![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This is an interesting article but it needs editing in various ways to make it more suitable for Wikipedia. I've tagged it as such. I don't intend any criticism of the content of the article, which I'm not qualified to judge. Neurotip ( talk) 10:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
To be proper English, the title should be changed to Slavic superstratum in Romanian. The word "language" is not necessary here; "Romanian" already means the language by default. If people insist on having the word "language" in the title, then it needs to be Slavic superstratum in the Romanian language — but, again, including the word "language" at all is redundant and overly wordy, since there is no possibility of confusion if it's omitted. Richwales ( talk) 07:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is full of dubious ideas, likely taken from the Romanian history textbooks of the 50`s, where some "historians" and "linguists" tried hardly to prove that Romanian is in fact not a Romance, but a Slavic language (to please the Soviet Union). It should be urgently revised and rewritten using serious and recent bibliography on Romanian language and on the Slavic influence, not out-dated and politically inspired ideas. by Alexandru
The article contains a lot of dubious information, but letting aside all the rest, I never heard "mamo" (or "tato") used in Romanian, the used forms are "mama" and "tata", the one who wrote that part seems to lack this elementary knowledge about the language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.60.34 ( talk) 19:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Slavic influence on Romanian. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree with the following statement from the article:
"By the sixth century the shift of the intervocal l>r (solis>soare; an, am, in, im > ân, în; si>și) stopped; new borrowings from Old Slavonic do not undergo the process: сила > silă instead of the hypothetical şiră'. "
The above statement is based only on the byzantine sources which mention the massive invasion of Slavs in the Balkans from 6th century.
The text De Aedificiis by Procopius of Cesarea, supposedly written in 560 AD, mentions some Balkanic toponyms which gives us an idea about the Late Latin spoken in the Balkans in 6th century.
There is no rhotacism of intervocalic /L/ in this text. I will give here 1 example:
The text mentions the fortress of Dorostolus ( http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Procopius/Buildings/4C*.html), toponym which in the following centuries has become: Durostor, Drstor, Dristor and so, thus with the L > R shift.
The shift of intervocalic L to R is chronologically the first phonetic rule that separates the late Vulgar Latin from proto-Romanian.
It is a phonetic rule specific to the Romanian and its dialects only, not encountered in other Romance languages.
Because of this phonetic rule (and other arguments) Istro-Romanian is considered a dialect of Romanian and NOT an Italian dialect (although Istria is much closer to Italy).
Siru (
talk) 12:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
"could have", "possibly" have no place on an Wikipedia article, very few references, the article is junk and should be junked. Weird that an article about the Romanian language has no version in Romanian. 104.148.242.39 ( talk) 23:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
This is a very poor article that needs more sources and proper citations. It could possibly be integrated into another article on the Romanian Language where there's a subsection on Slavic influence. If anyone knows how to do that please leave a note here. Thedodgers ( talk) 09:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Although the purpose of this article is to show the Slavonic influence on the Romanian language which occurred at all levels (phonetics, syntax, morphology, lexis and the Cyrillic alphabet), towards the end it states that 90 percent of the vocabulary in literary Romanian is Latin—assuring the reader that regardless of what you have just read, Romanian is still Latin. What it doesn't talk about is the 19th century language reform when Romanian nationalist scholars created dictionaries borrowing words wholesale from the Latin, French and Italian dictionaries. According to Romanian sources, modern French loanwords alone account for around 40 percent of the words in a modern Romanian dictionary (there are zero Romanian loanwords in French).
The latinization of the Romanian language came at the expense of the Slavic influences. It would be useful if this article could discuss the Slavic linguistic features that were removed from Romanian, the Slavic features that existed in the past but not now. Has this ever been studied?-- User99998 ( talk) 10:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
The vocative of "George" is still "George" in Romanian. "Gheorgele" does not exist, and "Georgele" is the vocative of "Georgel" (a diminutive form of "George"). Another example should be provided (e. g. Marin-Marine, Radu-Radule) 86.120.148.67 ( talk) 07:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Millar, Robert McColl, Trask's Historical Linguistics. Routledge. Routledge, London&New York, 2015, ISBN 978-0-415-70657-5 p. 292 http://lolita.unice.fr/~scheer/scan/Trask%2015%20(3rd%20ed%20by%20McColl%20Millar)%20-%20Historical%20linguistics.pdf
WP wording | Original source |
---|---|
Romanian has borrowed a significant amount of Slavic words into its vocabulary, so that for a while[when?] scholars[who?] viewed it as being a Slavic language. | page 292
Such borrowing is always with us and, given sufficient time, its scale can be enormous. Since the Norman Conquest, English has lost at least 60 per cent of the Old English vocabulary in favour of loans from French and Latin, and most of that loss took place in the several centuries after the Conquest. In less than 2,000 years Basque has borrowed so many words from the neighbouring Latin and Romance that these loan words now outnumber the indigenous words in the language, and hundreds or thousands of indigenous words have undoubtedly been lost in the process. The Romance language Romanian has borrowed so many Slavonic words that scholars for a while believed it was a Slavonic language. Albanian seems to have lost more than 90 per cent of its original vocabulary in favour of loans from Latin, Greek, Hungarian, Slavonic, Italian and Turkish. The Arabic spoken in Malta has borrowed so many words from Italian, French, English and other languages that Maltese is no longer considered by anyone to be a variety of Arabic. Such examples could be multiplied at length. |
What the source writes is: The Romance language Romanian has borrowed so many Slavonic words that scholars for a while believed it was a Slavonic language.
Analysing this quote within its context, it becomes clear that the sentence regarding the Romanian language was just one among an enumeration of examples aimed at illustrating that lexical borrowings, regardless of how considerable they are, don't change the nature of the language. The sense of the phrase, as intended by the authors, is that even a Romance language like Romanian has been for a while mistakenly considered to be Slavic, due to the massive borrowings from Slavic. The WP text turns one single element within an enumeration of examples aimed to illustrate a point into something not intended by the authors, namely into a conclusion of the linguistic research. If we want to back the claim that Romanian has been considered for a while as Slavic, we should find a source which really states what we try to demonstrate.
I find a lack of examples in the article. Perhaps in a drive to reference everything, they have been removed, but examples can make it very relatable. It should at least mention da. Probably the sources have more examples. -- Error ( talk) 15:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Is there a pattern as to when a Christian term has its roots in Latin, Greek or Slavic? -- Error ( talk) 15:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but linguists sometimes really try to make the Slavic influence look bigger than it actually is. For example, the idea that the word "vită" was influenced by the Slavic word for "life" and "animal" is ridiculous because we have the word "vițel" (from Latin vitellus), meaning "calf". It's more likely that the word "vită" was interpreted as a (regressive) derivative of "vițel", given the suffyx "-el" marks the diminutive, and there are many baby animals whose names are diminutives of the standard word for the animal. Also, if it was influenced by Slavic, why does "vită" only mean "cow" and not animal in general? Also, "mezin" is more likely from Proto-Slavic and not from Latin "medianus". As mentioned by somebody on Wiktionary, the regular sound changes would result in "mizân". A better example of Latin word borrowed from Romanian to the Slavic languages would be "gușă" from geusiae. See Wiktionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.138.34.52 ( talk) 19:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, how is the shortening of the infinitive a Slavic influence? A few other regional languages (Friulian, Istriot) did this. The biggest counterargument is the fact that all verbs derived directly from PS are in the fourth conjugation (those ending in -i), which seems to be because the final -i in these words was interpreted as the thematic vowel rather than a part of the infinitive mark (-ti). The appearance of the two forms of the infinitive can't be a Slavic influence, either, because the long infinitive mark in Romanian matches that of Latin, whose contact with ended by this time. 2A02:2F0E:A200:F000:E494:33DF:DC11:52FA ( talk) 16:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi @ Dintre!
There are more authors that we can quote and more words than ciumă. For example frică has entered Ukrainian language, brânză in Czech, Polish, and Slovak, or căruță in Bulgarian. What is the obstacle for that phrase to be kept in the article: the example with the word ciumă, or is it a lack of studies/references, or something else? Aristeus01 ( talk) 16:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ Borsoka
Could you please share your arguments for:
In my bibliography I have: Walter Breu - Romance in Contact with Slavic in Southern and South-Eastern Europe and of course M. Sala for Romanian neuter being distinct from Slavic neuter.
As for the second there was already a flag showing the phrase is inaccurate as Italian for example has a similar neuter construction, so hopefully on that one we can agree it should not be in the article. Aristeus01 ( talk) 17:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This is an interesting article but it needs editing in various ways to make it more suitable for Wikipedia. I've tagged it as such. I don't intend any criticism of the content of the article, which I'm not qualified to judge. Neurotip ( talk) 10:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
To be proper English, the title should be changed to Slavic superstratum in Romanian. The word "language" is not necessary here; "Romanian" already means the language by default. If people insist on having the word "language" in the title, then it needs to be Slavic superstratum in the Romanian language — but, again, including the word "language" at all is redundant and overly wordy, since there is no possibility of confusion if it's omitted. Richwales ( talk) 07:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is full of dubious ideas, likely taken from the Romanian history textbooks of the 50`s, where some "historians" and "linguists" tried hardly to prove that Romanian is in fact not a Romance, but a Slavic language (to please the Soviet Union). It should be urgently revised and rewritten using serious and recent bibliography on Romanian language and on the Slavic influence, not out-dated and politically inspired ideas. by Alexandru
The article contains a lot of dubious information, but letting aside all the rest, I never heard "mamo" (or "tato") used in Romanian, the used forms are "mama" and "tata", the one who wrote that part seems to lack this elementary knowledge about the language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.60.34 ( talk) 19:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Slavic influence on Romanian. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree with the following statement from the article:
"By the sixth century the shift of the intervocal l>r (solis>soare; an, am, in, im > ân, în; si>și) stopped; new borrowings from Old Slavonic do not undergo the process: сила > silă instead of the hypothetical şiră'. "
The above statement is based only on the byzantine sources which mention the massive invasion of Slavs in the Balkans from 6th century.
The text De Aedificiis by Procopius of Cesarea, supposedly written in 560 AD, mentions some Balkanic toponyms which gives us an idea about the Late Latin spoken in the Balkans in 6th century.
There is no rhotacism of intervocalic /L/ in this text. I will give here 1 example:
The text mentions the fortress of Dorostolus ( http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Procopius/Buildings/4C*.html), toponym which in the following centuries has become: Durostor, Drstor, Dristor and so, thus with the L > R shift.
The shift of intervocalic L to R is chronologically the first phonetic rule that separates the late Vulgar Latin from proto-Romanian.
It is a phonetic rule specific to the Romanian and its dialects only, not encountered in other Romance languages.
Because of this phonetic rule (and other arguments) Istro-Romanian is considered a dialect of Romanian and NOT an Italian dialect (although Istria is much closer to Italy).
Siru (
talk) 12:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
"could have", "possibly" have no place on an Wikipedia article, very few references, the article is junk and should be junked. Weird that an article about the Romanian language has no version in Romanian. 104.148.242.39 ( talk) 23:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
This is a very poor article that needs more sources and proper citations. It could possibly be integrated into another article on the Romanian Language where there's a subsection on Slavic influence. If anyone knows how to do that please leave a note here. Thedodgers ( talk) 09:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Although the purpose of this article is to show the Slavonic influence on the Romanian language which occurred at all levels (phonetics, syntax, morphology, lexis and the Cyrillic alphabet), towards the end it states that 90 percent of the vocabulary in literary Romanian is Latin—assuring the reader that regardless of what you have just read, Romanian is still Latin. What it doesn't talk about is the 19th century language reform when Romanian nationalist scholars created dictionaries borrowing words wholesale from the Latin, French and Italian dictionaries. According to Romanian sources, modern French loanwords alone account for around 40 percent of the words in a modern Romanian dictionary (there are zero Romanian loanwords in French).
The latinization of the Romanian language came at the expense of the Slavic influences. It would be useful if this article could discuss the Slavic linguistic features that were removed from Romanian, the Slavic features that existed in the past but not now. Has this ever been studied?-- User99998 ( talk) 10:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
The vocative of "George" is still "George" in Romanian. "Gheorgele" does not exist, and "Georgele" is the vocative of "Georgel" (a diminutive form of "George"). Another example should be provided (e. g. Marin-Marine, Radu-Radule) 86.120.148.67 ( talk) 07:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Millar, Robert McColl, Trask's Historical Linguistics. Routledge. Routledge, London&New York, 2015, ISBN 978-0-415-70657-5 p. 292 http://lolita.unice.fr/~scheer/scan/Trask%2015%20(3rd%20ed%20by%20McColl%20Millar)%20-%20Historical%20linguistics.pdf
WP wording | Original source |
---|---|
Romanian has borrowed a significant amount of Slavic words into its vocabulary, so that for a while[when?] scholars[who?] viewed it as being a Slavic language. | page 292
Such borrowing is always with us and, given sufficient time, its scale can be enormous. Since the Norman Conquest, English has lost at least 60 per cent of the Old English vocabulary in favour of loans from French and Latin, and most of that loss took place in the several centuries after the Conquest. In less than 2,000 years Basque has borrowed so many words from the neighbouring Latin and Romance that these loan words now outnumber the indigenous words in the language, and hundreds or thousands of indigenous words have undoubtedly been lost in the process. The Romance language Romanian has borrowed so many Slavonic words that scholars for a while believed it was a Slavonic language. Albanian seems to have lost more than 90 per cent of its original vocabulary in favour of loans from Latin, Greek, Hungarian, Slavonic, Italian and Turkish. The Arabic spoken in Malta has borrowed so many words from Italian, French, English and other languages that Maltese is no longer considered by anyone to be a variety of Arabic. Such examples could be multiplied at length. |
What the source writes is: The Romance language Romanian has borrowed so many Slavonic words that scholars for a while believed it was a Slavonic language.
Analysing this quote within its context, it becomes clear that the sentence regarding the Romanian language was just one among an enumeration of examples aimed at illustrating that lexical borrowings, regardless of how considerable they are, don't change the nature of the language. The sense of the phrase, as intended by the authors, is that even a Romance language like Romanian has been for a while mistakenly considered to be Slavic, due to the massive borrowings from Slavic. The WP text turns one single element within an enumeration of examples aimed to illustrate a point into something not intended by the authors, namely into a conclusion of the linguistic research. If we want to back the claim that Romanian has been considered for a while as Slavic, we should find a source which really states what we try to demonstrate.
I find a lack of examples in the article. Perhaps in a drive to reference everything, they have been removed, but examples can make it very relatable. It should at least mention da. Probably the sources have more examples. -- Error ( talk) 15:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Is there a pattern as to when a Christian term has its roots in Latin, Greek or Slavic? -- Error ( talk) 15:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but linguists sometimes really try to make the Slavic influence look bigger than it actually is. For example, the idea that the word "vită" was influenced by the Slavic word for "life" and "animal" is ridiculous because we have the word "vițel" (from Latin vitellus), meaning "calf". It's more likely that the word "vită" was interpreted as a (regressive) derivative of "vițel", given the suffyx "-el" marks the diminutive, and there are many baby animals whose names are diminutives of the standard word for the animal. Also, if it was influenced by Slavic, why does "vită" only mean "cow" and not animal in general? Also, "mezin" is more likely from Proto-Slavic and not from Latin "medianus". As mentioned by somebody on Wiktionary, the regular sound changes would result in "mizân". A better example of Latin word borrowed from Romanian to the Slavic languages would be "gușă" from geusiae. See Wiktionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.138.34.52 ( talk) 19:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, how is the shortening of the infinitive a Slavic influence? A few other regional languages (Friulian, Istriot) did this. The biggest counterargument is the fact that all verbs derived directly from PS are in the fourth conjugation (those ending in -i), which seems to be because the final -i in these words was interpreted as the thematic vowel rather than a part of the infinitive mark (-ti). The appearance of the two forms of the infinitive can't be a Slavic influence, either, because the long infinitive mark in Romanian matches that of Latin, whose contact with ended by this time. 2A02:2F0E:A200:F000:E494:33DF:DC11:52FA ( talk) 16:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi @ Dintre!
There are more authors that we can quote and more words than ciumă. For example frică has entered Ukrainian language, brânză in Czech, Polish, and Slovak, or căruță in Bulgarian. What is the obstacle for that phrase to be kept in the article: the example with the word ciumă, or is it a lack of studies/references, or something else? Aristeus01 ( talk) 16:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ Borsoka
Could you please share your arguments for:
In my bibliography I have: Walter Breu - Romance in Contact with Slavic in Southern and South-Eastern Europe and of course M. Sala for Romanian neuter being distinct from Slavic neuter.
As for the second there was already a flag showing the phrase is inaccurate as Italian for example has a similar neuter construction, so hopefully on that one we can agree it should not be in the article. Aristeus01 ( talk) 17:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)