the basic vocabulary of the language is, separate from philosophical, scientific-academic, legal, political-administrative language, etc.

[@razvanbarbaud8792]

One should count some of the Greek words as inherited from the Latin times. Indeed, in the Roman empire the peoples spoke a pletora of languages. Even when they spoke Latin they used Greek words as "petra" and in the Balkans they most likely used the Greek "rodia" instead of "pomegranate". For example the golden region of Romania is calles "crisana" from the Greek Chris meaning gold. A bird V formation is called "stol" from the Greek "stolos" meaning V formation of warships.

[@mariusfilip1847]

Crișana comes from Criș which is inherited from local Latin spoken in Roman Dacia (Crisius). Most likely the name was taken up by the Romans from the locals (dacians) but it is difficult to know what exact form the river name had in Dacian.

[@florintrandafir7573]

My dear Terry, can you also tell us what nationality you are?! We are really curious to know what country you are from and where you have this preoccupation with the Romanian language!

[@Terry-pz1op]

Sunt olandez și am stat în România.

[@florintrandafir7573]

@@Terry-pz1op Ok !

[@olgaroche2929]

@@Terry-pz1opI see you have to stay more in Romania to understand well Romanian, Sorry!

[@ionbrad6753]

@@zeta1527 Nu este adevărat. Este foarte ușor să pleci din România; cine vrea pleacă imediat. Majoritatea a decis să rămână.

[@florintrandafir7573]

@@Terry-pz1op Sa spuna un italian daca romana este o limba latina ,nu tu ! Tu esti tendentios ca toti olandezii dealtfel ! Am un prieten italian din Sardinia care mi-a spus ca e uimit de cat de multe cuvinte avem in comun cu limba sarda in special si cu limba italiana in general ! Chiar nu-mi dau seama ce te-a determinat sa abordezi tema asta ?! Pentru ''oras'' avem ''urbe'' ! Ce vrei mai latin de-atat ?! Noi avem multe sinonime care provin din limba latina ! Putem spune aceeasi fraza cu cuvinte total diferite !

[@Torsteen-p3d]

I heard that the "Da" in Romanian isn't actually a slavic loanword, but comes directly from the Latin word "ita," and it just happens to have gotten the same form and meaning on it's own.

[@zarzavattzarzavatt9309]

a very controversial hypothesis

[@cornerro]

@@zarzavattzarzavatt9309 exista doua cuvinte de baza in orice limba: cele ce semnifica afirmatia si negatia. sa intelegem ca pana la sosirea slavilor in zona(adica timp de sute de ani), populatiile bastinase nu aveau un cuvant pentru afirmatie (de filiatie latina, eventual), sau aveau, dar au preferat sa-l inlocuiasca cu "slavicul" DA. apoi, sa admitem ca slavi sunt doar rusii, practic, si nicidecum maruntele lor neamuri de prin vest, care nu folosesc, nu ne straduim sa pricepem din ce cauze, DA-ul "stramosesc" (ci, de pilda, echivalentul ide-ului latinesc, "tak"-ul , in poloneza.)

[@zarzavattzarzavatt9309]

@@cornerro Intrucat nu avem surse istorice nu putem spune cu certitudine care este originea cuvantului "da". Briciul lui Occam ne sugereaza ca-i de origine slava, pana nu avem alte dovezi. In plus: "exista doua cuvinte de baza in orice limba: cele ce semnifica afirmatia si negatia" - nu-i adevarat, mai informeaza-te

[@cleitondecarvalho431]

no need to be 100% latin, it is unique anyway, and still sounds beautiful.

[@mirceapintelie361]

6:33 are not archaic words, most of them are in curent use.Also that fragment from the Constitution is a really bad exemple since it uses legal terms and most of Europe's legal system is derived from Roman law and Napoleon Civil Code

[@CesaristChannel]

Inversely, some of the so-called “modern” Latin words listed there are in fact inherited from Latin. “Spirit” (we have a Latin-derived word from it: “spiridus”) “Glorie” (popular rural speech would have used “mãrire” which is inherited) Not sure about “speranta” but that one might also be inherited.

[@corpi8784]

It is one of the fascinating aspects of Romanian that there are often 2 or more expressions zhat are synonym ous from latin and slavonic ( and sometimes also hungarian greek ,turkish ,german) available but typically with a small nuance between them. Vreme -timp/anotimp as an example

[@camelianedelcu5640]

Asta pentru ca pe tarimul tarii noastre s au stabilit multe nationalitati existente si astazi,turci,tatari,unguri,sasi,svabi ,ardeleni,aromini etc.......!

[@corpi8784]

@@camelianedelcu5640 asta e că popurul Romăn e o corcitură cu influențe din diferite etnii si culturii

[@ekesandras1481]

crâșma, birt, cârciuma, bar, bistrou, bererie, ...

[@jonkeuviuhc1641]

Ok so in this video, the impact and importance of the Latinist School is a bit overstated, what is not mentioned it is how they beacame more or less a laughing stock or how the overlatinised dictionary was considered a crude joke imediatly after publication, or how Hașdeu ascribed the will of Latin School to exagerate the latin nature of romanian to most them being Transylvanians, "the most opressed of all romanians"(at the time...) in Hașdeu's words. Also It understatest the origin of the bulk of the Slavic words in romanian, Old Church Slavonic. As said, romanian has many inhereted words directly from latin as the Western Romance Languages, and the second source of latin words in Western Romance is what? Medieval Latin or Church Latin, the Churches and Administrational Language in many parts of the Western Europe durring the Middle Age. Where the Western Romance Languages Got Medieval Latin Words Romanian got Church Slavonic one. And the section around 7:33-10:40 contains a good number of mistakes such as: a atesta doesn't mean to prove, but to atest; pregăti is not of slavic origin, it is an internal creation being made up of the latin prefix pre- and the albanian origin word găti; pungă is most likely greek but still disputed origin in most of it's etymological descriptions. Also the section fails to aknowlge that the given words don't mean exactly the same thing, for example even in english it is the case that a parent wouldn't say "lissen to my parental advice" but "lissen to my mothely/fatherly advice" same with parental/părintesc in romanian; or there is a difference between calling someone a "budy" or a "friend" same with amic/prieten in romanian (btw most likely before prieten was the word for friend, soț was that, which today means hustbund or partner, as seen in the word a însoți=to acompany) many if not all the word listed are like that. In anycase calling them words that exist exclusively in written form is either dishonest or a sign of clear unfamiliarity with the language (which is more probable given the number of mistakes).

[@synesiosw]

Excellent video. I hope that Romanian intelligentsia will keep on valorising the language’s rich, pristine Roman heritage.

[@CesaristChannel]

Romanian was thoroughly Latin even before the so-called “re-latinization” Just look at the religious parlance and Latin-derived archaisms of Old Romanian: “Comândã” - feast of remembrance (pomanã) “Sânt” - Saint. (Hybridized with Slavic “sventu” which now gives “sfânt”) Even the archaic names of Saints sound like something out of Spanish: Sântioan - San Juan Sântãmãrie - Santa Maria Sâmpietru - San Pietro There are also multiple current-day placenames of this type. This shows the Latin heritage in religion and mentality of the people, which did not change even though we were subjected to Byzantine / Slavonic Orthodoxy.

[@SauTunSud2025]

Sfant has 'f' in front to avoid confusion with ' sant'( I am) otherwise would sound "Eu sant sant'"( I am a saint) Other words Farma ( destroy)/ sfarma ( crush) Clipi' ( blink)/ sclipi' ( twinkle) Pomana is basically " pe mana"( to give in hand)

[@mariusfilip1847]

Also "cuminecare" (Holy Communion), "paresimi" (40-day fast), "ajuna" (to fast), "cârneleagă” (permission to eat meat, before fast), ”câșlegi” (permission to eat cheese, before fast), ”tămâie”, etc.

[@camelianedelcu5640]

ROMANII SINT CA RELIGIE GRECO-ORTODOCSI, GRECO- ORTODOSSI.NON SLAVI ORTODOSSI. I RUSSI FESTEGGIANO IL NATALE IL 6 DI GENNAIO,NOI GRECO-ORTODOSSI FESTEGGIAMO IL NATALE IL 25 DICEMBRE.

[@Moeno614]

Thanks for this video, it is really interesting, I'm a romanian learner and I am discovering thing every single day! The ancien(16-17centry) romanian writting system was indeed using cyrilc and some how they still preserve a bunch of latin vocabularies, this is really impressive.

[@tortellinifettuccine]

I love Romanian for the simple fact that you can say the same things in many different ways and all are understood. If i have a Russian friend, I would say that first sentence you presented. If it was a latin friend, I'd just say: "Acest curajos muncitor îi aduce aminte de povestea orașului gol" I could have replaced the word city for an alternative like urbe as well but felt this was more nice.

[@cosmincasuta486]

Apropo de bazaconia asta cu "oras" e origine ungureasca.... Astia numai in orase stateau cand calareau pustiile din est spre pusta Panoniei si ne invatau ce este ala "muncitor" ca ei cu asta se ocupau, nu cu pradaciunile..... E greu al naibii sa ne gandim ca asezarile dacice mai mici (nu davele, care erau cetati), se terminau in "bara"...bara-vara-varos-oras... Ramnicu- Sarat sau Valcea.... cica vine de la "raba" - slavonescul pentru peste...Perfect numai ca Ramnicul Sarat fiind SARAT nu a avut neam de neamul lui PESTE.... In schimb ca si Valcea era granita imperiului Roman, Ram pentru slavoni.... Ram-Ramnic-Ramnicelu-Ramna-Valea Ramnicului - toate asezari in linie pe malul Ramnicului (granita?). Va mai dau un exemplu de evidenta tampenie academica.... In Teleorman exista o localitate SMARDIOASA.... al carui nume provine (dupa intelighentia specialistilor nostrii) de la slavonescul SMARC (cica sunt niste mocirle pe acolo)....Daca intrebi localnicii iti vor spune ca inseamna MANDRU, FALNIC..... nimic de a face cu mocirlele.... Exista in italiana un regionalism SMARGIASSO care inseamna LAUDAROS..... mult mai aproape de sensul taranului roman..... Daca punem DZul ala acolo e aproape identic..... Nu ne-am gandit niciodata ca limba aia daca era asemanatoare cu latina cu influente sarmate (deci persane) si scitice (deci turcice si slavone)...Nu ne-am gandit macar o secunda ca limba romana este limba daca/traca cu ceva neologisme!? ca, din cauza asta a fost greu de eradicat natia asta dupa toate cotropirile de 2000 de ani incoace????

[@camelianedelcu5640]

@@cosmincasuta486 BRAVO AI DAT RASPUNS LA TOATE INTREBARILE PUSE.👵🏻👏👏👏👏🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴❤❤❤❤🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴

[@mariusfilip1847]

Popor is inherited from Vulgar Latin but it used to have a restricted meaning (a group of believers belonging to a parish, bishopric, metropolitanate). Its meaning was extended to represent 'nation' and 'many people' (irrespective of religion) under Western influence in the XIX-th century. Like with many other words, they were not invented or imported, their meaning was extended.

[@BlueLineofthesky]

The roots of today's Romanians are really-really old. Some of the oldest in Europe if we consider their DNA. Bur centuries of heavy migration and occupation by The Ottomans, Hungarians, Austrians, Bulgars, Cuman, Peceneg, Goth, Gepide, etc....of course, the language is full of words and traditions from these ethnicities. Also, for a very long time, over 1000 years, the Church was the only one capable of the written word. The mass of the population was illiterate. The words of the Orthodox church were Greek and Slavic....also the early schools were controlled by the church therefore the written language was also influenced heavily by the Greek and Slavic. The Romanians are an incredible mix of old and very old populations that managed to become one body. This is why even today the entire Romanian society is influenced from the outside.

[@camelianedelcu5640]

ADEVARAT AI GRAIT,SANATATE SI NUMAI BINE TUTUROR ROMINILOR DIN TOATA LUMEA 👵🏻👍👋🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴❤❤❤❤🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴

[@BlueLineofthesky]

@@camelianedelcu5640 Multa sanatate, doamna!

[@camelianedelcu5640]

@@BlueLineofthesky ASEMENEA SI D- STRA👵🏻🖐🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴❤❤❤🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹

[@shiftyourperception]

@@camelianedelcu5640, "ROMINILOR" ? ne tragem din romi sau din romani ? nu mai "zic" nimic, ca se supara DOAMNA.

[@camelianedelcu5640]

@@shiftyourperception ACUM TE PUN LA CURENT CU 2 /3 CHESTII.1) EU TRAIND IN ITALIA DE 45 DE ANI AM PE TABLETA LITERELE CUM SE FOLOSESTE AICI IN ITALIA ( NU AM ACENTELE : A cu ` sau ^.,.PENTRU A SCRIE CA LA NOI IN TARA. 2) Tiganii sint un popor migrator care si ei sint impartiti in mai multe triburi. Exemplu: tiganii care traiesc si in tara noastra se numesc ROM ( DAR SE SCRIE RROM) ,tiganii care traiesc in Bosnia Erzegovina se numesc SINTI ( se vede ca fac parte din alt trib). IN SPAGNA II NUMESC GITANI.3) Tiganii aici in ITALIA il numesc ZINGARI. La sfirsit ,vroiam sa ti spun ca nu ma supar, sint vesnic la dispozitie sa lamuresc ceeace nu vine inteles. DE MULTE ORI POT SI EU GRESI LA AI MIEI 75 DE ANI😂🤣😂 SI INCA CUM,PENTRU CA NU MA PRICEP ( CA VOI TINERETUL) la anumite chestii pe internet,sint sincera. MULTA SANATATE SI NUMAI BINE I TI DORESC DIN TOT SUFLETUL👵🏻🌺👍👋👋🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴❤❤❤🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹

[@ionbrad6753]

A few side notes: One cannot talk about a wilful re-latinization. If there was such “relatinization”, which authority started it and in which country? Early 19th century Romanians were living in 3 main states (Wallachia, Moldova, Austria-Hungary). No authority had jurisdiction over all these states to enforce such complicated thing on the language. Examples as author shown can be met in many other languages, not only in Romanian. There were loanwords, of course. But there was no “replacement” of words. Please provide the law / year / state which forbids any word (Slavic or any other) in Romanian. There is no such thing. Romanians today 99% understand the texts written in the Romanian of 500 years ago. True, some words were dropped - but naturally! That is why Latin-origin words were also dropped (i.e. arină - sand; ai - garlic). Aside grammar - the core language (relatives and body parts) are almost purely Latin-origin (directly inherited). ”Da” - I am not 100% convinced is Slavic. The Slavic word for ”da” (yes) is originally ”tak”. Da is used only by SOuth Slavs and there is a probability they took the Latin ”ita” from the Romance speakers. Don't tell me Russians also use "da" - that is a relatively recent phenomenon (Russian was heavily influenced by Old Church Slavonic / Old Bulgarian).

[@danielvanr.8681]

In the case of "ai" (garlic), I find it interesting how Romanian ended up dropping it in favour of "usturoi" -- which, ultimately, is just as Latin. :)

[@ionbrad6753]

@@danielvanr.8681 True!

[@lunadeargint540]

@@danielvanr.8681 Romanian has given up mostly words that can create confusion. ai is till used in Transsylvania. For instance why take prieten instead of amicus from latin. It is simple, because the phonetical evolution of amicus would make a confusion with mic=small; or why on earth take a citi/citire = to read from Slavic and keep a scrie/scriere=to write from Latin, it was because legere when conjugated would become similar to a lega/legare =to bind etc etc.

[@Lara-jp4xk]

In the same villages people use "arina" (sand) and "ai" (garlic), I've heard "ie" instead of "da" in 99% of time. I'm surprised nobody else mentioned this. I have no idea about its etymology.

[@creativecatproductions]

This is fantastic, thank you

[@crislaus]

The inhabitants of Romania must have been very clever since they managed to make a language out of almost all the languages ​​of the earth, especially if you consider that this language has no dialects in Romania. Instead, the Romanian language has dialects outside of Romania. Smart people!

[@valevisa8429]

The Balkan Romance languages are not dialects of Romanian,but dialects of Latin spoken in the Byzantine Empire.

[@flaviusjconstantius]

⁠​⁠​⁠@@valevisa8429they are their own modern day Romance languages which developed from Vulgar Latin. Obviously proximity helped keep the languages similar, but they all developed independently of each other into what they are today. A bit similar to the regional languages of Italy, Spain, France, like Sicilian, Venetian, Galician, Catalan, Occitan, etc.

[@yatumux]

Nowadays Romanian is a fabricated borrowed language from Italy and France. Not long ago even they have used Cyril letters as Serbs and Russians.

[@valevisa8429]

So ?! Who cares if it 's a fabricated language ? It's functioning fain,like any other language . :)@@yatumux

[@stanescusilviu9509]

​@@yatumuxchirilic writing first apeared in Bulgaria,in a time that Bulgaria and Romania were 1 big kingdom,so learn from me,it is normal we used chirilic ,russians and other slavs took it from Bulgaria,we were 1 big country with Bulgaria,so it is normal to burrow some words,so many fools think they know history,fools like you.

[@anamariabalaj7621]

Some of the words of Slavic origin you mention sound archaic, other can be used interchangeably with their Latin origin counterpart (nădejde/speranță, slavă/glorie, jertfă/sacrificiu) other have slightly different meanings - dezrobire means "setting free from slavery" and it is used today with that meaning, while eliberare means just "setting free". Also, some of them are clearly regionalisms, as in my region nobody would say "a isprăvi" for "a termina", they would say "a (se) gata" - another word of Slavic origin I think.

[@Terry-pz1op]

For all these 3 pairs (nădejde/speranță, slavă/glorie, jertfă/sacrificiu) the older Slavic variant is less common, especially in formal contexts, like the example I gave with war monuments.

[@zarzavattzarzavatt9309]

a "ispravi" is not a regionalism. "a (se) gata" ? never heard it. maybe "a (se) găti" - this one is still sometimes used: "am gătit lucrul".

[@lunadeargint540]

@@zarzavattzarzavatt9309 a găta, a se găta, am auzit de la matusa mea care locuia in Timisoara, deci exista in vestul tarii.

[@zarzavattzarzavatt9309]

@@lunadeargint540 thx, didn't know that

[@yamnitsky]

Actually the definite article as a postfix is more of a feature of a Balkan sprachbund than the Latin heritage. Latin didn't have articles (either definite or indefinite), they developed in late Vulgar Latin when the Roman empire has effectively already collapsed.

[@Terry-pz1op]

True, but the nouns do inflect it ways similar to Latin.

[@Ciprian-IonutPanait]

Also slobozie does not mean libertate means release so eliberare. And dezrobire is not really eliberare. It can be the same for slaves but you can release ( elibera) a cry a bird or anything else. You cannot dezrobi those.

[@lunadeargint540]

the synonyms presented slavic-latin or other origins cannot be used interchangebly, they all express different nuances. ; to need and must=a trebui; the word is muiere not muier; munca=work is from Slavic, not Hungarian

[@igorjee]

Muka means suffering in Slavic languages. Hungarian borrowed the word from Slavic when it still had a nasal 'n' and kept the it, but changed the meaning to work. So it makes sense that this originally Slavic word came from Hungarian. Otherwise why would Romanian have the same changed meaning?

[@londohome]

Maybe it would be more objective to say that what makes Romanian a romance language is not the vocabulary, but its Latin structure. Nice video!

[@ionbrad6753]

Both. The core of the language was and is Latin (directly derived).

[@Vercixx]

the vocabulary is currently 75%-80% Latin - whether inherited or borrowed, so even the vocabulary makes it a Latin language. And this is true for the spoken language as well, there is no real difference between spoken and written language (the prevalence of some words in written language - which I don't notice anyway - does not change this fact). This is different than the English which has most of the vocabulary of Latin origin, but the grammar and basic words are Germanic. In Romanian all are Latin: grammar, basic words, most words.

[@mariusfilip1847]

It is both. The proportion of inherited words in Romanian is not significantly less than the rest of Romance: about 28% without compounds and derivatives. It's the same in French, Spanish, etc. The Western Romance coined many words via Ecclesiastical Latin and Romanian caught up later - but those words are not really 'Vulgar Latin words' in the sense of inheritance. They are just neologisms that happen to be from Latin.

[@ioan-claudiu]

Excelent ! Multumim pentru elocventa !🙂

[@AMplusPM]

At 5:45, one might think that "neam" and "popor" mean the same thing, but "popor" simply refers to the population of the country, while "neam" also implies that the population of the country is like a big family. The reason for using the word "neam" in the old official language is to convey that Transylvanians, Moldavians, and Wallachians are the same people, and we consider ourselves brothers, e.g. for now, when thinking about the Republic of Moldova (our brothers across the river Prut). "poporul român"= people of Romania. "neamul român"=people of Romania + Rep. Moldova + other regions annexed by the Russtard Empire. Additionally, "slavă" is related to religion, i.e., it implies that "glorie"(glory) will be obtained through God. The meanings of those words are similar, but they are not identical.

[@catalyst772]

a lot of the common non latin words you mentioned are considered to be used by unedcuated or rural folk

[@pokeshark]

because village life is more static, stable in time and didn't undergo the radical industrialization and cultural shifts of the city.. Romanians who are ashamed of rural speak are basically more accustomed with neologisms and ashamed of the more authentic and localized speech of their ancestors.

[@ciprianpopa1503]

Sure, but there is the original preserved language, with all the ancestral influences.

[@zmeu_md3831]

in Republic of Moldova we mostly still speak the old romanian , 😮

[@zarzavattzarzavatt9309]

no, you don't. there is a big difference between the "old romanian" and what is currently spoken in republic of moldova: a micxture between moldavian dialect and literary romanian. plus some russian influence: depends on the speaker and on the formality of the context

[@cornerro]

@@zarzavattzarzavatt9309 there's no such a think like "moldavian dialect", smart boy.

[@zarzavattzarzavatt9309]

@@cornerro Moldavian dialect: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldavian_dialect

[@bloodbonnieking]

It's not old Romanian we never latinized, sure we took words from french and Italian but that was mostly because of technical advancements. Hell if you look at old texts the biggest difference you'd see is probably la being a (like in other romance languages.) the Moldovan dialect is so Slavic because it was taken by USSR and they were taught Russian which obviously changed quite a bit

[@carron979]

hey slick, there is no correspondent for "municipiu" in French (at least as a noun). This word was taken from Italian or directly from Latin...

[@AbelDimitriev]

Frumos, îmi place cum ai prezentat, toate cele bune, Doamne-ajută! 🤚

[@AbelDimitriev]

@user-op4tx6wg4z Romanians and Bulgarians are good friends, don't try this propaganda with me, you have nothing to gain, and we are not your enemies. Also, don't pretend to be something else, your avatar is a Bolghar symbol, I know you are Bulgarian.

[@ciprianpopa1503]

Zeus sa ne-ajute sau Apollo sau Zalmoxis sau ...

[@Tallborn5]

@user-op4tx6wg4z I'm tired of you low iq bulgarians on all these historical forums and videos claiming Romania is Bulgaria. You're country is more modern than ours you have literally nothing in common with the bulgars of old after being occupied by the ottoman turks for nearly 800 years. You are literally turks even DNA surveys show it.

[@juandiegovalverde1982]

muncitor derives from munci, borrowed from Old Church Slavonic мѫчити (mǫčiti, “to torture”), from Proto-Slavic *mǫčiti.

[@NormanF62]

When non Latin words were assimilated, they became like similar words in the original Latin that were subsequently Latinised and they were made at home in the language.

[@juandiegovalverde1982]

@@NormanF62 I don´t understand you.

[@NormanF62]

@@juandiegovalverde1982 Like Greek, Punic and Etruscan words that appeared in Latin.

[@soiah]

nu provine din v.sl. мака "chin" deși ar putea fi cognați. PIE *muk' "trudă, dificultate, necaz" Cognați IE: gr. μογεο "a trudi, a munci din greu, a suferi". Cuvânt de origine geto-traco-dacă.

[@lunadeargint540]

@@juandiegovalverde1982 He probably meant that even if it is a loanword the grammar applied, the conjugation of the verb is stil Latin. In this case it is conjugated after the IV conjugation because it end in -i (Romanian has inherited all the 4 conjugations from Latin).

[@boredmillionaire9914]

So question then: do the terms that were imported from French and Latin (the ones that replaced the Hungarian and Slavic terms) sound artificial to Romanian & Moldovan speakers? For example, how does the Constitution sound? Artificial?

[@CesaristChannel]

To me, it doesn't sound artificial at all. If you use exclusively imported French terms, then yes, you get a more "strained" language which doesn't wholly resemble day to day speech. However, if you look at the Slavisms that permeated religious literature in the Late Middle Ages, that also sounds extremely artificial and non-Romanian. Additionally, French is closer to the core of the Romanian language, which makes it a far better candidate to import terms from (doesn't happen nowadays, this occurred in the 19th century).

[@zarzavattzarzavatt9309]

not anymore mostly, it's been a while since these terms entered common usage. some words sound fancy. i would say the constitution sounds too formal (which it should be), not artificial

[@GholaTleilaxu]

Cine pomenește pe cine!? Pomeniți fie cei săraci cu duhul, căci a lor e Împărăția Cerurilor! În loc cu verdeaţă, în loc de odihnă, de unde a fugit toată durerea, întristarea şi suspinarea. Hai, frate, să lăsăm vrăjeala păgână și să aplicăm o țâră de logică. Ăsta e un exemplu de limbă română. Sau acesta: limba daco-română e atât de latină pe cât trebuie să fie, nici mai mult, nici mai puțin. BTW! We worked quite hard, for more than 1000 years, to make all those Hunnish, Magyar, Slavic, Turkish, what have you, words pronounceable in your Western European languages, so give us a cookie or ten! :)

[@Tanu.90]

So when it comes to "Yes", the romanian word "Da", i always heard peoples from the villages actually saying "Ida" which is definitely Latin. Yeah, it might be that the slavic form being also so similar it was adopted, but the latin form survived to this day in many villages in Transilvania at least

[@24丹老师]

For the first example "muncitorul" is also a Slavic origin word, not a Hungarian one. So the only Hungarian word in that sentence is "orasul" which also seems to have an Iranian etymology, borrowed into Hungarian.

[@ruben4447]

Each romance language has its own influences otherwise they would be the same language. French has germanic, Spanish portuguese has arabic and romanian slavic. The majority matters tho. Romania was invaded by many empires and is surounded by only slavic and uralic languages. Thats what makes romanian so unique. No matter the isolation it still remained a ton of latin in the language. Being called not a latin language is disrespectful after what Romania went through but still remained latin. We need to embrace our original traditions which are latin and not slavic. We need another latinization before we become fully slavic.

[@CesaristChannel]

I don’t think there’s currently any danger in becoming “more Slavic”. The danger is becoming too Balkanized and gypsified (see “manele” and the abhorrent behavior that this Balkan-gypsification promotes).

[@ruben4447]

@@CesaristChannel Both are bad. Having your traditions replaced by others is either way bad no matter who replaces you. We need to remember who we really are.

[@Samsung-1.9Cu.Ft.Microwave]

I have no problem with our language being Slavic influenced, plus the language is still very latin, so theres really no need for latinization

[@ruben4447]

@@Samsung-1.9Cu.Ft.Microwave Yeah the problem isnt that it has a bit of slavic influence but the problem is that people hear one slavic word and they think its a slavic language.

[@zuraorokamono204]

Great video to be honest. I understand the structure and what you were going for and I agree with most of what has been said here. The only part I generally tend to disagree with is the low percentage of Latin words in archaic Romanian, foreign influences were more common than they are today after an effort to reduce them but given that documents we have written in Romanian from older times still used mostly Latin words, that 20% figure just doesn't sound believable, 40-50% area is more likely. I fully agree with the conclusion of this video however and it highlights very well that there is much more to categorizing a language family than just lexicon alone.

[@Terry-pz1op]

Thanks for your reply. Regarding your criticism: I think the percentage I quoted is believable because it refers to the overall lexicon and is comparable to the share of Germanic words in English. It could very well be that at a certain point 4 out of 5 Romanian words in existence were of non-Latin origin, while the most frequently used ones remained Latin throughout the ages.

[@asybaris]

There was no such thing as a "relatinization". First of all, because there was no central authority which could coordonate all this process and second because...most of romanians were illiterate peasants which spoke the same language as their forefathers. Oral ballads and songs of the past are perfectly inteligible for a romanian today. The words were not handpicked by their origin, we borrowed from french because they were the leading culture of Europe, most of the words were neologisms and most of them describe objects or notions that were new, where if not from french should we borrow words? Russian? Hungarian? Where they in the 19th century that evolved into developing new concepts, ideas or inventions? Not really. Everyone spoke french, even english royals. It's not the first time we hear this theory of "relatinization", it's often promoted by russian/bulgarians/and our beloved hungarians as if romanians "invented" their own language by purging "slavic/bulgarian" words. First of all that (church) Slavonic has been abandoned since early XVII century in favour of romanian, then we had the greek influence of XVIIIth century and after that the french influence. Slavic influence of Romanian was received in the early formation period of V-IXth century AD and those words are still present in the language and nobody "purged" them because they are an essential part of the language, 15-20% and give romanian its distinctive sound and melody(like drag, iubire, prieten, sila, rana, odihni, izvori etc). Nobody could purge these words as the language would be crippled. And in general, we did not have a language reform, all our great writers took inspiration in the popular language, in ballads, songs and stories of the people, it was not a project directed from above, how could one change the language of a shepperd? Church/administrative terms received in the XIV-XVIth century from Church Slavonic/Old Bulgarian were only used be a handful of literate individuals, mostly monks or scribes of the chancellary, with no more impact on the language as latin had in Germany or Hungary. None. That's why the rulers of the principalities in the XVIIth century forbade it in the church service, because no one in the audience could understand the language and even least the poor peasants, it was a mumble-jumble with no meaning. Instead they translated and printed the Bible and the holy books and they have a clear, beautiful and expressive romanian language. If you read the chronicles of XVIIth century you will also find a beautiful romanian language, overwhelmingly latin, in some aspects even closer to latin. If you are a truly honest in your quest just read the Lords Prayer in romanian and then tell us if you still have doubts. The grammar, syntax of the language are clearly latin, even non latin words follow the same rules and evolved into romanian words. The core vocabulary of the language is latin and is inherited. Hungarian, greek and turkish togheter had very little impact on romanian language, mostly terms associated with occupations of that respective nation or unique or specific foods ( goulash, mousaka, kebab)

[@popacristian2056]

Este foarte adevarat ce spuneti!

[@popacristian2056]

Nu va obositi degeaba cu neinteligenta TrolBotilor ruZi ca asta, care nu poate nici sa formuleze propozitii corecte, viabile in romaneste, pentru a-si lega cumva elucubratiile scotocind prin notiunile ce le gaseste in baza de date!

[@mirelatimcu7222]

​@@popacristian2056 Este necesar să li se dea acestora o replică pertinentă !

[@SeamanX-qh9bw]

Minimizezi - munca, neam , sarmale etc nu este impact minim . Cuvintele de origine slava au fost probabil 40% din vocabular , dar au ramas la 15-20% dupa inlocuirea lor cu cuvinte de origine franceza . Poate ca termenul de "re-latinizare" nu e potrivit , pentru ca limba romana este rezultatul absobtiei ,cel putin la nivel lexical , a cuvintelor de origine slavica, maghiara, turkica etc . Daca nu erau absorbite, probabil ca limba era o varietate locala de latina vulgara , asa cum or fi vorbit-o romanii de la sud de Dunare inainte de invazia slava si transformarea lor in vlahi . Cuvintele de origine franceza sunt 30% din vocabularul romanesc , iar cele din vorbirea uzuala sunt 22% .

[@asybaris]

@@SeamanX-qh9bw Neamul munceste la sarmale, uite ca pot face si o propozitie cu aceste cuvinte de origine maghiara sau turca, dar ele urmeaza declinarea/conjugarea latina. Ca si pondere in total lexic de baza influenta maghiara si cea turca au o pondere de sub 1%. As putea sa-ti insirui o multime de cuvinte cu origine turca (perdea, dusumea, tavan, geam, covor, pervaz, sufragerie, cismea - doar asa legat de casa), pe care le folosim si in prezent si care par multe, dar in total fond lexical, iarasi au pondere scazuta. De exemplu avem o multime de mancaruri de origine turceasca, dar aceste cuvinte sunt circumscrise unei sfere limitate si specifice mostenirii culturale turcesti. Avem si cuvinte de origine (neo)greaca, a molipsi, pricopsi, catadicsi, ieftin, caramida, trandafir, scop din perioada fanariota. Din nou, au o pondere scazuta. Si ...sunt inca parte din limba romana, fiind cuvinte utilizate. Alte importuri turcesti sau grecesti au fost abandonate intrucat descriau notiuni sau obiecte care au iesit din uz. La fel si multe cuvinte din slavona/bulgara veche, termeni religiosi si administrativi care au cazut in desuetudine o data cu trecerea timpului, dar alte cuvinte slave, cu precadere cele mai vechi importuri sunt o parte esentiala a limbii romane, consider ca putem vorbi de limba romana numai dupa primirea influentei slave. In ce priveste latinistii/puristii din sec. XIX au fost ridiculizati inca din epoca si miscarea lor nu a prins. Dimpotriva, creatorii limbii literare au fost culegatori de folclor ca Alecsandri, citeste orice balada sau doina si vei vedea ca e limba de zi cu zi pe care o vorbim si astazi, fa o analiza etimologica si vei vedea exact ponderea

[@michaelchen8643]

I am not a Romanian language speaker. I’m privately English speaker with some Spanish language, immersion, living at home and here to follow modern Italian as it was the first romance line who said I would listen to as a child on broadcast movies This is what I understand about the more recent history of Romanian. As was brought up in this video, there was an intentional guidance to transform the Romanian language into a more Latin-based language by intellectuals, including using the Roman alphabet instead of the Cyrillic alphabet. You’ll find something very similar in modern Portuguese were in the 1500s and the intellectuals, and in educated people in Portugal decided to guide the language should be more like Vulgate Latin or even classical Latin in they could dream up This would have a benefit because there’s so much of a written body of classical Latin and even Vulgate Latin, that would strengthen the language and tie it more to western Europe, making it easier for trade and electric exchange during the industrial Explosion in western Europe I’ve also heard that the Romanian intellectuals wanted to make Romania more like France culturally As an English speaker, I get into a sense of intelligibility when I see a lot of Latin base words thinking Romanian is easy No Romanian it is not Easy to pick up as there seems to be grammatical constructs that can be very confusing and cumbersome in comparison to Spanish or Italian or French Living in a Spanish household, I can take modern Italian and my wife simply can hear it and understand it very clearly, and I’ve seen people who speak Italian and fluid conversations with each other. And less people speak Portuguese carefully their speech with people who speak Spanish For some reason, people who speak Romanian western Romance languages, especially Spanish and Italian very easily, but this is not the case in the reverse direction Thank you for making this video highlight Realities of the Romanian language Also, Sardinian in its modern form is the closest one to vulgate Latin of the Roman period from what I hear

[@emilyx33x]

5:03 de ce cosmar este la fel in limba rusa??

[@Terry-pz1op]

Au luat si ei din franceza

[@emilyx33x]

@@Terry-pz1op ahhh mersi :)

[@zarzavattzarzavatt9309]

this is the best video on the topic i've seen so far!

[@juandiegovalverde1982]

In Spanish alba means dawn.

[@Marian87]

Having more words for the same things is awesome, diversity is good. It gives more nuance, meaning and tells an indirect story.

[@lugo_9969]

Sounds like an excellent language to go and learn.

[@CipiRipi-in7df]

It's a nightmare. Romania is probably the language with most exception to every rule. Basically, every single rule in Romanian language come with a long diptych of exceptions to said rule. And you must learn them all! 😆😆

[@gambalombo]

So would the population of Wallachia and Moldavia (And Transylvania) before the creation of Romania be considered a mixture culturally of Slavic and Romance?

[@lunadeargint540]

No, it is not possible, the language is Latin with some Slavic influence in the vocabulary. A significant part of this influence came culturally through Old Church Slavonic not by direct contact between Slavic and Romanian populations. One can analyse the old documents, books written in old Romanian. Most of the population was of course illiterate but the same books circulated in all the territories inhabited by Romanians, the 3 lands were never isolated from one another.( Transsylvania was lead by Hungarian nobility but it had its own voyevod vassal to Hungary. When the Turks occupied Hungary and turned it into a Turkish province for about 150 years, Transsylvania received the same status as the other Romanian lands, that is vassal state to the Ottoman Empire. then it became a part of the Austrian empire). Without learning, Romanians could/can never understand a Slavic language. The same about Slavic people, they won't even recognize a lot of the slavic words because they have a different meaning or sound in Romanian or simply there are simply words that don't exist in their languages. The culture is that of the region but the language was not really a mixture.

[@pokeshark]

yes, countless place names are of Slavic origin in Romania (there are even Romanian towns with the same name as places from Croatia to Belarus), same with people's names (Vlad, Mircea, Dragos, Radu, Bogdan). Slavic settlers were assimilated, but left their mark.

[@Donkeypapuas]

There ar two words used in lyturgical texts in greek text: doxa and megalou. There was translated with SLAVA and MĂRIRE, not with GLORIE.

[@duncanroche8213]

Fantastic video. Thank you.

[@juandiegovalverde1982]

om means person, human being.

[@stuh9584]

Very interesting video!!!

[@vladulupan]

How english is germanic?

[@Terry-pz1op]

If you look purely at vocabulary, English is less Germanic than Romanian is Latin.

[@bloodbonnieking]

​@@Terry-pz1ophow? I literally never really see any words taken from french when speaking English, whilst in Romanian I can spot way more latin words

[@ruben4447]

Its kinda hard to talk about this topic because everything still isnt 100% proven to be true. There still is an ungoing study about this topic. From this study there are a few debates for example its said that when lingvists tried to discover what influences each romanian word has they categorized all words that didnt come from latin as slavic evem though they couldnt enecsarily prove they were slavic words. Many of the "slavic" words might not even be from slavic but they just looked similar and they asumed they come from slavic even though they had totally different meanings.

[@angelavonhalle5144]

I am astonished that one of the most basic words (I) in engish) is the same in portuguese and romanian (eu).

[@Ciprian-IonutPanait]

duh and spirit not the same thing. Also jertfa/sacrificiu and nadejde/speranta . They are synonimes but are not the exact same thing

[@InAeternumRomaMater]

When are you going to make another video?😫

[@erical7604]

To have a clue about why some languages are like they are, I would recommend the video of RobWords on why English is still a germanic language despite having in its vocabulary not many anglo-saxon worlds left. Maybe it would be more comprehensible for some why Romanian is still a Latin language.

[@_pheax]

back to school man.. ii tras de urechi raportul tau, mai ia o lectie de la Ioan Aurel Pop si vei intelege ce e cu ramana si de unde vine..

[@CesaristChannel]

Adica?

[@vlina4123]

From 19 century "This Latinization" happened in most European countries is called modernization! Science terms, technology, Law, and social reforms, realities of time. Nobody denies slavic influence, But most Slavic (Hungarian, Turkish) words were from medieval times (realities of THAT TIME, why that is not called "Slavinization"?) and related to church, state government, professions, activities, and objects that didn't exist when Dacia was occupied by romans! City - oras(modern) is Hungarian, but Cetate (latin) is an old form and is still used as a fortress. But regular (most common) Romanian, verbs, animals, plants, body parts, etc are latin. OLD Romanian words Destiny - soarta (sortir french), farmec/ farmece (slavic sinonim vraja)- charming/spells (farmacia -latin), batalie (battle) lat, - razboi (war, battle)slavic, Munci (work) slavic) - lucra (work)lat, To speak - vorbi (lat), grai (slav), palavragi (old form like palavras), mouth - gura(lat), leoarba (old form, Spanish lavras), wife/woman - femeie, muiere, soata (lat), nevasta (slavic), liquid - lichid (modern), licoare (old form for liquids and potions like modern liquors), skull - scalp (modern), teasta (old form like testa(head) in Italian), little baby - bebelus (modern), coca/cocutza (old form derived from cocoon) etc.

[@Reazzurro90]

I'd be curious to know liturgy influenced linguistic change or was influenced by it.

[@lunadeargint540]

It' not clear, what do you mean?

[@SauTunSud2025]

Citi( read)= citadel where the 'citats' were read to masses= English citation, cite your claim etc.

[@AMplusPM]

It came from Indo-European probably

[@SauTunSud2025]

@@AMplusPM IE world has to be in more than 5 languages not only two.

[@aiurea1]

In Article 1, the definite article at the end of the noun is from the Dacian language

[@ekesandras1481]

ille illa illud ... where the Latin demonstrative pronouns and "articolul" comes from "articolum illud".

[@aiurea1]

@@ekesandras1481 can be, but it's a unique feature at the end in Romanian

[@ekesandras1481]

@@aiurea1 let the AI translate any sentence into classical Latin and you will be surprised. The only unique feature in Romanian is to add it directly to the noun. But this is just a orthographic convention.

[@aiurea1]

@@ekesandras1481 i don't understand

[@CesaristChannel]

It is not Dacian, it is wholly Latin, form "ille/illum", like in all other Latin languages. And the postponed article placement is not unique to Romanian but also occurs in Albanian and the North Germanic languages.

[@fr.johncalebcollins275]

Prior to the 'relatinization,' fully one-fifth or 20% of the words were of inherited Latin origin. Some of the Slavic words, 'baie,' 'cuhnie' etc. are borrowed from Slavonic but were borrowed into Slavonic from Latin. While those were very few, they are interesting as they have a romance origin too. However, while only 20% of the lexicon was directly Latin the majority of frequently spoken words were from the Latin. The same studies, cited by Romanian linguist Grigore Nandris, show that 80-90% of the most frequently used words were Latin. If one reads Lupu Neacșu's letter, the oldest preserved example of written Romanian, from the 16th century, the majority of the Romanian words in the letter are inherited directly from Latin.

[@bergfreund2160]

cuhnie' etc. are borrowed from Slavonic but were borrowed into Slavonic from Latin . Wrong. Western slavic peoples took it from germanic urbanized and advanced cities, see the german comercial ties with Hungary, see Transylvania etc. Der Begriff Küche leitet sich vom Althochdeutschen chúchina ab, das wiederum auf das spätlateinische cocina/coquina, eine Ableitung von klassisch-lat. coquus „Koch“ zurückgeht. Mit dem Ausdruck Küche wird daneben heute auch die Kücheneinrichtung bezeichnet. It is a latin word but slavic people got it influenced by the german urban advanced civilization.

[@fr.johncalebcollins275]

@@bergfreund2160 Hallo, dass weiß ich und ich danke Sie für die Information beschreiben. Hello, yes, I know that and I thank you for describing the information. In fact, I knew the word Küche before knowing Romanian because I learned to speak, imperfectly, German after living near Wiesbaden. I did not post every interval in the word's evolution and arrival into Romanian because it's simply not the purpose of a short, fun comment for a niche interest. The interest being how borrowings from other languages include a small sub-set of the lexicon which are borrowed through languages and which were borrowed into those languages tracing back to Latin. No one is going to mistake your comment or mine for a doctoral dissertation after all ;) Well, hopefully they don't anyway. Und oft bin ich in der Küche oder la cocina so wie sagen wir hier. And, speaking multiple languages, I don't always say everything perfectly within said language. That comes with the territory, as you seem to as well.

[@fr.johncalebcollins275]

@@bergfreund2160 Și mi-interesez cuvintele care nu sunt frecvente său s-au înlocuit cu un doublet din slavonă bisericească veche, dar originea lor e direct din latină. De exemplu, și sigur dvs. știți asta deja, doar vreau să dau un exemplu, arină se folosește câteodată pe ardelenește în loc de doublet-ul, nisip chiar dacă e archaic acum. Alta curiozitate pentru mine e că cuvântul arenă e un împrumut din franceză și latină. De ce numai au folosit arină din nou? Am învațat asta când vorbeam eu cu o prietenă de la Timișoara și am spus cuvântul spaniol, arena, pentru nisip pentru că la moment am uitat eu de nisip. Engleză și spaniolă sunt limbile care vorbesc acasă.

[@jonarthritiskwanhc]

Doesn't 'baie' come from Latin?

[@fr.johncalebcollins275]

@@jonarthritiskwanhc it does come from Latin in its development but it is very possible that it is not a directly inherited word. Instead, etymologists believe it was borrowed from Old Slavonic banja which is a borrowing of the original Latin word balnea.

[@Camilodigiorgi]

The whole grammar is derived from Latin, no? Does it has agglutinative features like Turkish or Hungarian?

[@cornerro]

assolutamente no! (nu, absolut!)

[@bloodbonnieking]

​@@cornerronu înțeleg de ce am lăsat mente de la acele cuvinte. Am avut o profesoară de biologie mai în vârstă ce vorbea cu literalmente și absolutamente

[@lunadeargint540]

@@bloodbonnieking se poate ca nu le-am lasat niciodata pentru ca nu le-am avut. adverbele cu mente s-au format mai tarziu in evul mediu, nu existau in latina (clasica) Oricine poate folosi literalmente si absoutamente dar sint neologisme, probabil mai putin utilizate de tanara generatie.

[@lunadeargint540]

no agglutination. Agglutination doesn't occur in Indo-European languages.

[@bloodbonnieking]

@@lunadeargint540 suntem șmecheri

[@davidmcxx]

The question is how Romanian is Latin? Bassarabia is very far east bordering Ukraine, a territory Romans never got to. They are speaking Romanian despite Romanians never had a campaign of teaching people Romanian. You can question historians but you cannot question common sense.

[@KertPerteson]

Interesting video

[@GJ-dj4jx]

Could it be that the story of Romanization of Romania is not true? Could it be that you already spoke some "Latin" sister language? Many Italian words for example seem to be etymologically explained in Albanian not in Italian or Latin.

[@bogdanalistar1858]

The Dacians were spread over an area from the Carpathians, the Black Sea, both to the right (today's Romania) and to the left of the Danube (today's Bulgaria, today's Serbia) and in the Pannonian Plain (today's Hungary). But after the Slavic invasions (after the year 601) especially in today's Bulgaria and Serbia and after the arrival of the Hungarians in the Pannonian Plain (today's Hungary) and part of Transylvania (8th century), they succeeded to some extent in changing the language (the Serbs , Bulgarians, Hungarians, etc.). I say to a certain extent because a good part of the native Dacian populations (today's Vlachs or Aromanians) still kept their mother tongue to a good extent until today. And from here it "lights up": that's why GENETICALLY Romanians have a lot in common (or vice versa) with Serbs, Bulgarians, Hungarians, etc., in fact with the population of ancient Dacia.

[@camelianedelcu5640]

I DACI AL TEMPO DI BUEREBISTA ERA UN IMPERO MOLTO AMPIO,ERANO ARRIVATI FINO IN DANIMARCA. I DACI ERANO SULLA NOSTRA TERRA DAL ANNO 1000 A. C..

[@Gusararr]

Interesting to hear that Romanian went through the faze of "purification", I had no idea about this. I knew that Turks had a similar process, but what are some other languages that you know of that went through this faze?

[@Terry-pz1op]

I know France has a policy to create new words instead of "importing" them, but for the rest I've mostly heard about this policy in reverse, like for ex. Croatia making certain German words part of the standard language to make it more distinct from Serbian.

[@lunadeargint540]

There was never such a faze, Romanian borrowed a lot of words, just the same Turkish or Germanic or Slavic languages did from French and Latin in order to express the new modern realities of sciece culture etc.

[@ppn194]

Nver went through purification. It was a poeriod trying to make new words fromRomanian, but it did not work. Romanian went through modernization and manytimes near a slavic or turkish a mostly a French word (whioch was a cutural borrowing from Latin as well) was used with the curious aspect that French made that Latin word to sound like French and when borrowing it, the Romanian made also to sound Romania thus turning th word back to its pretty exact Latin form. Or French use Latin words in forms that were lost to French but are very Romanian. Certicat , form Latin certificatus is just a word ( the French form would be Certiefié), but Romanian certificat is just a normalform integrated in the way words and notions are derived in Romanian commonly.

[@mariusfilip1847]

Hungarian and Greek.

[@ppn194]

There was a partial, unsuccesful attempt, which was never formal.

[@anamariabalaj7621]

And if the sentence would be "Muncitorul curajos amintește povestea orașului pustiu" it would sound less archaic.

[@Se2n67g9r]

Most social events and administrative fields use modern french loan words. Because of the higher education that the youth of the 1800 s received in mainly France. Most economical (new industrialization) loan words were used from german language. In the early 1900s a lot of german run factories were built in cities. You're comparing things in a very peculiar way to drive a point. Its like using today's IT vocabulary in practically every country in the world and calling them English derived languages. But at home every romanian family uses words that are not even latin. They belong to the unknown origin vocabulary which i think is dacian.

[@CesaristChannel]

"But at home every romanian family uses words that are not even latin. They belong to the unknown origin vocabulary which i think is dacian." ENTIRELY INCORRECT. As far as common sense and linguistic investigation goes, what we talk at home is called "Vulgar Latin", or the core Romanian vocabulary inherited from Vulgar Latin. You are mostly likely a Dacopath.

[@danielbrancus1637]

Your argument about noun cases doesnt sound very convincing. Yes, latin had many noun cases, but so do our neighboring balkan languages. Could this not potentially be another shared similarity of balkan sprachbund ?

[@lunadeargint540]

Our neighboring balkan languages have their cases and we have ours from Latin. The Romanian grammar is 100% Latin. The Bulgarian lost the cases.

[@vladulupan]

To work (work) - a lucra (lucru), din latinescul lucrare

[@soiah]

lucra lat. lucrum "câștig" provine de la *lut-lom, la rândul sau din PIE *lau - "a duce, a captura" (v. lotru, a lua). Acest etimon nici măcar nu e cognat cu rom. lucru. În schimb rom. lucru este cognat cu latinul lucubro "a lucra la lumina zilei" lucabratio "lucru", dar formele românești nu pot proveni din aceste forme. Formele latine provin de la un proto-latin *leukos-ro" din care provine și rom. lucru. PIE *leuk "lumina" cu forma nominală *leucro-s "lucru la lumina zilei". Deci provine din proto-geto-traco-daco-iliră *leucro-s

[@doce7678]

This post comes from a Slav or a Hungarian. The Romanian language is as Latin as possible. What you don't know is that Romanian has many synonyms and if some words resemble Slavic ones it is because there is a common root: the Indo-European language that includes both Romanian and Slavic but also Sanskrit, Latin and others. The Hungarian word "Város", from which the Romanian word "oraș" (city) is supposed to come, is of Iranian origin. : "vár"- fortress, vara- "covering, protective structure". New PERSIAN ''bar''- dike of earth, hill; castle wall, castle / Afghan ''bara''- 'fort; embankment'. IRANIAN words are Indo-European, they come, cf. PIE (proto-Indo-European) from ''vrnoti'' 'close, forbid. The original meaning of the Hungarian word may have been "earthen rampart".

[@florinalfonse4163]

Varos(maghiar)....to-varos!?(rus,east area)...world ,many people Oras(ro)...orBis(lat)...world ,many people B!? caBalus(lat)...cal(ro) aBeluna(lat)...aluna(ro) seBum(lat)....seu(ro) etc

[@pokeshark]

great video, it's very insightful to me how foreigners perceive our language. sadly, Romanians are conditioned by nationalist propaganda to avoid acknowledging or outright reject their significant Slavic heritage. they don't understand that to fully appreciate the Romanian language and its uniqueness among Romance languages, you need to appreciate the Slavic undercurrent. you keenly noted that the articles from the Constitution read like some kind of super Latin, but to me that type of language seems artificial and lacks the character of the core Romanian language.

[@ubuntuposix]

All languages of states are there to separate people - that is to make its country population be different than the neighbors, otherwise.. they would mash and you don't have your country to rule upon.. This is a sin made by most countries all around. In fact, the less borrowed (from neighbors) words a language has, the more desperate its leaders were.

[@CesaristChannel]

Yeah but the Slavic influence/undercurrent is just that - an undercurrent. The main heritage is Romanic. All nations focus their attention on the main current of their evolution. For ex. The English : will focus on their Germanic Anglo-Saxon heritage and not their Norman French/Latin one. There was even an incident a few years ago where the name of William the Conqueror was booed by Englishmen at a history convention. This shows their pride in their Germanic heritage. Or the Russians : will focus on their mainly Slavic heritage and not their Viking/Germanic heritage, even though the Russian state was founded by Vikings and the local Slav population intermixed with Vikings and even borrowed some of their names. The Spanish : will mostly pride themselves on their Romanic heritage and not the Visigothic/Germanic or Moorish influence. This is normal for any nation. We need to stop humbling ourselves or feeling guilty for focusing on one part of our heritage over another. Everyone does it.

[@zarzavattzarzavatt9309]

good point! unfortunately our slavic heritage is not appreciated due to propaganda. as for the articles from the constitution - any "legal writing" is artificial (for a good reason), people usually don't talk like that.

[@CesaristChannel]

@@zarzavattzarzavatt9309 There is no propaganda. Why don’t the French focus on their Frankish/Germanic heritage? Because it doesn’t make much sense historically and linguistically. Same with Romania.

[@ionbrad6753]

”Romanians are conditioned by nationalist propaganda...” - please provide examples of such propaganda.