Bulgarian origins

Originally posted by Menumorut Originally posted by Anton Menumorut, I generally agree with you, but don't you have many words of slavonic root? Yes, and the linguists established that: -the Slavonic fund of Romanian language is of Bulgar origin -this fund entered the Romanian language after 9th century. So, it was an effect of the using of Slavonic as oficial language of documents, court and church services. So, this liuguistic fund is not from the time of Romanian-Slav cohabitation (5-7th centuries in Moldavia, 7th and 8-9th centuries in Transylvania, 6-7th centuries in Wallachia)

Edited by londoner_gb - 07-Oct-2007 at 14:30

Originally posted by londoner_gb  -The only shiny thing is

The link with Balkanic languages in modern Romanian is the use of postponent article-as in domnu-LE or Romanu-Le.. As of the linguistic borrowings from slavic calculated to be as much as 30-40% of your vocabulary I dont think they are official use words only having in mind the words for reproductive organs to start with...Even the first word one learns in a language Yes="DA" in Romanian... Geographically You are just south of the craddle of slavonic genesis/if not overlapping with it... Therefore I believe borrowings from slavonic date from time immemorial not only from IX c.....

Is not only the postponent article. Read this material:

Romanian and the Balkans: Some Comparative Perspectives

As for the slavic borrowing, they are 30-40% with a simply mathematic numbering, but in speaking and writing the Latin origin words were having 90% in the Romanian language before the enrichement with neologisms in 19-20th century.


As for the reproductive organs and for the terms of reproduction, they are mostly latin, but please, don't ask me to put here.


The word DA for yes is a late borrowing. Even the particle SI ("and") which is of Latin origin was in the eventuality of being replaced with a slav word (i) in 15-16th , the first documents in Romanian (1521) showing the use of i in place of si:

Scrisoarea lui Neacsu

Anyway, there is preserved as an adiacent word a form for "yes" derived from Latin: ie (or iee, pronounced yaa), in Bihor, Oltenia, maybe in other zones too.

But the avent of Renaissance and Reform spreaded the use of Romanian language in place of Slavon.


What I sayed, that the Slavic origin words in Romanian are no older than 9th century is the general opinion of specialists, based on the phonetic evolutions.

-Exactly because it is deniyng it by its logic and is claimed by the supporters of the theory that You originated in the Pyndus -Gramos area in the Southern Balkans and moved north towards present day Romania between IX-X c.

Romanians could not come from Southern Balkans due to the character of Romanian. Even in the material by that American linguist is sayed that Romanian is not a balkanic language, with all its similarities with Balkan languages:

In this way, therefore, some perspective is gained on the characterization of Daco-Romanian as a Romance language as opposed to a Balkan language

And between Romanian and Aromanian there are such differences that the two languages could not appeared in the same area in the last 15 centuries, I mean their common heritage is the originary vulgar Latin, not any language evoluted from Latin.


Also, inside the Romania's territory, there are different speeches, in some areas there are different archaic fund of latin origin: one in Apuseni mountain, one in Banat, different one to another. The speech in Oltenia-Muntenia has some Latin origin syntax elements which are not to be found in Transylvania. All these contradict the theory of a migration or Southern origin of Romanians or Romanian language.

Edited by Menumorut - 07-Oct-2007 at 15:46

Originally posted by Menumorut Scrisoarea lui Neacsu

Originally posted by Anton Originally posted by londoner_gb  "Goro-LE" "Petko-LIO" etc... Interesting coinsidence isnt it?.. Or is it a coinsidence?   These articles do not exist in slavonic languages north of Danube.

Edited by londoner_gb - 07-Oct-2007 at 17:01

Originally posted by Menumorut The postponent article is of Thracian and perhaps Illyrian origin. If I'm not wrong, it can be found in Albanian too.

Edited by londoner_gb - 07-Oct-2007 at 16:36

Originally posted by Menumorut As for the slavic borrowing, they are 30-40% with a simply mathematic numbering, but in speaking and writing the Latin origin words were having 90% in the Romanian language before the enrichement with neologisms in 19-20th century. Scrisoarea lui Neacsu

What's interesting that this epistole shows about the same percent: ~ 90% words have Latin origin and more than half of them have correspondence in other Romance languages.

Originally posted by londoner_gb Originally posted by akritas Originally posted by londoner_gb This is correct. The Thracians and Slavs were both mainly tall, blue eyed and red haired../.by the way similar in this respect to the other big groups -Germanics and kelts/...Linguistically they belonget to the same branch of I-E languages... The Ancient Greeks were of the same looks as late as the Trojan War time... Do you have any evidence that proove that ancient Thracians were mainly tall, blue eyed and red haire ? In a well-known fragment, Xenophanes comments: Men make gods in their own image; those of the Ethiopians are black and snub-nosed, those of the Thracians have blue eyes and red hair.

Edited by akritas - 08-Oct-2007 at 06:07

Originally posted by akritas Why did the Thracians  wait one thousand years to be amalgamated with the Bulgarians ?