QuoteReplyTopic: Romanian ethnic identity and language Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 14:04
Originally posted by Anton
They were at least bilinguals.
You too are bilingual (at least) in Bulgarian and English, does that mean anything? My question was clear: were they Bulgarians? Needless to add, in many cases not the voivode himself wrote the act, he simply enounced and had someone else writing it for him.
I'll check this. How about Polish-Lituanian commonwealth?
Well, that's quite recent don't you think?
Exactly. But mostly in Bulgarian.
You earlier said "exclusively", I simply nuanced your view.
Those Vlachs never had any kind of state institutions. Correct me if I am wrong. Whom should they write and for what reason?
Well, if you discount the tsar himself as an institution. But what institutions do you have in mind? Was the medieval Bulgaria made of "nations" or "universities", so that Bulgarian Vlachs would have one of their own?
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.
No, they called themselves "emperors of -//-", which is a difference. Their subjects were Bulgarians, Vlachs, Greeks. But Peter and Asen were Vlachs, we know that from their contemporary sources, on what grounds should we disagree (of course, others that today, after 8 centuries, there are not many Vlachs left in Bulgaria)? Do we have any other source claiming something else? The language in which they wrote (many times not them personally, please note that!) is not saying much about their native language, as I kept arguing having examples from various European courts widely using Latin (I intentionally picked states where non-Romance languages made for most of the vernaculars).
Really Anton, if you want to talk about Second Bulgarian Empire we can do it in a new thread.
Well, not that I argued this but how can you explain this "purgars" from Brasov?
It's the third time I have to tell you there was a south-Slavic community near Braşov, can't we drop it already? I don't know if those "purgars" were an ethnical-differentiated community, but for the sake of discussion, I can accept that. However your claim is that there were Bulgarians where I wouldn't expect them to be, and Braşov is not one of these places
And the fact that large part of acts were addressed to them possibly suggest their signifficance.
A large part of a certain selection.
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
What private notes? As for the language, I also know to say "y*b tvoyu mat" (and I'm not fluent in Russian!), does that make me a Russian? On a different note, I'm not very sure your reading is correct. I've found in a Bulgarian-English dictionary the word "ебе" listed for "midwife" so I have this hunch the phrase meant something else in the Middle Bulgarian, but now to modern Bulgarians it has a funny meaning (it happens often, I know it from Romanian, but also from English).
no, Chilbudios, it means exactly "f..ck his wife and his mother" nothing else. Believe me, I consulted this issue with professional linguists. Your favorite expression "eb tvoju mat" means absolutely the same.
I attempted to translate the text (not finished, but I understand now the context) and it seems you're right about the meaning, but nevertheless it fits relatively well in the text (to my surprise). The context is (in approximative translation, feel free to correct me): "That's why we serve the king and the holy crown. And may God favour me to get closer to the king, and let the dogs f**k the woman and the mother of that man who lies.". The letter starts with "Io, Alexander voivod and ruler of all Wallachian land, my majesty sends to all Sibinians, of all kinds, many wishes of health" and ends with "And God give you grace", so it seems quite an official letter from the Alexander Aldea, the Wallachian voivod to the inhabitants of Sibiu, justifying his actions so he would not look treacherous.
Anyway, thank you for the text, for it revealed to me the "color" of the language in that era. The syntagm you noticed, instead of being the description of a sexual orgy, seems thus to be a saying to make the Sibinians believe the voivod is telling them the truth.
There was a Turkic tribe called the Cumans living in the area around the Black Sea. They moved into the Balkans in early medieval times, possibly fleeing from the Mongols. In the 11th century they established a state known as 'Cumania' probably in present-day Rumania. Cumania was later absorbed into the Kingdom of Hungary. A daughter of the Cuman kagan married a Hungarian king, and other Cuman nobles became part of the aristocracy . Eventually over the course of time the Cumans were absorbed into the native Vlach (Romanoei) people of Rumania, as well as into some of the other Balkan and Hungarian peoples .The Basarab dynasty of Wallachia (which included Count Dracula, Voivode of Wallachia) may possibly have had some Cuman origins. There are place names in the Balkans (such as Kumanovo, Macedonia) that have Cuman origins, and some Rumanian families have surnames with Cuman origins (such as Nadia Comaneci, the Olympic gymnast).
Actually I probably shouldn't have used the term 'Romanoei' to refer to the Vlachs, as that is a term also used to refer to the Byzantine Greeks. 'Romani' might be a better term for the Vlachs.
Wrong. What I emphasized with italics are Romanian words which means they are sourced from Romanians themselves. Those accounts prove as best as it can be proven that Romanians called their language Romanian in the 16th century. Tough luck, you can't hope to participate in a serious discussion about Romance languages identity without knowing a bit of Italian or French. You have to take my word for it
I never said i was an expert. Do not forget that you are in a global net history forum.You are obligated to translate words used in non-English languages,not only for me but also for the viewers who do not participate actively in this discussion.Therefore i demand you provide a proper translation,otherwise it's another sign of arrogance.
Originally posted by Chilbudios
Not true. In that story there's city called Old Rome, another one called new Rome, a man named Roman founding another city after his name and having descendents wearing his name (the Romanovich). All these are cities and people. Besides the Catholicism is clearly refered in that text either as heresy or as Latin law (rite). The religious schism is between "Old Romans" and "New Romans".
Not true? They use the term Roman, but not necessarily in the same context you believe they use it. Again, there are so many religious references in the text you provided, which can lead someone to the simple argument that Roman is nothing more than a religious reference, a reference to identify themselves religiously, given the fact that the same term was used by the Orthodox subjects of the Byzantine Empire. It is most probable to think that this term was an outside influence from Byzantium and it's area. Of course, the Byzantine Empire was well over during the 16th century, but we are talking about a legend, whose construction maybe well before the 16th century.
Originally posted by Chilbudios
The term "nation" is widely used in ancient, medieval and early modern texts. I suggest you should start with Tertullian's Ad Nationes
It was used, that's true. We have the Ancient Greek ethnos (έθνος) and the same term is used in Modern Greek as well. But its use and therefore, to an extent, its meaning is different in the modern times.
Originally posted by Chilbudios
Spartakus, I see you continue the same petty techniques of debating about things you do not know or distorting the claims your reply to. Consider this as a friendly warning, my next action won't be that friendly.
You are in no position to warn me. What you did in the previous topic of ours and you seem to continue doing it is simply:
B. Inappropriate posting
3. Trolling; Trolling is the act of posting witty,
response-provoking comments that appear relevant in order to disrupt
the discussion, annoy or create attention. Trolling can also be
considered as Spam, inflammatory remarks, or annoyance.
5.Rude insults, defamatory remarks, offensive images,
cursing, profanity intended as an insult towards another member,
personal attacks, words of hate. Any remarks that stirs up anger. In
dealing with flame wars, comments that started the flame war will have
more weight in terms of violation.
8. Negative attitude; tone of confrontation, annoyance, or contempt; disrespectful toward other members.
Let me remind you again, in case you have forgotten:
Originally posted by Chilbudios
Only an ignorant can claim Romanians were culturally Slavs. Facing such
insistence from you, I assume this must be one of the ugly and multiple
faces of Greek nationalism attempting to minimize the Romance
linguistic reality of Balkans
......
strenghtening the conclusion that the history we discuss here is not something you know, is not something you can handle.
.....
your continuous denial cannot represent anything else but another inability in dealing with a topic
.......
in your crusade of denying the ethnic identities
.......
This discussion is obviously not helpful. You're way too ignorant and
stubborn for my patience which was exhaused in expecting a decent
argumentative line or at least some evidences. Nationalism never dies
and I have no intention to stop it here in this thread. You may
continue to deny the Romance identity, I'm sure this server has enough
disk space to hold your opinions.
Yes, I am arrogant and aggresive against ignorance and stupidity
and as long as this is what I am fed with, this is what I can offer and
I do not know to discuss in any other way (but ignoring, which I am
attempting to do in this case). If you believe that some twisted
googled excerpts can make it for real knowledge on a topic, you're dead
wrong. Read carefully and read more. We can talk after that.
More than that, the debate escalated since you started to
formulate ethnic stereotypes biased against Romanians. You were told at
that moment that they are and why they are. Yet you ignored that and
continued on the same line (and thus not respecting my opinion nor me
as a person). Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.
.......
Spartakus, that's a load of crap
.......
Spartakus, I see you continue the same petty techniques of debating
about things you do not know or distorting the claims your reply to.
Consider this as a friendly warning, my next action won't be that
friendly.
I will reply to the rest when i will have time.
Originally posted by Cezar
Like I stated before, I'm not an expert regarding ethnogenesis of
nations, mine included. I rely mostly on logic and I find such theory
improper. Maybe one could (forcefully)apply this concept regarding
nations but not regarding ethnic identity. It's much more logic to see
ethnicity generating nationalism/nations than to think those concepts
simply arouse in the minds of the people from some instant. The idea
you adhere to is not compatible with the existence of ancient rooted
people, like Romanians, Greeks, Albanians, Scotts, Irish, etc. Even
newcomers (relatively) on the lands, like Bulgarians, Hungarians,
Serbs, Czechs, Solvaks, etc. won't have lasted unless they have had a
"national consciousness" of some kind.
So, the idea that people were aware of their apartenance to an
ethnic group throughout the centuries is far more consistent with later
development of nations/nationalism than to think these sprang out of
some kind of amorphous groups.
The fact that different ethnic groups shared some teritory for a
period doesn't negate the fact that differences lasted. In the case of
Romania, I thinkTransylvania is the best example supporting the idea of
coexistence of people fully aware of their separate ethnicity.
Look Cezar , i am not here to change your mind. What is happening here is an outcome of the scholarly debate between Modernists and Primordialists. One thing i learned from Uni, is that there are no absolute answers,concerning matters full of relativity, such as ethnogenesis of a people, only different thoughts,schools of opinion.
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
I never said i was an expert. Do not forget that you are in a global net history forum.You are obligated to translate words used in non-English languages,not only for me but also for the viewers who do not participate actively in this discussion.Therefore i demand you provide a proper translation,otherwise it's another sign of arrogance.
I translated what I thought to be necessary and I provided additional explanations to each account. It was you who started to doubt my translation and interpretations, so it's not my arrogance, but rather your ignorance. I don't give a damn about threatening demands.
Not true? They use the term Roman, but not necessarily in the same context you believe they use it. Again, there are so many religious references in the text you provided, which can lead someone to the simple argument that Roman is nothing more than a religious reference, a reference to identify themselves religiously, given the fact that the same term was used by the Orthodox subjects of the Byzantine Empire. It is most probable to think that this term was an outside influence from Byzantium and it's area. Of course, the Byzantine Empire was well over during the 16th century, but we are talking about a legend, whose construction maybe well before the 16th century.
I already dealt with that. The religious terminology is clearly defined ("Christian faith", "heresy", "Latin law") and "Roman" is not part of it.
It was used, that's true. We have the Ancient Greek ethnos (έθνος) and the same term is used in Modern Greek as well. But its use and therefore, to an extent, its meaning is different in the modern times.
I never claimed it is the same, it was you who started to accuse me for using it. It's not really my problem you can't contextualize the terms and you always assume the worst.
You are in no position to warn me. What you did in the previous topic of ours and you seem to continue doing it is simply
Yeah, right, prepare to discuss this in front of the moderators because you'll get reported. You're pushing this too much.
Another claim which was made on Romanians is that they did not realize they spoke something different than Slavic until the 17th century, and that they were culturally Slavs until the 17th century (an even bolder version of this claim decreed that the elites were culturally Slavs until the 17th century while the masses were culturally Slavs until the early 19th century!).
Why cannot you just say that i claimed it? Never mind, another sign of arrogance...it's my claim and hypothesis.
Originally posted by Chilbudios
That Romanian masses were "culturally Slavs" is easily dismissed. Since they were largely illiterate they did not have access to the Slavonic culture. Their language is distinctively noted to be Romanian since 16th century, their habits, their mythology, their cuisine, their costumes, etc. are recorded in the past few centuries and with all the parallelisms that can be found in the neighbouring areas, they have an undeniable specific. This should be enough to note that Romanians couldn't be culturally Slavs (moreover that Slavs do not have a unitary culture of their own, what is Slavic culture anyway?)
Well, they were illiterate ,but your claim that they did not have access to the Slavonic culture is also easily dismissed. In Church, the Holy Communion and other liturgies were held in Slavonic, because the Holy Scripture was written in Slavonic. My grandmother, who never learned Ancient Greek knows by heart the majority of the liturgies of the Church, which were written in Ancient Greek.
Originally posted by Chilbudios
For this claim it was invoked Lucian Boia's Romania: Borderland of Europe. He writes at p. 31 about Romanians: "they were fully integrated in the Slavonic culture of the East. Their cultural reference points were not Latin but Greek and Slavic". Here two things should be noted. One, is that Boia never argues Romanians were culturally Slavs. Two, is that he speakes only of the literate culture, the written culture. This is obvious also in an analogy he draws on the same page: "The Poles were Slavs but belonged through their Catholicism to the Latin cultural space" (there was no Latin vernacular at this time in Europe; moreover concluding that Poles were culturally Romans is blatantly stupid).
Boia never argues that Romanian were culturally Slavs, i did it. Well ,there is a differentiation here. Latin Europe refers to the countries where the Catholic Church dominated. The Catholic Church had as it's official language Latin, and Latin were among the principal languages for foreign diplomacy. Until the 16th century, everyone who wanted to enter the political sphere had to learn Latin.Therefore, by saying that they belonged to the Latin cultural space, he probably means that they belonged to a space were Latin were the language of the Church and politics, which is enough for the Middle Ages and early Renaissance years. There is no such case, thought, in the Slavic-dominated space.
Originally posted by Chilbudios
But Boia makes some inaccurate claims (we shouldn't be too critical on him, he's not really a historian but a historiographer, but that's why we shouldn't value his work too much in terms of accuracy, rather on the general perspectives it provides). On the same page he claims: "The Romanians discovered their Latinity in the seventeenth century. This was the period when the Slavonic language, which had been omnipresent in the Church, in chancery documents in the earliest historical writings, began to give way to Romanian".
I cannot argue here, i am not Boia.
Originally posted by Chilbudios
Here are few issues where I find Boia to be wrong: 1) Romanians were not all Orthodox. Not only but especially in Transylvania Catholicism and Protestantism were spread in the Romanian population.
Romanians were not all, the vast majority was Orthodox.I will re-use Alex-Drace Francis:
the Emperor
permitted the Orthodox nation to form a regiment (1742);
Originally posted by Chilbudios
2) Romanians' "cultural reference points" were not the same throughout the territory inhabited by them. The Hungarian influence in Transylvania or the Polish influence in Moldavia is undeniable and both these influences would have been characterized to be "Latin" by Boia.
They would have been characterized to be Latin , for the reasons i've stated above.
Originally posted by Chilbudios
3) It is well known the earliest texts written in Romanian (especially religious texts) are not from the 17th but from the 16th century. I'll review the ones I know of: - 1521: The letter of Neacşu Lupu, a Wallachian merchant from Cmpulung to Hans Benkner, the Saxon Burgermeister of Braşov - 1551-1553: The Tetraevanghel (a gospel book containing all the four gospels of the New Testament) from Sibiu. It has bilingual text (written in parallel both in Slavonic and Romanian). It was translated about a Slavonic gospel book (printed in Sibiu in 1546) and Luther's Bible. - 1560: Christian Question, a canonical writing of Christian doctrine published in Braşov. Among its sources was the Lutheran Catechism printed in Sibiu in 1544. - 1570: Coresi's Missal, printed in Braşov - 1571-1575: A religious songs collection printed in Cluj. This is the first Romanian text printed in Latin alphabet (it uses Magyar orthography) - 1573-1578: The Scheian Psalter, it also contains the Atanasian Symbol in an incomplete form. It was published in Moldova. - 1577: The "Slavo-Romanian" Psalter printed in Braşov. It has bilingual text (written in parallel both in Slavonic and Romanian). - 1582: Palia from Orăştie. It contains several books of the Old Testament. Among its sources is the Pentateuch printed by Gspr Heltai and some scholars assume even a version of Vulgata. - 1590-1602: The Easter Homily printed somewhere in northern Hunedoara. - 1594: Lord's Prayer written by the Moldavian boyar Luca Stroici and given to the Polish scholar Stanislaw Sarnicki who will publish it in Krakw. The text is in Latin alphabet (it uses Polish orthography). In about the same period another version of it will be printed in Frankfurt by Hieronymus Megiser. Luca Stroici is an interesting character for our topic. When serving under Iancu Sasul (1579-1582) he signed the official papers with Latin letters, his signatures reading "Iskal Stroicz, anno 1580" and "Stroicz logofet, 19, anno 1580" (note the Polish orthography).
After this review several conclusions can be drawn: - In writing Slavonic began to give way to Romanian in the 16th century, not in 17th - though the majority of texts were written in Cyrillic, the first Romanian text written in Latin alphabet dates from the 16th century - especially in Transylvania, the "cultural reference points" are not only Greek and Slavic but also Hungarian, German and consequently Latin
So, the question rising is about the century.Although, about Transylvania, it did followed a different historical path from Wallachia and Moldavia.
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
I translated what I thought to be necessary and I provided additional explanations to each account. It was you who started to doubt my translation and interpretations, so it's not my arrogance, but rather your ignorance. I don't give a damn about threatening demands.
You are obligated to translate the exact text. You are in no position to judge what is necessary when you post it in public.And of course i will doubt your translation and interpretation, because as far as i am concerned, you are nothing more than another member of the AE. You may as well be a Uni professor, but, hell, i cannot know it, can i? And i found no threats whatsoever in my post. I said that you are obligated, if you want to maintain the credibility of what you are saying.
Originally posted by Chilbudios
I already dealt with that. The religious terminology is clearly defined ("Christian faith", "heresy", "Latin law") and "Roman" is not part of it.
It does not have to be literally part of it. Do not forget that we are talking about a legend here.
Originally posted by Chilbudios
I never claimed it is the same, it was you who started to accuse me for using it. It's not really my problem you can't contextualize the terms and you always assume the worst.
I said it is very speculative using it, especially because you have not made the distinction between it's Ancient use and Modern use clear from the beginning.
Originally posted by Chilbudios
Yeah, right, prepare to discuss this in front of the moderators because you'll get reported. You're pushing this too much.
I do not have a problem. Cause i ,as a moderator myself, will also learn about the report. And i am not pushing it. I just stated what you said so far, which ,at the same, is a clear violation of the CoC.
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
Why cannot you just say that i claimed it? Never mind, another sign of arrogance...it's my claim and hypothesis.
Because I started this thread clean, on a non-personal level. This thread was not to be another battleground for me and you.
Well, they were illiterate ,but your claim that they did not have access to the Slavonic culture is also easily dismissed. In Church, the Holy Communion and other liturgies were held in Slavonic, because the Holy Scripture was written in Slavonic. My grandmother, who never learned Ancient Greek knows by heart the majority of the liturgies of the Church, which were written in Ancient Greek.
Most of the public medieval Church services were translated in the vernacular or simply passed as un-intelligible to the audience.
Boia never argues that Romanian were culturally Slavs, i did it. Well ,there is a differentiation here. Latin Europe refers to the countries where the Catholic Church dominated. The Catholic Church had as it's official language Latin, and Latin were among the principal languages for foreign diplomacy. Until the 16th century, everyone who wanted to enter the political sphere had to learn Latin.Therefore, by saying that they belonged to the Latin cultural space, he probably means that they belonged to a space were Latin were the language of the Church and politics, which is enough for the Middle Ages and early Renaissance years. There is no such case, thought, in the Slavic-dominated space.
Your claim invoked Boia as evidence and Boia does not support it. And you seem to have now acknowledged the "x cultural space" is much less than being "culturally X".
Romanians were not all, the vast majority was Orthodox.I will re-use Alex-Drace Francis:
the Emperor permitted the Orthodox nation to form a regiment (1742);
The "Orthodox nation" in this context is just the Orthodox Romanians, there's nothing being said about the Catholic/Protestant ones, therefore your claims remains unsupported. Certainly in Transylvania (refered by this quote), the percent of non-Orthodox Romanians was significantly greater than in the two Principalities. Especially that 18th century saw the rise of Greek-Catholicism (a mixture between Orthodoxy and Catholicism).
So, the question rising is about the century.Although, about Transylvania, it did followed a different historical path from Wallachia and Moldavia.
Boia's claims. That Romanians were culturally Slavs is untenable.
You are obligated to translate the exact text. You are in no position to judge what is necessary when you post it in public.And of course i will doubt your translation and interpretation, because as far as i am concerned, you are nothing more than another member of the AE. You may as well be a Uni professor, but, hell, i cannot know it, can i? And i found no threats whatsoever in my post. I said that you are obligated, if you want to maintain the credibility of what you are saying.
I translated the text I found to be relevant (to address the claim of the language spoken by Romanians), and certainly I'm in the position to judge because I am the author of my posts. I am not annoyed by your doubt but by your denial ("do not function as a counter-argument", "not from Romanians") in the conditions you're unable to figure more from those passages that what I already translated and detailed.
And you didn't say that I should translate to maintain credibility, but to translate otherwise I'm arrogant.
It does not have to be literally part of it. Do not forget that we are talking about a legend here.
A legend written in an intelligible language and with a degree of coherency. Your assumption must be backed up by evidence.
I said it is very speculative using it, especially because you have not made the distinction between it's Ancient use and Modern use clear from the beginning.
I was talking about Medieval/early Modern realities not contemporary ones, I see no speculation but a legitimate term.
I do not have a problem. Cause i ,as a moderator myself, will also learn about the report. And i am not pushing it. I just stated what you said so far, which ,at the same, is a clear violation of the CoC.
I remarked repeatedly your annoying attitude and demanded apologies without getting any. I even started a new thread without any personal references to continue the discussion and leave everything behind. But with you it's just not possible. I tried to get over it, but you won't let me. So I'm taking the only option I have left.
Because I started this thread clean, on a non-personal level. This thread was not to be another battleground for me and you.
Ok, that is accepted.
Originally posted by Chilbudios
Most of the public medieval Church services were translated in the vernacular or simply passed as un-intelligible to the audience.
So , we are talking about the access in the meaning.
Originally posted by Chilbudios
Your claim invoked Boia as evidence and Boia does not support it. And you seem to have now acknowledged the "x cultural space" is much less than being "culturally X".
I will reply to this later
Originally posted by Chilbudios
The "Orthodox nation" in this context is just the Orthodox Romanians, there's nothing being said about the Catholic/Protestant ones, therefore your claims remains unsupported. Certainly in Transylvania (refered by this quote), the percent of non-Orthodox Romanians was significantly greater than in the two Principalities. Especially that 18th century saw the rise of Greek-Catholicism (a mixture between Orthodoxy and Catholicism).
It is just the Orthodox Romanian, because the non-Orthodox Romanians were part of the non-Romanian natio of the Hungarians, mainly.But from what i've read, they were only a minority, in terms of the total population. Can prove the opposite? And i am talking strictly about Transylvania.
Originally posted by Chilbudios
Boia's claims.
You disagree that Transylvania followed a different historical path ?
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
So , we are talking about the access in the meaning.
No, we were talking about how "Slavonic" were those illiterate masses. The assumption that they really understood a Church service in Slavonic is unwarranted.
It is just the Orthodox Romanian, because the non-Orthodox Romanians were part of the non-Romanian natio of the Hungarians, mainly.But from what i've read, they were only a minority, in terms of the total population. Can prove the opposite? And i am talking strictly about Transylvania.
The Romanian Greek-Catholicism was not part of the "Hungarian nation". The non-Orthodox Romanians from Transylvania might have been a minority (even 49% is a minority, but that's not to say they were 49% of the population) but your words were "vast majority". Qualifying a 70%/30% population (an example) on the characteristics of the 70% is generally inacurate and wrong, and this is was my objection to Boia's claim.
You disagree that Transylvania followed a different historical path ?
Not ata all, I disagree with Boia's claims as I already showed.
I translated the text I found to be relevant (to address the claim of the language spoken by Romanians), and certainly I'm in the position to judge because I am the author of my posts. I am not annoyed by your doubt but by your denial ("do not function as a counter-argument", "not from Romanians") in the conditions you're unable to figure more from those passages that what I already translated and detailed.
Let me correct you. You have not translated the passage, but only a few words from the passage. I want the exact translation of the whole passage.
Originally posted by Chilbudios
A legend written in an intelligible language and with a degree of coherency. Your assumption must be backed up by evidence.
Give me some time to search a proper example.
Originally posted by Chilbudios
I was talking about Medieval/early Modern realities not contemporary ones, I see no speculation but a legitimate term.
You are obligated to differentiate the use, as i did in the previous topic a few times. And the legitimacy of a term can be very well challenged by the existence of different schools of thought.
Originally posted by Chilbudios
I remarked repeatedly your annoying attitude and demanded apologies without getting any. I even started a new thread without any personal references to continue the discussion and leave everything behind. But with you it's just not possible. I tried to get over it, but you won't let me. So I'm taking the only option I have left.
Whether my attitude is annoying to you or not, lies in your judgment. I did not believe i was annoying. And i backed my arguments with sources which only now you try to discuss. In case you have not noticed, in this impersonal topic, you are trying to counter-argue my arguments and my sources. So much for the lack of personal references...... Now, in order to issue a report, it would be better for you to present which of my words were a violation of the CoC, as i did earlier.Otherwise it will be nothing more than a spasmodic action of your lack of temper.
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
Let me correct you. You have not translated the passage, but only a few words from the passage. I want the exact translation of the whole passage.
I did not say I translated a passage, I said I translated the text I found to be relevant (which can amount to any number words). As you keep disrupting this discussion and twisting my words in such a way, how can you expect me to have a decent discussion with you?
I know you want an exact translation, but your approach (various claims I opposed repeatedly and denial of mine, followed by this request) is not one I welcome and that's why I decline your request. I don't believe you really seek understanding, I believe you only seek to counter-argue most of my claims and to maintain your initial thesis. Thus, as you continue the same debating techniques I already experienced I chose not to feed this.
You are obligated to differentiate the use, as i did in the previous topic a few times. And the legitimacy of a term can be very well challenged by the existence of different schools of thought
On your request I first pointed out the term does not exist in the original text but was employed by me and then I clarified I refer to the ancient and medieval usage justified by a bulk of sources from that period. What's left to discuss, really?
In case you have not noticed, in this impersonal topic, you are trying to counter-argue my arguments and my sources. So much for the lack of personal references......
Your arguments and sources are stored on a public server and they can be freely read and re-used by any reader of this forum. I used no reference to your person until you showed up.
Now, in order to issue a report, it would be better for you to present which of my words were a violation of the CoC, as i did earlier.Otherwise it will be nothing more than a spasmodic action of your lack of temper.
You were told several times but you refused to acknowledge. And you can be sure that our last exchange of replies will provide some meat for my complaints
I suggest that both of you, Chilbudios and Spartakus, take a deep breath. I am trying to learn something here too but have a hard time with your personal distractions. If violations are to be reported then I will be all ears. Until then please stick to the topic and get on with clean debates.
Here is his opinion, relative to this discussion(p.46): ......... "However, I believe that Ioan Bogdan was right.Where the Romanian language is concerned, the Slavs' contribution was clearly more important than that of the Dacians; moreover , it is far from certain that the Slavs were any less numerous than the Roman colonists.However, it is important to remember that a people cannot be reduced to biological data ('blood') ,or even to linguistic data.The racial-linguistic approach of the Romantic period now seems completely out of date.In speaking about the Slavs, we cannot ignore the profound cultural impact of the Slavonic model in the Romanian Middle Ages.With the exception of language (and even here we must note a significant Slavic infusion and the use of Slavonic as a language of culture), the Romanian lands in the Middle Ages come across as similar to the Slavic countries of the region.It is not France and Italy that Wallachia and Moldavia resemble so much as Bulgaria and Serbia. A people does not remain fixed over time.It is a fluid synthesis and in any case a cultural,not a biological, one.Ancestral inheritance is continually diluted, and contemporary connections are more important than origins.Ancestors end up counting less for themselves and more for the ways in which we use them to mark our identity.It is certain that the Romanians of today resemble the British (different as they are) more than they do the Dacians and the Romans.In fact, they do not resemble the latter at all:they lived 2000 years ago, and had a quite different mentality and way of life than we do. Marc Bloc's remark,quoting an Arab proverb, is very apt:' People resemble their times more than they resemble their fathers'."
Concerning the Slavic influence on Romanian(p.55): .......... Slavic words incontestably form the second constitutive element of the Romanian language ( despite the marginalizing of some of them, or their doubling, and even replacement, with neologisms, usually of French origin). Grammatical structures and phonetics have also been touched by Slavic influence. While om,bărbat and femeie are Latin, nevasta ('wife') is a Slavic word. Also Slavic are dragoste and iubire (both meaning 'love').A large number of words concerned with the human body, elements of nature, the peasant household, agriculture and cattle rearing (thus words of everyday life), and social and military organization are Slavic in origin. Boier ('boyar'), the term defining the Romanian nobleman, is a Slavic word, likewise voievod ('voivode', 'prince'), the title of medieval Romanian rulers. There are also a number of Slavic prefixes and suffixes which are used to form families of words which give a more general Slavic colouring to the Romanian language. Often a root is Latin but the added particles are Slavic :thus taran ('peasant') comes from tara ,a word of Latin origin, to which is added the Slavic suffix -an ; the feminine form taranca ('peasant woman') involves the addition of a further suffix, -ca, likewise of Slavic origin. The Slavs also passed many personal names, and an impressive number of place names, to the Romanians. A considerable number of geographical features-rivers,hills,mountains and human settlements, bear Slavic names;these include Moldova (Moldavia), so called after the river of the same name, and Dimbovita, the river that flows through Bucharest.
Also, further to resemblence with the Slavs (p. 58): ............ A Romanian who hears Italian spoken can understand quite a lot (those Romanian ancestors count for something after all!);an Italian will understand much less Romanian,confused by the Slavic and oriental words and by the pronunciation.In any case,an Italian will never speak Romanian perfectly.On the other hand, many Bulgarians learn Romanian very well and speak it without an accent (precisely because the 'tone' of the two languages is similar).Are the Romanians closer to Italians or to Bulgarians?Who can say? They are brought close to the Italians, of course, by their Latin roots and by the desire of an elite in the modern period to look towards the West.But the Thracian substrate, the Slavic component, the Orthodox faith, oriental influence and a long common history mean that they are close to Bulgarians and other Balkan peoples too.
Concerning the Medieval principalities (p.72): ............ It is clear that Wallachia and Moldavia were different countries and that, although largely populated by Romanians, Transylvania as a state (considered in terms of its ruling elite and institutions) was not Romanian but Hungarian, After Hungary's fall,the princes of Transylvania, far from becoming 'Romanianized' , set themselves up as the continuers of the conquered kingdom.But why were Wallachia and Moldavia separated countries? The simplest answer to this question, which some Romanian historians have asked themselves, is another question: 'Why should they not have been?' Medieval States were not constructed on the basis of of linguistic and national principles. In the Middle Ages, Wallachia was Wallachia and Moldavia was Moldavia, and that was it: the expression 'Romanian lands', which i use here for convenience,is a modern way of designating them.Sometimes , the two lands went the same way, sometimes in opposite directions;they not only fought the Hungarians,the Poles and the Turks but also each other. In the first two centuries of it's existence, Moldavia was more closely linked to Poland and Wallachia to Hungary,and as a result their external orientations were quite different-hardly justifying their enrollment in a 'common anti-Ottoman front', to use the expression current in Communist-period historiography. .....
Edited by Spartakus - 10-Apr-2008 at 19:39
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
Like I stated before, I'm not an expert regarding ethnogenesis of
nations, mine included. I rely mostly on logic and I find such theory
improper. Maybe one could (forcefully)apply this concept regarding
nations but not regarding ethnic identity. It's much more logic to see
ethnicity generating nationalism/nations than to think those concepts
simply arouse in the minds of the people from some instant. The idea
you adhere to is not compatible with the existence of ancient rooted
people, like Romanians, Greeks, Albanians, Scotts, Irish, etc. Even
newcomers (relatively) on the lands, like Bulgarians, Hungarians,
Serbs, Czechs, Solvaks, etc. won't have lasted unless they have had a
"national consciousness" of some kind.
So, the idea that people were aware of their apartenance to an
ethnic group throughout the centuries is far more consistent with later
development of nations/nationalism than to think these sprang out of
some kind of amorphous groups.
The fact that different ethnic groups shared some teritory for a
period doesn't negate the fact that differences lasted. In the case of
Romania, I thinkTransylvania is the best example supporting the idea of
coexistence of people fully aware of their separate ethnicity.
Look
Cezar , i am not here to change your mind. What is happening here is an
outcome of the scholarly debate between Modernists and Primordialists.
One thing i learned from Uni, is that there are no absolute
answers,concerning matters full of relativity, such as ethnogenesis of
a people, only different thoughts,schools of opinion.
Certainly, Spartakus, but that doesn't mean we cannot debate. Since
there are many thoughts and schools of opinion, why don't we analyse
the consistency of these with the known facts?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Google
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
reddit
Facebook
MySpace
Newsvine
Furl
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Quote 
Topic: Romanian ethnic identity and language
