Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Romanian ethnic identity and language
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 11>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Romanian ethnic identity and language
    Posted: 01-Apr-2008 at 17:50
This inscription is even probably not there Smile Your last passage is exactly what I mean -- many slavonic /read Bulgarian/ inscriptions where written by or written to Slavs /read Bulgarians/ which were later assimilated. This later probably happened after 1700s. But I have a feeling that you underestimate their number.
.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Apr-2008 at 18:01

A good number materials from those books (as far as I have browsed since you linked them) are not inscriptions written by communities but documents, diplomas, possibly inscriptions commissioned by the Romanian voivods. The Hungarian or Polish kings did the same in Latin.

Like you could notice, I don't deny that there were such communities. But in order to have a numerous Bulgarian population in 15th-17th century Wallachia (for instance, right before your 1700 term), we need first the evidences. I don't know of evidences suggesting this. I'm open to discussion, unfold the arguments! Smile
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Apr-2008 at 18:07
Evidences are those inscriptions Smile Paralles with Latin are not valid -- Latin was dead language at that time whereas slavonic languages surrounding your country where very much alive. Documents were written not in Old Church Slavonic but live languages (Bulgarian and Serbian).
.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Apr-2008 at 18:32
Well I asked about those inscriptions and you provided some books where I can't find them, but I run into court documents. So again I ask you, what inscriptions?
 
The influence of Slavonic culture and language on Romanian culture and language is a phenomenon (similar with the influence of Latin culture on Hungarian, German or Polish culture) distinct from the phenomenon of bilingualism between Romanian and Bulgarian (or Romanian and Hungarian, Romanian and Ruthenian, etc.). The Romanian voivods did not write their acts because they had too many Bulgarian subjects, but because they followed the standards of their court, which required them to write in Slavonic.
 
I'm not sure what do you understand by OCS, OCS was not an uniform language (not even Latin was, also I'm sure you know the Church Latin from the Middle Ages was sensibly different from the Classical Latin), has regional particularities. There even was a Bulgarian Slavonic language, similar but nevertheless distinct from other "versions" of it like Russian Slavonic.


Edited by Chilbudios - 01-Apr-2008 at 18:35
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Apr-2008 at 19:00
Originally posted by Chilbudios

I'm not sure what do you understand by OCS, OCS was not an uniform language (not even Latin was, also I'm sure you know the Church Latin from the Middle Ages was sensibly different from the Classical Latin), has regional particularities. There even was a Bulgarian Slavonic language, similar but nevertheless distinct from other "versions" of it like Russian Slavonic.
 
Do you want to say that Polish church Latin was different from let say Hungarian church Latin? As far as I know Old Church Slavonic was not different from country to country. I might be wrong though.
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Apr-2008 at 19:04
Originally posted by Chilbudios

Well I asked about those inscriptions and you provided some books where I can't find them, but I run into court documents. So again I ask you, what inscriptions?
 
Look this one for instance:
 
 
Kind of notebook of for writing all expenses.
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Apr-2008 at 19:45
Chilbudios, I remember there was a 16-17th cent letter written in Romanian but with clear slavonic greeting and ending. Do you know what do I mean?
.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Apr-2008 at 21:43
Anton, I simply compared Church Latin with Classical Latin, not among regions. As for OCS, it was a literary language developed in 10-11th centuries with the first manuscripts, but in the following centuries, several Slavic-speaking cultures developed an own version of it. It is true that some Romanian documents are not written in Slavonic, but in Middle Bulgarian, but the prestige language (the alternative to Latin) is Slavonic, not Bulgarian (while it is also true the differences between them are not that large).
 
http://www.kroraina.com/knigi/lm/lm_3.htm
Though not an inscription it is a very interesting document I didn't know of. What I have noticed in my first incomplete reading of that page are two things:
- the language of the document seems to be an alternative to Latin which was used in a similar purpose (see the examples at p. 32)
- several words seem to be Romanian(!), are you sure the author of that text is a Bulgarian?
 
Chilbudios, I remember there was a 16-17th cent letter written in Romanian but with clear slavonic greeting and ending. Do you know what do I mean?
I guess you are thinking of Neacşu's letter, written in 1521. Here's a good English review of it which probably puts the emphasis exactly on what you want to find out:


Edited by Chilbudios - 01-Apr-2008 at 21:44
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 00:16

No, it was shown as an example for he fact that Bulgarian language was known by Wallachian nobles at early16th century.  In next chapter of this book romanian words are discussed.

 
but the prestige language (the alternative to Latin) is Slavonic, not Bulgarian (while it is also true the differences between them are not that large).
 
Exactly, OCS language in its Bulgarian version Tongue
.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 01:34
Anton, but your initial point is that there were large communities of Bulgarians in Wallachia, larger than I'd expect. And this document only shows that some Slavic language (I honestly can't tell if it's Middle Bulgarian or Slavonic, my competence in Slavic languages is limited) was used in a similar fashion like Latin language was used, which honestly doesn't say much about vernacular Bulgarian, i.e. Bulgarian spoken by those communities.
 
Exactly, OCS language in its Bulgarian version
Not exactly. I've seen comments on the language of Romanian Slavonic manuscripts displaying either southern features (Serbo-Bulgarian), or eastern features (Russian). If you're interested in that, I can enterprise some research and find you examples.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 02:30
It's Bulgarian, they way how dative case is formed shows that.
 
"which honestly doesn't say much about vernacular Bulgarian, i.e. Bulgarian spoken by those communities. "
 
This is just one example but important as it shows that people used Bulgarian in their private records, not court as you said.
 
"Anton, but your initial point is that there were large communities of Bulgarians in Wallachia, larger than I'd expect. "
If you have plenty of texts in a language you have a reason to suppose that it was spoken, don't you?. Note,  I do not try to claim it was only language spoken.
How are those "пъргари" of Brasov from those texts btw? Look like Bulgari to me :)
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 02:39
Originally posted by Chilbudios

Not exactly. I've seen comments on the language of Romanian Slavonic manuscripts displaying either southern features (Serbo-Bulgarian), or eastern features (Russian). If you're interested in that, I can enterprise some research and find you examples.
 
I have seen them as well. Language is same as spoken in Misia, Thrace, Greece and Macedonia -- i.e. Bulgarian:
 
This is not surprising as most of connection  Wallachia had with Bulgaria. I am pretty sure you even believe Assenides were Vlachs. Smile
.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 08:41
Originally posted by Anton

This is just one example but important as it shows that people used Bulgarian in their private records, not court as you said.
But I didn't actually say it was used only in court, what I did say is that the material I browsed from those books (for example here: http://www.kroraina.com/knigi/lm/ ) seem rather to focus on documents where Slavonic (or Middle Bulgarian) is expected to be found (voivodal acts, see how most of them start "Io X voevoda i gospodin" or similar formulae) instead of evidences showing a strong Bulgarian vernacular north of Danube.
Let's note that Braşov is not in Wallachia, but in Transylvania (which was part of the Kingdom of Hungary at that time) and that I already acknowledged a community of south-Slavs in Braşov's neighbourhood (which was anyway a cosmopolite area being a very important trade center at that time), so your example even doesn't bring new spots on the map to show me that the Bulgarian speakers community was larger than it was expected.
 
And the document you brought as example is not granted to be a private record and as I already pointed out, it is paralleled by Latin documents written for the same purpose, which puts the language of this document on the same level with Latin, and the latter is not a vernacular. 
 
I have seen them as well. Language is same as spoken in Misia, Thrace, Greece and Macedonia -- i.e. Bulgarian:
I wouldn't qualify the southern influences strictly as Bulgarian. Check Emil Turdeanu's Etudes de littrature roumaine et d'crits slaves et grecs des principauts roumaines, p. 10: "En Valachie, le moyen bulgare se trouva concurrenc par le serbe." and "littrature slave des pays roumains, crite dans un moyen bulgare gnralement correct, mais parseme aussi, parfois d'lments serbes et russes, rarement ukrainiens". The important influence of Bulgarian is undeniable but to claim the language was only Bulgarian is misleading.
 
I am pretty sure you even believe Assenides were Vlachs.
The primary sources say they were. If you want to debate that open a new thread or tell me and I will open it.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 11:02
No I am not interested in this discussion, really. I do not care. And I think sources don't actually say anything on their ethnicity.  I just find it funny that Romanian historians call Second Bulgarian Tzardom -- Vlacho-Bulgarian Empire but try to reduce slavonic /read Bulgarian/ component in your ethnogenesis Wink
.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 11:28
But it's not the Romanian historians calling it a Vlach-Bulgarian empire but the primary sources (e.g. "imperator Blacorum et Bulgarorum" which means literally "the emperor of the Vlachs and of the Bulgarians"). While in Wallachia the Bulgarian communities existed but they were not that large as you insinuate. After all, the voivods of Wallachia were not voivods of Vlachs and of Bulgarians in their official titles. So the two situations are not comparable.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 11:40
And voivods were writing in Bulgarian more frequently that in their own language. :)
 
Here is the text by the way about dog and the wife and mother:

12 (№ 302).

 

Сибинцем въсѣм.

 

Іѡ Aлеѯандръ воевода и господинь въсеи земли ѹггровлахіискои, пишет господство ми Сибинцем въсѣм, великим же и малим, мнѡг(о) здравіе, какото моим братіамъ. Тѡго радї добрѣ знаете, егда ме пѹсти господинъ ми крал на влашкѫ землѧ, на моѫ ѡчинѫ, и на кѡг(о) ме ѡстави, іaко да ми бѫдет въ неволи помощник. Никто ѿ них съ ѡчима

 

 

51

 

не погледа на моѫ неволѧ, тъкмо наѹчи богъ Брашовѣне, добри люді, та послѹшахѫ реч господина кралѣ, та доидоше съ своеми главами и и стоахѫ съ мном въ неволи, понеже аще хтеше погинѫт сіази землѣ, и тіе щехѫ погинѫт, и землѣ господина ми кралѣ не щеше имети покои. Да защо сме стоіaли протива погани език, а віе ни подвигате зли речи, како се ѡтметнѫхме ѿ господина кралѣ и дадохмо се тѹрцем. Тѡг(о) раді ніе слѹжимо господинѹ кралю и светомѹ венцѹ, и да сподоби богъ, да сѧ приближит господинъ крал, да станемо прѣд ним, да кто ще слъгати, да мѹ ебе п(ь)сь женѫ и матере мѹ. Азе и поидох ѹ тѹрци, поидох за моѫ неволѧ, и ѹчиних покои земи, колико ѡстанѫла, и въсѣм вам, и извадих си г҃ халіади робіе, а віе говорите, понеже щѫ да плѣнѧ с тѹрци земѧ господина ми кралѣ. Азе да не да богъ да плѣнѧ, нѫ щѫ слѹжит господинѹ ми кралю и въсѣм христианомъ до моего живота, како се сѫм ѡбещал. И богь ви веселит.

 

Іѡ Алеѯандръ воевода и пр.
.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 11:53
And voivods were writing in Bulgarian more frequently that in their own language.
This was replied to over and over. Are the Hungarian or Polish kings Romans because they wrote (or whatever, they had someone else to do it in their name) more in Latin than in their own language?
 
The text you refer to starts with "Io Alexandr voevoda i gospodin vsei zemli Ungrovlahiiskoi" which can be translated as "In God's grace*, Alexander voivod and ruler of the entire land of Wallachia"  (*I'm not exactly sure how to translate it, AFAIK "Io" comes from the Greek "Ioannes" in turn coming from Hebrew; it became part of the official title of the Wallachian voivods), so it's not at all a casual usage of Bulgarian as you implied.


Edited by Chilbudios - 02-Apr-2008 at 11:57
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 12:10
Mate, the fact that you repeate same explanation again does not make it more convincing :) Poles definitely didn't write exclusively in Latin. Bulgarians wrote exlusively in Bulgarian and definitely not in Vlach. Tzars more frequently called themselves "Tzars of Bulgarians" and more rarely of "Bulgarians and Vlachs" and even more rarely "Bulgarians and Greeks".Yet, I am far from denying Vlach component in Bulgarian ethnogenesis, whereas Romanian historians try do emphasize Vlach component in SBT and reduce slavonic in Romanian ethnogenesis. Its your own business of course but I really find it bizarre.
.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 12:33

Are you trying to say that Basarabid and Muşatin dynasties were actually of Bulgarian extraction? Because if they were not, they obviously weren't Bulgarian and their acts in this language must have another explanation. The Polish and Hungarian kings wrote only in Latin until late. Bulgarians wrote also in Latin ( http://www.patzinakia.ro/DOCUMENTA/DOC1202deIoannitioadPapam.htm ) and in Greek, so they did not write exclusively in Bulgarian. Vlach (south-Danubian Romance that is) remained an unwritten language even more than Romanian, so on what grounds do you expect written materials in it?

The Romanian voivods never (to my knowledge, I might be wrong, show me some evidence and we can talk) called themselves "voivods of the Romanians and of the Bulgarians". We have compelling contemporary evidence that the first Bulgarian tsars of the Second Empire were Vlachs, we have their full titles calling themselves emperors of the Vlachs and of Bulgarians (why do you care how many times they called themselves as such? it was an official title!). So, I don't really understand where's the debate.
 
I don't see any attempt in Romanian historiography to reduce the Slavic influences, on the contrary, in almost every material it is reminded the Slavo-Romanian synthesis (I quoted earlier from Boia saying the Romanian were fully integrated in the Slavonic culture!), the great influence of Slavonic culture, but you were arguing on this thread on something else, on numerous Bulgarians settled north of Danube until the early modern era (until 1700 you said). And frankly I don't see how those voivodal acts can be an evidence.
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 02-Apr-2008 at 12:39
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 13:03
Originally posted by Chilbudios

Are you trying to say that Basarabid and Muşatin dynasties were actually of Bulgarian extraction? Because if they were not, they obviously weren't Bulgarian and their acts in this language must have another explanation.

They were at least bilinguals.
The Polish and Hungarian kings wrote only in Latin until late.
I'll check this. How about Polish-Lituanian commonwealth?
 
Bulgarians wrote also in Latin ( http://www.patzinakia.ro/DOCUMENTA/DOC1202deIoannitioadPapam.htm ) and in Greek, so they did not write exclusively in Bulgarian.
Exactly. But mostly in Bulgarian.
 
Vlach (south-Danubian Romance that is) remained an unwritten language even more than Romanian, so on what grounds do you expect written materials in it?
 
Those Vlachs never had any kind of state institutions. Correct me if I am wrong. Whom should they write and for what reason?
 
The Romanian voivods never (to my knowledge, I might be wrong, show me some evidence and we can talk) called themselves "voivods of the Romanians and of the Bulgarians". We have compelling contemporary evidence that the first Bulgarian tsars of the Second Empire were Vlachs, we have their full titles calling themselves emperors of the Vlachs and of Bulgarians (why do you care how many times they called themselves as such? it was an official title!). So, I don't really understand where's the debate.
They also called themselves  "Bulgarians and Vlachs" and "Bulgarians and Greeks". They wrote in Bulgarian but never in Romanian. After all, I think there is no enough evidences to determine their ethnicity really.
 
I don't see any attempt in Romanian historiography to reduce the Slavic influences, on the contrary, in almost every material it is reminded the Slavo-Romanian synthesis (I quoted earlier from Boia saying the Romanian were fully integrated in the Slavonic culture!), the great influence of Slavonic culture
Then this means that I had wrong impression.
 
but you were arguing on this thread on something else, on numerous Bulgarians settled north of Danube until the early modern era (until 1700 you said). And frankly I don't see how those voivodal acts can be an evidence. 
Well, not that I argued this but how can you explain this "purgars" from Brasov? And the fact that large part of acts were addressed to them possibly suggest their signifficance. Those voivodal acts are also important in understanding that they spoke slavic fluently as they wrote provate notes in Bulgarian in addition to Romanian and knew expressions like "pes da ebe zhena mu i majka mu". Which obviously were not tought at Sunday church schools Smile


Edited by Anton - 02-Apr-2008 at 13:05
.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 11>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.096 seconds.