ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Nov 5, 2011 11:35:53 GMT -5
While learning about Romanian history, I came across the following. At the same time, Maiorescu exercised influence through his attack on what he viewed as excessive innovative trends in writing and speaking Romanian: "Neologisms have come to be a real literary affliction with [the Romanian people]. The starting point has been with the tendency to remove Slavic words from the language, replacing these with Latin ones, but, using this pretext, most of our writers would, without selection, use new Latin and French words even where we have our own Romance-origin ones, and would discard those Slavic words that have grown only too deep roots in our language for us to be able to remove them. Both the starting point and its development are equally wrong, and originate yet again with the empty formalism of theory, to which the real language of the people has never attached itself."[3]Accordingly, Junimea heavily criticized Romanian Romantic nationalism for condoning excesses (especially in the problematic theses connected to the origin of Romanians). In the words of Maiorescu: "In 1812, Petru Maior (...) wrote his The History of the Romanian Beginnings in Dacia. In his tendency to prove that we [Romanians] are un-corrupted descendants of the Romans, Maior maintains, in the fourth paragraph, that Dacians were entirely exterminated by the Romans, and there was thus no mixing of these two peoples. In order to prove such an unnatural hypothesis, our historian relies on a dubious passage in Eutropius and a passage in Julian, to which he gives an interpretation that no sane mind could admit, and thus begins the demonstration of our Romance identity through history – with a falsification of history. (...) that which surprises and saddens concerning these creations is not their error itself, since this can be explained and at times justified through the circumstances of the period, but rather the error of our assessment of them nowadays, the haughtiness and self-satisfaction with which they are defended by the Romanian intelligentsia as if true acts of science, the blindness that provides for a failure to see that building a Romanian national awareness cannot rely on a basis that would enclose a lie."[1]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junimea
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Nov 6, 2011 5:55:03 GMT -5
The linguistic problem prevails to this day. For instance, we are using some English words for words that we already have and are of Latin origin.
As for getting rid of words of Bulgarian origin, that's a good thing and we should continue on this path. Some Slavic words that were not taken via Bulgarian can remain, but all that is Bulgarian should be destroyed.
Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Czech Republic and Slovakia are friendly Slavic nations towards Romania. We can also come on good terms with Ukrainians and Russians, but it's their call. Still, when I met with Russians and Ukrainians, they were cool. Very nice people.
Macedonia are our brothers. Macedons and Daco-Thracians are almost the same people.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Nov 6, 2011 9:21:23 GMT -5
Your comments here:
are one marvellous display of ignorance.
English words have made their way into practically every country in Eastern Europe, however, there was no political agenda to do so. On the other hand, the information I posted here inadvertently discusses a political agenda resulting in the foundation of the Romanian identity. And it appears that the Romanian intelligentsia was so desperate to prove some un-interrupted connection to the Romans that they defended some shady passages as "true acts of science".
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Nov 6, 2011 9:28:10 GMT -5
There was no ignorance on my part. I am well aware of what you say, but I chose to focus on the end-result. Yes, there have been some who wanted to promote a pure Roman identity and repell other theories, but they failed because they received no support. We also have those who attempt to present a pure Dacian identity and they, too, are discredited.
The people that you presented did not take part in the formation of the Romanian identity. The Romanian identity was formed centuries earlier. What those people tried to do was to establish an identity on our origins. There's a difference.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Nov 6, 2011 11:18:56 GMT -5
Hmm.. I've only seen historic references to the 'Vlachs', ie. a Vlach identity.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Nov 6, 2011 11:40:16 GMT -5
Hmm.. I've only seen historic references to the 'Vlachs', ie. a Vlach identity. So just because you haven't seen "historical references" to the name Rumân/Român, they are not there? They are there. It's just that you suffer from retardation. That's the problem.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Nov 6, 2011 11:43:31 GMT -5
I've seen the name 'Roman' used as a personal name throughout Europe.
However, I haven't seen references that refer to the populations north of the Danube as 'Romanians' until much later in history. If you provide them, I'll read them.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Nov 6, 2011 12:05:01 GMT -5
You insinuated you have never seen such references, now you say that you only saw such references that came late in history. Yeah, okay, dude. If it makes you feel better, we're Vlachs and our country is Wallachia.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Nov 6, 2011 12:17:53 GMT -5
No, you're Romanians and your country is Romania. However, you're claiming that the Romanian identity existed for "centuries" before the information I posted here.
I've merely stated that the only use of the term 'Roman' (aside from anything pertaining to the Roman Empire) has been as a personal name.
The key thing to remember here is that there doesn't seem to be any reference to you as 'Romanians' until much later in history.. possibly until the 18th century. If there is, then I have not read about it. This is precisely why I asked you to share this information with me.
You're getting upset with me because I'm ignorant of your history, and yet when I try to learn more about it you resort to throwing temper tantrums.. and somehow, you end up making things personal yet again.
It seems you prefer to live in oblivion, blindly claiming this and that without actually wanting to learn about why things are as they are.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Nov 6, 2011 12:40:13 GMT -5
I know that your intentions are not honorable. You don't have a single honorable bone in your body. Some five years ago, under the name Kotrag, you questioned that we were the same people as the Vlachs of Moldavia and Wallachia. You dumb fvck! I remember showing you sources that described that we were referred to as Vlachs, or other names, but you wouldn't accept it. Finally you gave in, saying that a part of the Vlachs took part of our nation.
You think I forgot that? You jokester. I remember it all; and I remember then, just like now, you were trying to pose as an intellectual.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Nov 6, 2011 13:14:03 GMT -5
Ahh you gotta control 'em emotions bro, look at you, a man of your stature, self proclaimed 'most intelligent person' on these forums.. do you really need to resort to profanities to prove a point?
Anyhow, I admit that back then I've probably made some mistakes in judgement though as I already mentioned I was still green. And in all fairness, at an advanced age, your memory may fail to serve you right.
Even though I don't quite recall things in the way you've posted them, I'll attempt to rectify the situation once and for all. Here it is.. the Vlachs are no doubt the core ethnic group of the modern day Romanian ethnic group, however, these Vlachs don't seem to have been identified as Romanians until possibly the 18th century. If they have, please share that information with me.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Nov 6, 2011 13:33:09 GMT -5
I don't recall styling myself as the most intelligent person on the forum. I said that you were the biggest dumbass on the forum, but that doesn't make me the most intelligent one. Personally, I consider BR as the most intelligent member of Illyria. I consider myself as one of his successors. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Romania
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Nov 7, 2011 13:02:33 GMT -5
Anittas, you're a very smart guy. Don't underestimate yourself.
|
|
|
Post by vlaici on Nov 23, 2011 12:41:51 GMT -5
Giacomo di Pietro Luccari, 1605- "La Valachia č posta di lŕ dal Danubio - scria Luccari -, fra la Transilvania, Moldavia e il Danubio verso i Triballi piena di vene d'oro, masse di sale, la cera a guisa di bitume scaturisce di sotto terra, ha animali grossi e minuti con i quali ne nutrisce tutta la Romania şsubl.meaţ; la gente segue le cerimonie de'Greci e parla la lingua latina corrotta ed alterata da' vocaboli forestieri. Fu fatta da Trajano Imperatore provincia del popolo Romano e vi mandň molte colonie de 'suoi, i quali cacciato il parlare de'Goti introdussero il latino che i barbari domandano Vlaco, onde nacque il nome alla provincia"
|
|
|
Post by boghinator on Nov 30, 2011 14:09:41 GMT -5
Anybody who wants to learn about the making of the rumanian identity must read the following thread written in english (from page 4 to page 48) : www.antimoon.com/forum/t13953-45.htm Although it started as a discussion about which of the romance languages sounds more slavic, the discussion continued as one about the modern rumanian identity and how it was created in the 18-19th centuries by a group of catholic priests from Transylvania and then imposed on the whole population by the educational system and the state propaganda. It's about the historical lies that were invented to support this new identity, the heavy modification of the vocabulary and writing in order to make the language look more latin, the changing of the name of the people (Rumîn=>Român) in order to create an optical illusion with the name of the ancient Roman people, etc. In the thread there are a lot of quotes (also translated in english) on the subject, taken mostly from books written by rumanian historians, so you also have the point of view of the professionals.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Nov 30, 2011 16:01:46 GMT -5
Anybody who wants to learn about the making of the rumanian identity must read the following thread written in english (from page 4 to page 48) : www.antimoon.com/forum/t13953-45.htm Although it started as a discussion about which of the romance languages sounds more slavic, the discussion continued as one about the modern rumanian identity and how it was created in the 18-19th centuries by a group of catholic priests from Transylvania and then imposed on the whole population by the educational system and the state propaganda. It's about the historical lies that were invented to support this new identity, the heavy modification of the vocabulary and writing in order to make the language look more latin, the changing of the name of the people (Rumîn=>Român) in order to create an optical illusion with the name of the ancient Roman people, etc. In the thread there are a lot of quotes (also translated in english) on the subject, taken mostly from books written by rumanian historians, so you also have the point of view of the professionals. Was it really necessary to create a new account? And are you that dumb to use a forum as a source? Get out of here, you jokester!
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Dec 1, 2011 13:24:41 GMT -5
I trust you're not referring to me here. Whatever I have to say I'll say under my own name, as I've done in the past.
|
|
|
Post by missanthropology58 on Dec 1, 2011 17:18:44 GMT -5
Anybody who wants to learn about the making of the rumanian identity must read the following thread written in english (from page 4 to page 48) : www.antimoon.com/forum/t13953-45.htm Although it started as a discussion about which of the romance languages sounds more slavic, the discussion continued as one about the modern rumanian identity and how it was created in the 18-19th centuries by a group of catholic priests from Transylvania and then imposed on the whole population by the educational system and the state propaganda. It's about the historical lies that were invented to support this new identity, the heavy modification of the vocabulary and writing in order to make the language look more latin, the changing of the name of the people (Rumîn=>Român) in order to create an optical illusion with the name of the ancient Roman people, etc. In the thread there are a lot of quotes (also translated in english) on the subject, taken mostly from books written by rumanian historians, so you also have the point of view of the professionals. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by vlaici on Dec 6, 2011 14:27:30 GMT -5
Giacomo di Pietro Luccari, 1605- "La Valachia č posta di lŕ dal Danubio - scria Luccari -, fra la Transilvania, Moldavia e il Danubio verso i Triballi piena di vene d'oro, masse di sale, la cera a guisa di bitume scaturisce di sotto terra, ha animali grossi e minuti con i quali ne nutrisce tutta la Romania şsubl.meaţ; la gente segue le cerimonie de'Greci e parla la lingua latina corrotta ed alterata da' vocaboli forestieri. Fu fatta da Trajano Imperatore provincia del popolo Romano e vi mandň molte colonie de 'suoi, i quali cacciato il parlare de'Goti introdussero il latino che i barbari domandano Vlaco, onde nacque il nome alla provincia" Never mind Giacomo di Pietro... I read recentely the cronicles of Radu Greceanu, Radu Popescu and Constantin Cantacuzino. All of them lived in the 2nd half of the 17th century. They are perfectily inteligible for a contemporaneous Ro(u)manian. They are regulary using the name „rumân„, obviousely, before Petru Maior and without any propagandistical intentions. We should not forget the serb-bulgarian influence (In these chronicles, the authors are referring to Athos Mountain as Sveta Gora). Neagoe Basarab writes his lernings to his son in slavonic, too. It was the language of state culture but not the language of the people. I do not mind naming Romanians Rumanians.
|
|
|
Post by vlaici on Dec 6, 2011 14:47:20 GMT -5
Anybody who wants to learn about the making of the rumanian identity must read the following thread written in english (from page 4 to page 48) : www.antimoon.com/forum/t13953-45.htm Although it started as a discussion about which of the romance languages sounds more slavic, the discussion continued as one about the modern rumanian identity and how it was created in the 18-19th centuries by a group of catholic priests from Transylvania and then imposed on the whole population by the educational system and the state propaganda. It's about the historical lies that were invented to support this new identity, the heavy modification of the vocabulary and writing in order to make the language look more latin, the changing of the name of the people (Rumîn=>Român) in order to create an optical illusion with the name of the ancient Roman people, etc. In the thread there are a lot of quotes (also translated in english) on the subject, taken mostly from books written by rumanian historians, so you also have the point of view of the professionals. The catholic priests are, as a matter of fact, greco- catholics, discovering their roots. The so called union of a part of the Transilvanian clergy with Rome brought an unexpected consequence for the austrian leaders- Transilvania rumanians became conscieous of their latin ascendence by getting out of the greco-slavonic environnement of the orthodoxy. This union is still looked upon as a betrayal by the Rumanian orthodox church.
|
|