|
Post by amateurs on Nov 27, 2012 7:41:23 GMT -5
wbb (retard), you wrote this:
"you just said before that Romanian was developed out of Eastern Romance language, so that means claim that Aromanian/Vlach language is a dialect of romanian because Vlach is an Eastern Romance language itself, so what's the different you making here? Romanian is not of Eastern Romance language, its of Latin that was spoken in Hungary simple, nothing else."
Romanian derives from Eastern Romance, just like Aromanian. Romanian doesn't originate from Latin spoken in Hungary.
Wbb, are you Mikh? If so, please stop this. This is below you. Please. Hate the Romanians if you must, but do it with intelligence, not with absurdity.
|
|
wbb
Moderator
Posts: 733
|
Post by wbb on Nov 27, 2012 8:03:52 GMT -5
bs, romanian derives from Latin spoken in Hungary accept the fact, romanian is not an eastern romance language, i know the difference to it. That's what a Hungarian with arab, cuman, serb, greek vlach origin knows.
I dont hate romanians, that's why im stating the fact that romanians are turks that learned latin from hungarians, just to eliminate our differences, but its seem romanians are quite arrogant to cover up their origin to fool the europeans, that's all. And no im not Mikh, so dont ask.
|
|
|
Post by amateurs on Nov 27, 2012 8:42:21 GMT -5
lolz, stop it, wbb! stop it! haha
|
|
kun
Membrum
Posts: 52
|
Post by kun on Nov 27, 2012 16:04:55 GMT -5
From what I understand, pre-latinized Romanian is a mixture of mostly slavic, some latin and turkish mixture and I doubt a modern Romanian would be able to read or understand it.
|
|
|
Post by amateurs on Nov 27, 2012 22:15:23 GMT -5
From what I understand, pre-latinized Romanian is a mixture of mostly slavic, some latin and turkish mixture and I doubt a modern Romanian would be able to read or understand it. Well, we do understand the 16th century text that deals with the history of Moldavia when we read it in its original form. And no, Turkish words have never reached above 1 percent of our lexicon, so you must've understood wrong. The statement that Romanian is "mostly slavic, some latin" would also be wrong. Yep, wrong on all accounts.
|
|
|
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Nov 28, 2012 6:28:27 GMT -5
kun, you ashame your fellow Mongolians with your ignorance.
|
|
wbb
Moderator
Posts: 733
|
Post by wbb on Nov 28, 2012 7:53:23 GMT -5
no more than 1% of turkish word? Romanian got more turkish words in it than Hungarian. And the word "vlach" was borrowed from turkic name "Bulaq" which was originally a turkic tribe of Bashkortostan. Even the hungarian language has proven it, before the word "olah" was used for vlach, the most original form for vlach was Balogh/Balog. Balogh and Bulaq are both identical words for the csoban turkic people.
|
|
|
Post by greenemperor on Dec 17, 2012 17:27:04 GMT -5
I actually agree that Hungarians should have autonomy in Szekelyfold just because they form a majority there of over 1 million people. Science has proven that the entire European population is indigenous to Europe, being descended from the Neolithic farmers. The Magyars coming from Asia mixed with the indigenous European population. Both Hungarians and Romanians are indigenous to the lands they live on. Science has proven that there is no racial difference between them. The Hungarians must have mixed with the all the nomadic tribes- Goths, Avars, etc. that went through Transylvania, and so must have Romanians. Otherwise, science would prove that they are different races, which they are not- they look the same.
|
|
|
Post by greenemperor on Dec 17, 2012 23:23:34 GMT -5
From what I understand, pre-latinized Romanian is a mixture of mostly slavic, some latin and turkish mixture and I doubt a modern Romanian would be able to read or understand it. "In the 18th century, a group of writers, most notably Ferenc Kazinczy began the process of language renewal (Hungarian: nyelvújítás). Some words were shortened (győzedelem > győzelem, 'triumph' or 'victory'); a number of dialectal words spread nationally (e. g. cselleng 'dawdle'); extinct words were reintroduced (dísz 'décor'); a wide range of expressions was coined using the various derivative suffixes; and some other, less frequently used methods of expanding the language were utilized. This movement produced more than ten thousand words, most of which are used actively today." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_language#Modern_HungarianHungarians brought extinct words back into their language. How is this any different from Romanian bringing back Latin words into their language?
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Dec 19, 2012 4:54:56 GMT -5
I actually agree that Hungarians should have autonomy in Szekelyfold just because they form a majority there of over 1 million people. Science has proven that the entire European population is indigenous to Europe, being descended from the Neolithic farmers. The Magyars coming from Asia mixed with the indigenous European population. Both Hungarians and Romanians are indigenous to the lands they live on. Science has proven that there is no racial difference between them. The Hungarians must have mixed with the all the nomadic tribes- Goths, Avars, etc. that went through Transylvania, and so must have Romanians. Otherwise, science would prove that they are different races, which they are not- they look the same. Actually imo ideally Hungary and Romania and other certain neighbouring countries should strive to work more closely with each other for mutual economic , trade benefits etc. Other differences should be put aside (at least for now) to do this. European Union and the west doesnt seem to care much for nations in our region rather than be victims of the old divide and conquer games of the west it would make more sense to mutually make our region independently stronger. \Nations like Bulgaria and Hungary already looking to the east for partners...but we should also do what we can in our own region.
|
|