Ben, in “Manius me facit Numerio”, facit are not spelled “fasit”. correct are “fakit”. more similar with actual romanian “fãcut”. Cicero is not Sisero, but Kikero. as well correct pronunciation in latin classical or vulgar is Dekebalus, not Desebalus. Si/se came with eclessiastical latin in 13-14th AD. also… when Brutus pulled out his dagger, Cesar said ““Kaì sú, téknon” (You too, child). In greek, because roman elite use greek as main language
@@ionbrad6753 e greu? Păi, să stea acasă dacă doar atit le vine greu. Spun ai nostri prostii destule pe acest subiect, asa ca nu mai avem nevoie si de prostiile englezilor.
@@gheorgheenache7789 1) Unde vezi tu aici englezi? 2) dacă au studiat temeinic subiectul - da, pot ajunge și englezi / francezi / chinezi - să dea lecții despre istoria oricărei limbi.
@@ionbrad6753 Am zis io că văd englezi?? Tipul de aici părea englez. Pe urmă am aflat că el e galez. Degeaba studiezi dacă nu ai minte! Te umpli de gunoi doar.
As a morden Romanian don't know what to say but all I know is that I can undrestand The Neacsu letter from over 500 years ago. I think Romanian language it's rlly old language
The Neacsu letter was written in the language that we call today Romanian . It is a language fundamentally derived from Latin of course having exposure to many other neighboring languages : Slavonic, Greek, Turkish, while in Transylvania German and Hungarian.
@@daciaromana2396 avem 2000 de cuvinte de provenienta latina din 170000 cat are tot vocabularul actual al limbii romane dar este adevarat ca cele 2000+/- formeaza vocabularul BAZA al limbii..deci da ..limba romana provine din latina fara nici un dubiu ...cand am spus''old romanian'' ma refeream la scrisoarea lui Neacsu si la faptul ca limba vorbita pana la reforma se considera veche
No shit. Proto-East-Romance was starting to form itself already by the 5th century AD (400s), and the first Proto-Romanian words are documented in the 6th century. So Romanian is about 2.600 year's old
Also "to eat" in Romanian can also be "a păpa". The same is found in Sardinian where "to eat" is "pappare". In Transylvania we also can say "(i)e" (pronounced "yeah") for "yes", from "este" (pronounced yea-ste) meaning "it is so". The same "ie" can be found in Sardinian for "yes". Another way to say "it is so" is "Aşa e!" or "Aşa-i" again the 'e' and 'i' from 'este' (yes-te)
@@BenLlywelyn "Ie" might be a borrowing from the once large Transylvanian Saxon community. In Hungarian, we say 'igen' for yes, but 'ja' is often used informally, a German word obviously. Many also say Muter and Fater for Mom and Dad.
The romanian-sardinian link is quite fat. There are very similar words in both languages that can only be found in sardinian and romanian like 'limba' 'apa/aba' 'pisica/pisicu' 'cap' 'beciu/beci' etc. This words seems to be pre-roman, indo-european probably.
I've never heard in Transylvania "ie" (pronounced "yeah") for "yes". But we sometimes say "e" pronounced as the French "è" (e-grave) to express an affirmation.
@@razvanbarascu4007 1. Latin is an Indo-European language; 2. there is a similar phonetical in some contexts evolution but not in all words, evolution from Latin, not from another language 3. Some Catalan words evolved the same as words from Romanian and have the same spelling, (e.g. cap, ou, bou, foc)but they came from Latin, too 4. Standard Italian has a lot of elements in common with Romanian unlike Sardinian, for instance ce, ci, ge, gi, che, chi, ghe, ghi, where there was no such palatalization. beciu (pronounced bechiu) means old = vecchio in Italian; 5. beci in Romanian measn cave and is from Slavic
the derived words for "torna, torna" in modern romanian would be "înturna" ("turn", "return" ) and "răsturna" ("turn over, knock over"). "înturna" is a bit old-fashioned and rarely used these days. "întoarce" is of another root - same as "torque" in english.
'Torna' exists in Romanian, as 'toarnă' which means 'to pour'. The semantic shift is obvious: if you turn a vessel full of liquid, you spill the content (pour). But we also have a derivative of 'torna' that still mean 'to return, to turn around': întoarnă. It's archaic, but still used in participle form (înturnat). Aromanian kept the original meaning of 'torna'. When they say 'toarnă' it may mean both 'to pour' or 'to return'. 'Întoarce' is a later development in Daco-Romanian, it's a derivative of 'toarce' which means 'to spin (wool, cotton, etc. to produce a thread)'. As one can see, the semantic evolution of the Latin material in Romanian is quite different from Western Romance - another cause for Romanian looking 'different' from the Western sister languages. One of the cause is that Romanian split first from the whole Romance domain (Slavic invasion of the Balkans in the VI-th century) and the Dalmatian bridge to Western Balkans and Western Romance started to give in. One more proof that Romanian is not pre-Latin, but post-Latin, a remnant of the earliest fragmentation of the Romance realm.
We have the word TORNEIRA in portuguese. Which is a derivation I’m sure from Torna! Torneira is the TAP over the KITCHEN where the comes leaves or POURS out. 😀
You are wrong. Look at this evidence. All languages developed individually from one another. From LaDin and Romeika. Latin was also created from a Pre-Latin languages. There is a language in Dolomites called LaDin but this is also not the original LaDin. Yet. The numbers in Dolomites LaDin are almost identical with Romanian not with Italian. While Ladin people and Romanians never met. Therefore they came from Asia with a IndoEuropean language of the Dacians that is the nowadays Romanian. There were are romani people including the Gypsies and they called their languages also romani like. Aromanian, Istroromanians and other Vlachs have developed individually away from Romanian. They have the same Romanian words, nothing like Italian. This is an argument against Latinisation of Greek for Aromanians and of Slavic for Istroromanians. The only explanation is that there were tribes immigration from Asia of related people speaking the same language that was already a romani language and that spread through the mountains of Thracia and Dacia, developing individually. Rome occupied Dacia only for 150 years and only 1/4 of the territory. How come all Romania, Moldova, Basarabia and south of UKRAINE speak Romanian? Ottoman empire occupation was 500 years in Romania, yet nobody speaks Turkish unless they are Turks. The same about the 300 years of Germanic occupation. Nobody speaks Hungarian or German unless they are colonists. Your theory is wrong. Pleases read The Serpent's Trail of the lost tribes of Israel. Read also about the Jewish roots of the Serbes. Thracians were Sarmatians and both Sarmatians and Dacians are Semitic. The lost tribes of Israel. Etruscans are Semitic too. They left Egypt by boat to escape slavery their. They are part of the Lost tribes of Israel as well. Whole Europe is SEMITIC. Now see the rest of the information. Aromanian is like archaic Romanian. The tribe of Dan scattered all through Asia Minor and Europe and formed Romance languages. Aromanian and Romanian, as well as all the Romance languages including Latin, were not formed from Latin but from ancient-culture LaDin, a Semitic language that formed also the LaDin in the Dolomites. LaDin the mother of European language including LaTin. Ladin is a Semitic language of the tribe of Dan. The semitic Ladin language, is the basis of Romanian language It could be that the original Ladin is not from Latin but the other way around. Romanians have almost exactly the same numerals and they are formed far away from the Dolomites. Romanian comes from Ladin, Dacian, not Latin. Wow 😮😮😮😮 Why Romanian Isn't Like Other Languages - because it is the closest to Ladin Origin of Romanic languages in Ladin, not in Latin. Amazing. Ladin and Ladino is the Semitic language, mother of all European languages. It is not that Spanish influenced this language. It is the other way around. Latin America is in fact Ladino America 🇺🇸. The continent where Ladinos or Jews emigrated. I always thought it has something to do with romance languages from Europe, but it is even prior to Americo Vespucci. Wow. It all makes sense. It comes full circle. Incredible. Ladino, romance language spoken in Israel 🇮🇱 coming from Europe, but basen on ancient-culture LaDin language. The language of the tribe of Dan. We found the connection with the language spoken by the tribe of Dan, the Dacian, back to Israel. Incredible. Ladin is the language Ladino are the people. In Spain they developed another version. Ladino. A Semitic language. Iberia is the country of the Hebreuws. Latin America, could be Ladino America. 70% Jewish genes in Latin America. Either Ashkenazi or of the lost tribes of Israel. A huge revelation for today. Zal-Moxis Dacia Dan Look for the Serpent's Trail If you consider the other Romanian like languages such as Aromanian, istroromanian and others, that developed away from Dacia, you cannot say that the Dacian language was Latinised. And you cannot say that Aromanian is Latinised Greek. Because the way the latin words are spoken into these languages is close to Romanian and not Latin. How can a Latinised Greek develop 2000 km away from Dacia in the exact way as the Latinised Dacian language? No chance. It is more like Dacian language was a language that gave birth to Latin. Important to know!!!! Dacians and Sarmatians are THE LOST TRIBES OF ISRAEL. Sarmatians are Samaritans. Dacians are the Dan's. The lost tribe of Dan. They colonized first what became Thracia and Dacia and move forward up north when the Romans invaded Dacia and colonized Scandinavia known as Province of Dacia and formed also countries like Olan-da, Dan-mark. The people living in Olanda/Holland/The Netherlands, are called Dutch (pronounced Daci), also Dacians of the tribe of Dan. Dacians of Dacia were of the same tribe with Samson. That is why they had uncut beards 🧔🏽 and hair. Dan-mark was called Dacia in the 4th century. The tribe of Dan, colonized Iberia, France and Wallonia, as well as Irland and Scotland. Zal-Moxis was Chief Moses, the God of the Dacians. Why? Because Moses brought Israel out of Egypt. The Tribe of Dan was in Exile as well and got Moses worship 🛐 to be their protector. The Serpent with wolf 🐺 head on a pole, was the war flag of both Dacians and Sarmatians and it was inspired from the Old Testament book of Numbers 21.4-9. The serpent on the pole of Moeses. Moesia comes from Moses. Is the country of Moses people. Moesel is the river of Moses. Dan-ube is the river of Dan. Samarina is a colony of the Sarmatian, Samaritans. They were also Dacians Many rivers in Europe have the name based on Dan derivative in the first place. Saxons is derived from (I)saac sons. The sons of Isaac. Europe is therefore Semitic. România 🇷🇴 was occupied by many other powers over the centuries. The Ottoman Empire was there for 500 years yet Romanias don't speak Turkish. The Austr-Hungarian Empire was there for 300 years. Yet only the colonized villages in specific regions where Hungarians and Germans emigrated 700 years ago, speak Hungarian and German and are the emigrants. No Românian people ever spoke another language. The Roman occupation was only 150 years at maximum. It is no way the Dacian peasants were Latinised. Therefore Latin was not the language that formed Romanian language nor the other Romance languages from Iberic Peninsula, France, Wallonia, Italy. It is most likely that all these languages developed separately from a Semitic language that became Dacian language that got variations according to the region the segmented parts of the Tribe of Dan emigrated to. It is extraordinary and fascinating at the same time. Look for the article. The Serpent's Trail of the lost tribes of Israel. The tribe of Dan. Btw. The Gypsies are Semitic too. They are from the lost tribes of Simeon. Sardinia was also colonized by the Tribe of Dan. Romanian language and Sardinian language are similar. This is another hint.
@@carteunu467 "Rome occupied Dacia only for 150 years and only 1/4 of the territory. How come all Romania, Moldova, Basarabia and south of UKRAINE speak Romanian? Ottoman empire occupation was 500 years in Romania, yet nobody speaks Turkish unless they are Turks. The same about the 300 years of Germanic occupation. Nobody speaks Hungarian or German unless they are colonists. " Rome occupied Dacia for 7 generations, enough to plant a stable Latin-speaking population there. The Aurelian Withdrawal was not meant to be permanent, Constantine himself did a partial re-occupation of Dacia 50 years later. It was short, but it indicated that the Romans saw Dacia as their turf, temporarily given to barbarians. Roman Dacia was not only 1/4 of the territory, and in addition Dacia under Goths was still at the border of the Empire. Moldova speaks Romanian because of the Romance-speaking population expanding from Transylvania there, at a later date. The abandonment of Dacia by the Empire actually opened up the way for those folks to expand eastwards. The Romanians in Southern Ukraine were brought over by the rules in the area, from Tatars to Russians. Those Romanians are not autochtonous there (whatever that may mean). The Ottomans never occupied Romania, except for very brief periods. The Romanian Principalities were vassal states to the Turks, and the Ottomans promised not to colonise the territory in exchange for obedience and monetary tribute (harach). You are wrong about the Hungarians and Germans in Transylvania. There were well known communities of Romanians in NW Transylvania that lost their language. They were saying they are Romanians, but in Hungarian. Same with Eastern Transylvania, where many Romanians got assimilated by the Szekely (the proof is the cemeteries that still exist in places where you can't find Romanians any more).
@<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="844">14:04</a> Classical Latin "Tunica", gave Romanian the word "intuneric/intunecat" meaning "dark/darkness"; a contraction formed from the Latin words "in tunica".
What did Vasile Parvan say? The Romans were interested in the territory of Dacia much more than the one in the south of the Danube because they had two major economic interests: gold and agriculture. In addition, this was the new frontier and the army was concentrated there. This meant a more intense connection with the Empire on all levels. Even in 329 AD, decades after the Aurelian retreat, Constantine the Great built a bridge over the Danube, the largest of those times. In addition, the Romans colonized the center of the Dacian kingdom of Decebalus, their economic and power centers, so that those left outside had reasons to maintain contact with the former center and adopt similar changes. The Roman colonists were from all over the empire, they were also from the already Latinized regions around, but they were also Italian.
You can look at the map of the Roman empire and you will see that the empire stretched all the way to the Crimea with Moldova. Free Dacians! Latin speakers!
We cannot compare different regions. In that area, a part of the population was forced to migrate and the rest lost even the pre-roman language in most of the cases. The arab cultural influence was very strong in that region. More: they were in the Greek language area of the Roman Empire. However, in the early feudal period, there was a risk of losing both Latin and the local language (if has survived) Until 1000 AD Latin was still widely used (including the Balkans), but in many of the new feudal countries, Latin was somehow replaced by force. In our area, the first stable feudal states were created by locals (Walachia, Moldova), so there were no such risks, and in Transylvania, there were also some favorable circumstances.
si este foarte logic, pentru ca educatia in transilvania (confoirm izvoarelor istorice) a fost introdusa de ''Scoala Ardeleneasca'' -> catolici ce propovaduiau limba latina si crestinismul in detrimentul limbii de bastina si nu puteau accepta ca oamenii sa stie ca a existat un popor pagan candva aici pentru ca acest lucru contravine crestinismului (Stim foarte bine cat de agresiv era catolicismul pe acea vreme cand femei erau arse pe rug pentru blasfemii sau vrajitorii doar pentru ca nu erau pe placul anumitor cetateni influenti). Crestinarea fortata si violenta a venit la pachet cu limba latina.
Yep. "Toarce" originally meant "twist". While "Toarna" originally meant "turn". But the meanings have changed in standard Romanian due to semantic drift. There are still some regional dialects that preserves the original meaning.
You concentrate on the textbook Romanian, Romanian has formal written and informal spoken (a classic and vulgar of some sorts). My grandmother had only 4 school years made, and in Russian language not Romanian, but she spoke the most beauty full Romanian, closer to Italian than textbook Romanian. She learned form speech generation to generation, they were farmers with no education. For example r-textbook-"transpirație/perspirație" grandma-"sudoare" italian-"sudorazione", r-textbook-"strecurătoare/sită" grandma-"setcă" in italian-"setaccio", grandma-"flanea" french-"flanelle". And she used words like "tunică".
@@Alex-hz2xg I see an adoption of people for the word "sigur" or other frases instead of "da" when possible, this and the fact that in 6th year of university you start to surround yourself with people that talk differently, more polite. There are also opinions that "da" would come from the late Latin language, from the word "ita": ita>ida>da. (K.A.Massey).
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="652">10:52</a> I was SURE that you will make that mistake Ben. So, if any romanian has told you this, in Romania the indefinite and definite articles are tricky. So, ,,a bird" will be ,,o pasăre" (feminine) BUT ,,the bird" is ,,pasărea"
I find the diversity of sounds, vowels And consonants as well as the case system, very beautiful, and the cadence, enchanting, like Spanish, Russian, and Irish, all had a party together. If I were to take on another Romance language, Romanian would definitely be the one. You touched on something in this video that I have noticed as well, which is the line that can be drawn right down the middle of Europe. Languages on one side tend to be more inflected, more conservative some would say. Languages to the west of this line, tend to have lost some of their inflection, Basque being a notable exception. This same line follows (very roughly) the division in the Church, And oddly, but not exactly, the Iron Curtain. I have always thought that was kind of odd,though I can offer no good explanation. By the way, Happy Thanksgiving.
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="945">15:45</a> right, "cal" comes from "caballus", BUT the female horse "iapa" (the mare) comes from "equus/equa" ("aqua" turned into "apa" in Romanian by a similar process)
The Roman poet Ovidiu, exiled to Tomis (today's Constanta) describes the bagpipe used by the locals and called "tsampona". The current Romanian word "Cimpoi" is considered to have unknown etymology, but it is similar to "Tsampona". "Cimpoi" thus comes from the Geto-Dacian ancestors. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-kwdkdeuHfco.html
Theophanus documents actually: Torna, Torna Fratre! Which is likely Proto-Romanian (Balkan-Latin) form of latin Tōrno meaning Come back and Frāter meaning brother. Both being inherited into Romanian as Inturna and întoarce-te, and Aromanian Tornu, as well Frate.
Hi Ben, Have you heard about Calusarii dance? That looks similar with morris dance and it looks like some dacians took it with them in England as roman legionnaires and so the english people have now morris dance. The word "morris" is similar with romanian "morisca" and might be a derivative of that. Any chance to look at this, please?
@@BenLlywelyn Any chance to compare the Morris dances whith Welsh Galic traditions?Its looking as a ritual of the Galic Goddes Epona,in the Calushari are also equestrial symbols used.
Look up the Romanian calusari dance. It is a beautiful dance, but in old times it was full of pagan beliefs, as it was considered to have healing properties, and the dancers had strict behaviour to observe during the period of the year the dance was danced. Makes me think of shamanic rites.
"Torna, torna, frate!" .. "Torna" , today, in aromanian, ""tornu" has several meanings depending on the context, including "to return". Romanian " intoarce" ( turn back, twist, etc) .comes from the Latin "intorquere", "to twist". Following the historical developments in the Balkan area and the physical separation (through the occupation of the area by the Slavs) between the "Latins from the north", the Romanians and the "Latins from the south", the Aromanians, "Balcanic Vulgar Latin" sometimes had different evolutions.
Note: Words, "Romanian" and "Aromanian" comes form the same word, latin "Romanus" and means the same thing "romanian". Most of "aromanians" use in their speech letter "a" front of words that starts with consonants. This is where comes " a - romanian".
I wonder how can anyone prove that cognate words come from this and that, when basically we talk about related IE languages, originated in the same cultures, proven to be sharing historical, linguistic and genetic background.
There are phonetic laws specific to each language and the shape of the words often shows their route from one population to another, from one language to another. There are specialists (linguists) who study these evolutions of words. Genetics has nothing to do with the evolution of words.@@Sofia-0001
Another amazing video which explains what we already know but dacopaths need to hear. By the way, the Romanian word "din" is a contraction of the Latin words "de" + "in".
I am a Latinist but I also support the idea that Romanians are descendants of the Dacians. Language wouldn't be the only proof there is about Dacian ancestry. Culture and tradition also exist, y'know? Not to mention, I don't think any person well-versed in Romanian history would claim that the Dacians gave birth to Latin. But culturally and ethnically we are not solely and only Italic/Latin. If all Latin countries were like that, we would all be the same country and indistinguishable. However the Latin countries, including Romania, are a mix of multiple elements, because the Romans INTEGRATED other cultures, they didn't forcefully culturally convert entire regions/peoples.
Romanians have also the verb "a pălăvrăgi" and is used when somebody speak to much and without importance. We also use "a flecări" from lat. FLACCUS,". "Palavre" mean lies or words without importance.
@@lunadeargint540 , dar de ce sa luam din turca si germana cand eram vorbitori de limba latina si cand semnificatia din limba latina este aceasi? Crezi ca turcii nu au luat cuvinte latinesti din Constantinopol sau germanii pe vremea Holly-Roman Carolingian Empire de la italieni? Nu mai zic ca si ei puteau sa ia de la latini . Wiki nu este cea mai demna sursa de informare.
@@dorneanudoru turcii au luat cuvinte din latina, prin venetiana sau alte surse; cascaval de exemplu vine din turca, care l-a luta din venetiana. Wiktionary in engleza iti recomand este bun ca e bazat pe lucrari stiintifice; e o sursa mult mai buna de informare decat radio-șanț.
@@lunadeargint540, pai wiki chiar este un fel de radio sant din care multi se adapa fara sa dea macar un search pe google sa caute cuvintele similare din limba latina si prefera sa creada ca sunt turcesti, pentru ca romanii cei latinii trebuiau sa ia de la turci cuvinte care seamana cu cele latine. Cred ca bunul simt si cel putin google ne poate spune mai multe decat radio-sant-wiki. Nu cred ca este locul potrivit de balacareala romaneasca fara rost. Sper ca nu trebuie sa vobesc turceste ca sa ma fac inteles asa cum crezi ca o faceau taranii romani dupa cum crezi tu!
Exactly Ben ! thank you for bringing up that Romania peoples are the smartest and most intelligent people from the fact they learned so easily and so fast a very advanced and educated language and they were able to keep it during all invasions of other peoples with complete different languages , and still speak it today even Latin is very limited spoken only in Vatican! And mostly Latin was and still is the language spoken only by educated people! Than you!
Dacă găsiți pe undeva revista lui Gabriel Gheorghe numită " Getica" şi publicată in anii ' 90 veți găsi informații cvasinecunoscute despre acest subiect.
Italian languagfe is ONLY the OFFICIAL LANGUAGE in Italy. The Italians are speaking in their homes dialects. There are 2000 different dialects currently spoken in Italy.
I must add that Romanians are so intelligent that 2/3 of them learned it even if their territory was never under Roman rule (only about 1/3 of Dacia was actually colonized, for no more than 170 years) and even if in that part of the world, Greek was more comune and used as a lingua franca in those times, in an era when books and schools where only available to very few . And this in contrast with other territories ruled by the Romans for hundreds of years, where no latin language is spoken today.... Still Romanians are so stupid as in almost 1000 years of Hungarian control of Transylvania (which is about 1/3 of Dacia) the romanized population didn't learned hungarian, or even got much of that language into Romanian, even if there was constant pressure from the Hungarian authorities in this direction, in an era when schools and books started to become an everyday thing...
Thank you Ben for your awesome video!😃🖖 No only this one but all your videos are awesome because you have the gift to explain complicated things in a simple language. I agree with you, being a Romanian, that most of the Romanian come form vulgar latin. Our linguists, however, have identified a group of usual words that don't belong to either languages that influenced Romanian: Latin, Slavic, Turkish, etc. They concluded that - because of the usage of those words in older writings - that those word have a Dacian root. There are some studies regarding this vocabulary, however I can tell you a few with the English translation: vrabie (sparrow), stejar (oak), mistreț (boar), dor (can't be translated in full but is close to "missing someone"). I would like to know your opinion about that part of Romanian. Cheers and all the best!
Thank Bogdan. I think there is undeniably a pre-Roman substrate in Romanian, that is Dacian, maybe even some Thracian. And that earlier several languages, Gothic, Illyrian, whatever the Celtic Boi spoke, left some of their culture and some words were picked up from each wave of people over a very long time. But the structure and core and prestige words, are Latin.
Thank you for your work about my language and country ! So many people in UK think that we are Gypsies because they are called Roma people. It’s just a coincidence. Only 5% are gypsies and their name has nothing to do with Romania Thank you 🙏
The census showed 3%. In general, Gypsies have a high percentage of South Asian (Indian) DNA. According to some statistics made by the companies that do DNA tests, there are 2.7% Indian DNA carriers here, which is in line with many other countries in Europe. It is interesting that in United Kingdom 4.8% have Indian DNA.
Thanks, I’ll link this to my facebook conspiracy theorist mom, who after a single dacopath video(and clearly no recollection of basic middle school history lessons) imediatelly became enamoured with it.. after all it’s easy to believe yours is the superior folk who everyone else wants to keep down because they don’t wanna admit they’re inferior, it’s what russia’s been going with since ivan the terrible
When I was trying to explain this to people, that is just Kremlins propaganda to divide us and depart us from Europe and to wash away our identity I've been called naive and sheep... I also studied the Faculty of Letters at the Valahia University of Targoviste and did a lot of Etimology and related curriculum. They had no related studies or any Uni at all, but I was the one in the wrong🤦 Later on Russia invaded Ukraine and some understood the russian danger and it's propaganda, but some of them remained there dancing on kremlins music even harder😐
@@stevesteve8529 the only foreign words brought and adopted in the 19th century were from French, in the late 20th and beginning 21st centuries are from English. Pălăvrăgi sounds more Slavic than Latin whether it's Ancient or Medieval.
@@stevesteve8529 Wikipedia mentions the origin of "palavragi" as being turkish. Now if they took it from latins or vice versa that's another story. So chances are Stefan cel Mare knew about it.
I liked it all. The fact that some romanians need to believe that the teritory of today's Romania was somehow the starting point of civilization is not unique. Ataturk also tried to convince himself and his fellows turks that turkish was the root for every other language including greek and latin (that turkish okul gave greek scoleio and latin scola and romanian scoala instead of the other way around :)). No amount of logical explanation will change somebody's belief !
Yeah, it's like arguing with a religious fundamentalist. Facts, logic and reason can't overcome beliefs stemming from emotions. Dacopaths are a lost cause.
@@BenLlywelyn Look up "Sun Language Theory". It emerged in the nationalistic fervour of the 1930s in Turkey, and Ataturk (who, at that point, was becoming a bit high on his own success) indeed loved the idea, but it was quickly dropped after his death.
I think that the idea that Latin evolved from the Thracian group is far fetched, to put it mildly. On a side note: ”tunica” and ”camisia” both made it into Romanian, but tunică is an older term in and it means coat, these days used only for military coats together with ”veston”. It's quite common in Romanian to have synonyms originating from 2-3 languages, generally latin, slavonic, and celtic/dacian/turkic/hungarian/germanic/french. I suppose this characteristic of Europe in general due to the massive and multiple waves of migration from Eurasia.
My personal opinion, I repeat my personal opinion(I’m not a dacopath) I think Latin and the indo-european language Dacian(And I think mostly Latin) got a huge role in the Romanian language. Well as I read, the Dacian people need to learn that language in order to survive, because Szarmisegetusa was the capital of Dacia back then, and I think the economic point of the country. So I think they teached they’re kids Latin and Dacic language as well, and as the time passed they merged together and made the old Romanian language I think, of course with the other ones like Slavic, etc. that’s just my opinion, not an istorical fact.
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="921">15:21</a> in fact in Romanian for people or animals you don't use "vechi" (which is rather used for objects), but "batran" (from "vetus" or "veteranus")
@lucasdancs “they weren’t even Roman” what were they then, Japanese? You didn’t have to be born in the city of Rome to be Roman, genius. The only fact is Vulgar Latin was the dominant language spoken in Dacia after the Roman conquest. It was never a “minority language”. The minority language was Dacian, which went extinct in the 4th century, just like many Native American languages lost to us after European settlers displaced the natives in the US.
@lucasdancs "It's not like every territory suddenly lost their language, traditions and so on." In the case of Dacia, that's exactly what happened. The language was lost and replaced with Latin and the Dacian traditions were displaced by the Romans. That is Romanization. 165 years is a long time to anyone with a normal sense of time. Just like the US was completely Americanized in less time than that. Why don't they speak Native languages in Oregon and Washington states? " was controlling 1/3 of Dacia have nothing to do with this." You have no evidence for this, which means it is a lie. "So Romanian and Latin are more like sister languages not derived from one another" This conclusion is absurd. Romanian comes from Vulgar Latin and the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people happened after the Roman conquest, not before.
Romanian language has many variants of saying the same thing. Some you can find in vulgar latin, some you can find in clasical and older forms of latin. But these are unknown for a beginner romanian speakers, or not used in all parts of Romania. For example, lets take the word "petra" today romanians use "piatra" but we also use "lespede" you didn't mention that. These variants that you didnt mention, are harder to access as a non-native speaker. So the discussion should continue on this topic. Imagine the area between the Carpatian muntains and the Danube before the 18-19th century, there was mostly forest, were people lived in scattered, and isolated in extremely hard to access communities, in underground huts (bordeie). There was no lookout point, terrain is flat. Roads were basically along the sides of the main rivers. I personally think is impossible to imprint a linguistic homogeneous tone in this background.
I'm sure that Romanian's many influences have left with a rich girth of synonyms to express very similar ideas in the language with precision and shaded of meaning.
You are great, thank you so much for your videos. I am a Romanian who moved to Los Angeles 32 years ago. Finally, somebody explains the Romanian history in a way that makes sense.
There are a few possibly pre-Roman words in it though, and some of them are shared with Albanian, which in turn is thought to be a descendent of the Illyrian language. Illyrian, Dacian and Thracian languages are thought to have been related, though Dacian and Thracian were probably closer. Albanian can give clues to possible Dacian words in Romanian. There are also suggestions of a link between Dacian and the Baltic language family. Theres even a word in Kartvellian for a town that is shared with the "dava" ending in Dacian towns, though this may be rare.
A very good explanation of the source of Romanian. I wonder how Latin skipped over other areas but wound up in Dacia. Was it through conquest? There must have been significant migration to the area. Maybe Roman soldiers being paid by being given land in Dacia.
Latin didn't skip over areas. This is what survived after centuries of migration from the east. Mainly thanks to geography. Romania and the Balkans were more isolated and had many environments where the locals could thrive but migrating populations could or would not - mountains, forests, swamps. In general, Migrating peoples had plains animals like horses, and cattle. The people used to living in the mountains had mainly sheep, goats, bees and those in forests had pigs. These are not very good migratory animals over long distances. So niches were easily created. And most of the times, even though there were indeed raids and open conflicts, the migrating populations collaborated with the local population, eventually ending up being assimilated. Sedentarism is a good vector of stability and survivorship over longer periods of time. This is the best explanation I know of why the Romanian language survived and continued to develop as a direct continuation of a Daco/Traco-Roman language north and south of the Danube for so many centuries.
All the surrounding regions that were part of the empire spoke Latin. It's just that they were affected by the Slavic migration, which differed from most of the other migrations coming from the East due to the large number of those who migrated. The Slavs passed through the territories of today's Romania, they have language influence, but mostly they crossed the Danube to the south and southwest. South of the Danube, the Romanized Thracian element survived as a language and civilization until after the year 1000, when it began to be more strongly assimilated by the Slavic culture. Similarly, the Hungarian migration changed the language in the area where they settled. The other migrations, which passed through the territories of today's Romania, did not assume a significant population compared to the locals, because they left no traces in the DNA of the locals, neither here nor around.
@@georgearden7075 That’s absurd. Dacian and Latin have nothing to do with each other, dear. Dacian is an extinct paleo-Balkan languages, while Latin gave birth to Romanian among other Romance languages.
Well I know there is a conspiracy theory out there saying that Dacian morphed into Latin and then into current day Romanian and that Dacian is the source of Rome but there is a simple argument for this: some old kings of Romania and historians from the 1600s and even earlier than that actually wrote that "noi ne tragem de la ram" (we came from rome, or our origin is in rome) which means that even back in the past, they knew that Romanians came from Rome and not the other way around.... it wasnt Dacians who moved to Rome and then back to Dacia. This is clear evidence that the official version of the origin of Romanians is also the correct one: Romans moved to Dacia, they intermixed and formed the current day Romania.
Being between far off mountains between Kyiv, Costantinople and Rome would have made the middle Danube seem like the furthest wilderness imagineable for much of Europe.
The main problem with latin in Romania is that the Roman Empire was here only from 106 AD to 227 AD and occupied only 14% of the territories. We had here turks and hungarians for centuries and we just borrowed words from then but we didn't change our whole language. We are the most unified latin lagnuange, we only have accents and regional terms, but it's the same language. The 2nd problem is with the the Romanian Dialects: Istro-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and Macedonian dialect, from parts of Macedonia, Serbia and other balkanic regions. The are very similar even though they evolved hundreds of kilometers apart. The south of the Danube river, from Romania to Greece was called for a time "Mediterranean Dacia" by the Romans. And the last problem with the latin languages is more of a question: why do Spanish, French, Italian and Romanian languages share more similarities between them than each one of them with latin? I think this has to do with the Pelasgians and their spread across Europe. Keep doing these videos, I appreciate you doing the research and trying to shed a light in European ancient history.
@@BozgorSlayer yes, but most of the roman soldiers weren't from Rome, they were from all over the world. We have seen all around the world colonized countries and countries with big minority populations that were not culturally changed 100%. The romans in those regions were not treated very nice by the neighbouring tribes after Aurelian's retreat. The retreat in itself was triggered by the raids and battles fought against the local "free" population of dacians.
@@SuperClau07 Most the soldiers who retired in Dacia were Southern Italians and other Romans from the poorer parts of Italy. There's a reason Romanian and Sicilian are sister languages.
Wrong on all counts. - we had Romans for 165 years. But the same "historians" that have a problem with romanization of Dacia in 165 years have no problems for Gallia and Hispania being romanized for a bit more than 100 years. Double standard at it's finest. - that 14% of Dacia is a blatant lie. It's 14% of Dacia under Burebista, at it's larger extent, in 1st century BCE. By the time of Decebal (2nd century AD), Dacia was only a fraction of that Dacia. Get your measures straight. - we had here Turks... had we? No, we never had here Turks. Since the days of late 14th century when Turks showed on the Danube till late 19th century, Turks were never here. Except as marauding armies. Even the taxes due to Ottomans were collected by local rulers, not by Turks. Turks never settled north of Danube. There is never mentioned a single mosque in Valahia or Moldavia for 500 years. - we had Hungarians in Transylvania. But unlike Romans, Hungarians were never keen to assimilate locals untill late 19th century. They had other concerns that make locals into Hungarians. - no, Istro-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and Macedonian dialects are NOT "very similar" to Romanian. They are so different that they are not mutually intelligible. And the best proof they evolved differently is that they used a different Latin word that Romanian for the same notion. (luna / mesu - month, tânar / giune - young man, douazeci / gingiti - twenty). THere are even more differences in grammar. - there was no "Mediterranean Dacia" in Roman Empire. It was only the province "Dacia Mediterranea" (Serdica/Sofia). It was the result of splitting Dacia (formed by Aurelian in 271) in "Dacia Ripensis" (Dacia on the river border) and "Dacia Mediterranea" (Dacia inland). - "why do Spanish, French, Italian and Romanian languages share more similarities between them than each one of them with Latin "? Because they evolved from a different Latin that we know. They all evolved from VULGAR Latin, not Classical Latin. But we have little to no information of Vulgar Latin, as it was not written. Those who spoke Vulgar Latin had other concerns that write. They had to make a living. And those who had the possibilities to write did not bother with the language of the unwashed plebs around them.
They for sure had writings, especially the visigoths. But I think when they become normal Christians from Arianism christian, the new Christians destroyed all the books since they contained heresy.
about : Deg gair - Ten words - Zece vorbe a grăi(=a vorbi) = to speak grai(=vorba/vorbe) = speech grăiește(=vorbește) = speak a grăi, grai, grăiește and also a vorbi, vorba, vorbește...are romanian words
the nationalists can't accept that their history is "only" 2000 years old it needs to be at least 99 trillion years old or else they don't look very epic and bad ass .
What I love about the Indo-European spread graphic at <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="173">2:53</a> is that it shows the initial spread of the IE speakers all the way out to Ireland and parts of Spain, displacing many languages along the way; which means, even though Celtic languages are historically attested in places like Britain and Iberia, whatever was spoken in those places after the initial spread did not become Celtic. They became something else that was later overridden by Celtic language speakers a thousand or more years later. Irish legend has it that there were 4 "migrations" into Ireland over time. 1st the Hunter-Gatherers; 2nd the First Farmers; 3rd the IE speakers; 4th the Celtic speakers.
Multi, foarte multi oameni, atat din trecut cat si din prezent, au simtit si simt ca acest pamant ascunde „ceva”. Acest „ceva“ pare a fi nedefinit, fara de forma si totusi avand o forma, insa aceasta forma nu poate fi sesizata decat de ochii sufletului. Urma lasata in sufletele noastre a luat apoi forma dorului... un dor inefabil si inexplicabil, iar acel dor de ,,ceva“ nu s-a putut pierde si nici nu se va pierde vreodata. Este dorul unei civilizatii care a ales sa inchida ochii... pentru putina vreme. Cu totii stim cate ceva despre civilizatia geto-dacilor. Acesti „barbari”, dupa cum erau numiti de catre greci si romani, au avut una dintre cele mai deosebite civilizatii din aceasta lume. Geto-dacii si-au construit aceasta civilizatie avand o baza spirituala deosebit de solida, care isi are radacina in vremuri foarte, foarte indepartate. Ruptura de aceasta radacina a impins civilizatia geto-dacilor aproape de prapastia uitarii, caci simtamintele inimilor urmasilor acestui neam s-au inchis fata de simtamintele propriului pamant, iar fiii sai si-au plecat urechea si chiar inima altor invataturi, straine de glasul sfantului pamant al acestui neam. S-au scris multe lucrari despre acest maret neam geto‑dac, dar aceste lucrari au disparut subit din analele istoriei. Nu v-ati intrebat de ce? Oare au disparut degeaba? Nu, nu au disparut degeaba. Ceva aparte trebuia protejat. time will tell .
Foarte bine descris!!! omul acesta care a făcut acest video din păcate este rătăcit foarte rătăcit pentru că duhul românului și spiritul acest popor strigă și lăcrimează după adevărul strămoșilor noștri care de fapt nu au fost romanii ci 0:09 geto-dacii!!!
Geto-Dacii au fost urmașii civilizației Cucuteni care datează la 8 mii de ani din ziua de azi! Noi suntem speciali pentru toată lumea și va veni timpul când adevărul va ieși la suprafață. Una e clar că romanii antici știau că dacii sunt strămoșii lor. Nu se fac statui din granit de metri pentru niște barbari. Noi suntem speciali și avem o misiune specială pentru omenire. Ca argument nu există nici un popor pe tera care locuiește pe același pământ de peste 8 mii de ani păstrându-și limba, obiceiurile și teritoriile aproape intacte. Autorul ca să ne înțeleagă pe noi trebuie să înțeleagă mai întâi sensul cuvintelor dor, doină, vatră de la început.
dacopaths confuse the ancient movement of early european farmers and aryans into europe through what is now romania with latin getting its origins from dacia
Yeah, I argued against them many times and proved them wrong. They can't accept the fact. Those lies comes from the channel _Daniel Roxin,_ of whom is a dacopath himself and makes only bias claims
Ben, this is a better material than the so called Dacomania but nevertheless Romanian is not a Neo - Latin language nor a dialect of an Italic tongue either, as many Wikipedologists are poised to prove. But no scientist said that Latin comes from Dacian so I don't know why you need to prove something like that. You see most of the words you have chosen as example in your material are to be find in Romanian, predominantly the ones from older Latin or Latina Vulgaris and not from classical Latin for instance the word Passaros=Pasăre. Or here another word: Peulvan in old french = Bolovan in Romanian = rock ( also Roca in Romanian)in English. Another one: Pocal in Romanian = Pocolom in Etruscan = cup in English. Plinius the Elder (23 - 79 AD) reminds of Caseum Coebanum = Caș Ciobănesc = Shepherd Cheese . The so called linguists say that Cioban word comes from Turkish but this word was in use long before the Turks were dreaming to come to Europe. You see, Latina Vulgaris is older than Classical Latin because it was the language of the people while the later one was for the elites which sprang from Latina Vulgaris. Now, before the Latin language from the Romans, it was already a similar language but older, spoken in Dacia, Iberia, Gaul, Italia even Germania and Baltic countries, Libya too and in accordance with the region they had their own dialects. As I previously told you, ancient sources made clear that in Dacia, Iberia, Germania and Baltic countries, people were speaking a Latin like language before these territories were invaded by the Romans or new colonists. As Ovid (43 BC - 17 AD) wrote that language of the Getae (Dacian) was a barbaric language but a kind of Latin. Rome did not invade Dacia at that time! Cassius Dio (165 - 235 AD) said that after first defeat of Decebalus by Trajan, the Dacian king sent a group of ambassadors before the Roman senate where they agreed on the terms op peace in Dacian language and the senators over there understood them. Isidore of Seville (560 -636 AD) wrote that Gaetuli from Libya, migrated there from the territory of the Getae long before existence of Rome. Well the Indo - Europeans migrated from the east towards west and many people who sat in the Carpatho - Danubian region for a while, migrated further in to western Europe so Italy as well and beyond. Paleo genetic studies show a match in the DNA of northern Italic people with Carpatho - Danubian people so you think they did not have the same language back than? I think I wrote enough now....Whoever have eyes to see and ears to hear and brain to think with.
Ben, you can not compare the number of Hungarian migrators with the number of Indo - Europeans. Hungarians came with their own language just like the Indo Europeans did. Being a tremendous larger population than the Hungarians, their impact on European continent was decisive regarding the language. But another difference is that Indo Europeans did not all leave the places where they went because large populations decided to remain on those areas while others carried on moving westward, where again populations remained there while other split and move on up to Atlantic ocean. Remember! Herodotus (484- 425 BC) wrote that the Thracian folks were even then the second to the Indians regarding the numbers. So it was the largest population in Europe even back then. Hungarians however, they went from one place to another and did not make it as far as the Indo - Europeans did. Speaking of Hungarians and because you said something about Romanian writing too....well, the Hungarians even in XIII century called the so called Cyrillic letters, Literae Blachorum or Romanian letters and even in XVIII and XIX centuries were called Olah Betuk - Litere Românești - Romanian letters. So much for Slavic alphabet theory....They got it from the Romanians. You see Ben, just like the Hippocrates oath, they say is from the Greeks but in fact is being stolen from the Getae-Thracian medics ( Those guys who believed in Zamolxes, you know? ) which were Hippocrates teachers in medicine and I am not saying that but Plato en Socrates did but if you learn from wikipedia like many others do, you will keep coming up with bent theories like that. @@BenLlywelyn
Everything you wrote is Dacomanic propaganda. You even misquoted Pliny the Elder, Ovid, Cassius Dio in attempt to sound more credible. But any person who has studied these sources immediately notices that you are twisting their words and completely fabricating the facts. Romanian does indeed come from Latin and has nothing to do with Dacian or any pre-Roman language. Next you are going to argue that English comes from Romanian because Romanian borrowed English words like "miting" , "soft" and "instagramabil". Ridiculous.
Do your research first and than come back. Until than you are just another Romanian history denier and with people like you, Romania has no future@@daciaromana2396
@@daciaromana2396 ,, nothing to do with Dacian or any pre-Roman language'' good dealer you found . Its obvious you have nothing but propaganda.. the hungayrians are the dacians , right? and they were of course cathoholics :))
One important source to study the history of Transilvania, the early hungairan tax and other letters. From these letters you can see, the origin of the name of a viilage where the tax was collected.. And you mus explain, why the first letters are from the XIII century, where you can see clearly, that the name of the settlement has wlach origin... Second. Look after what was the so called "Wlach rights" in the hungarian kingdom. And what kind of taxes they had to pay. The first arriving wlach shephers were free to use the highland region, what the hungairan have never used. With the sheeps they were free to go everywhere. The Ispan took the tax 1 sheep in evevry year after 50....And these wlach shephers were going on the Charpatians even to today to the 3 boarder Slovaky, Chekia, Polland. In some villages there today it is in Moravia, 150 years ago they spoke, the wlach lengauge used before 1800... So... the romaian lengauge were "reformed" 200 years ago......
@@BenLlywelyn If that is the same, watch if an aroman is talking to a romanian, what can they understand... The aroman lenguage does not consist that thousends of imported words.. I have some friends from Transilvania, they speak perfect romanian, they hardly undertand, what a wlach or aromanim macedoroman,,,- they have many names - speak....
@@BenLlywelynIn romanian bucurie means joi and esti is to be. So what he says is that Bucuresti means to be joyfully or to be happy. Same in romanian language but this is a name not 2 words.
Yes it is not a evidence there Dacian language give birth to Romanian language and we should be aware of this wiled we speak a Romance language! Alls won’t understand what Italian and Spanish speak without to learn first!
As a Romanian the fact that some people strongly believe that the Latin language spans from Dacian baffles me. There is no sane argument to support that. I see RU-vid is recommending another video from you about dacopathy, so I'm assuming you already know the origin of this misinformation. The sad part about dacopats is that I'm not sure if they are just a very vocal minority, or if there are a lot more than it seems.
Completely wrong and dated, the R1b haplogroup in Italy, especially in the North, proves the opposite and I want to remind you that in Italy there were the Celts and it's not as if after being conquered by the Romans they went elsewhere or we were all exterminated by them , no lol we are still here where we were more than 2000 years ago... (I’m R1b)
Hi Ben. British guy here, living in Romania. I’m new to your channel - I guess the YT algorithm saw my interest in Romanian history and threw me in your direction! I will probably make further comments as I watch more. But in the meantime, may I ask please if you know where the lakeside location is, in your picture at <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="510">08:30</a> in the video?
No, Romanian is the evolution of Vulgar Latin via Dacian, whereas Latin is a derivation of Vulgar Latin created via the "beautification" changes applied by the Roman elite, since Latins emigrated from the Banat area around 1200-1000 BCE. Check out Micheal Ledwith's youtube entries regarding the Romanian language.
Eh, it doesn't hurt anyone and potentially is good for Romanians' nationalism and the way they view themselves. It is a shaky foundation to build an identity on since it's demonstrably not true. Emphasising a connection between Dacian and Italic languages and viewing Dacian as some "sort-of-Latin" language (which means the shift to Latin was like Dacians switching to another fairly different dialect or something) seems more sensible as it's closer to the truth. This would involve maintaining a decent amount of ambiguity about exactly how close Dacian and Latin were. Lots of nation building origin stories and history aren't quite true, look at how the French romanticise the Gauls and imagine a single Gaulish language and culture when the Gauls of France instead had spoke different Celtic languages and had different cultures. P.S. It's nice that Ben seems to like Romanian, it's come up a lot in his videos. It seems like a lovely language.
Romanian coming from Vulgar Latin has been clearly demonstrated. It isn't good for Romanian nationalism to build an identity based on the lie that Romanian comes from Dacian. While there are similar "movements" in other countries which try to reinvent their own history (like the French thinking of themselves as Gauls), that isn't a good thing either.
How to explain the fact that the Visigoths and Ostrogoths, speakers of the "Germanic" language, who started (approximately) from the territory of present-day Romania, conquered the Western Roman Empire and established some kingdoms that ruled the respective regions for at least 300 years, did not succeed to impose their "Germanic" type language and everyone from Romania, France, Italy, Spain and Portugal use a "Latin" type language? How did the Goth rulers communicate with their Latin subjects for three hundred years, did they use translators? Maybe the "Goths" who came from "Romania" also spoke a kind of "Latin"? Or maybe the Goths were a northern branch of the Geto-Dacians, who had closer contact with the Germanic nations (from which they borrowed words), and whom the Germans, unable to pronounce their names correctly, called them "Goths" ?... And how could the Goths speak "old Latin", if they were a Germanic race, which had its roots in Scandinavia, somewhere too far north to speak a Latin-type language?
Vlachs in the mid Balkans moved north, as well as their being Latins in Constanța and Oltena. The Vlachs took the fertile plain of Wallachia which has the best agricultural land for crops and their population was able to expand and accrue political and socio-economic power over other groups.
Goths ( particularly visigoths) are not germanic but dacian. Goth historian Iordanes says that. And they spoke an older type of Latin. These are the visigoths that sacked Rome and Athens twice and brought the dark ages. Do they dress like dacians? 😂 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-IazxJLHisyU.htmlsi=NceoAsSeizq3Kvhf
@@BenLlywelyn Hey sir, that's Roesler's theory. This theory is a big historical fake elaborated for political reasons. You disappointed me, I thought you were a serious man!!! The Roman historian Florus wrote "The Dacians live bound to the mountains." The ancestors of the Romanians always took shelter there, and then the Romanians when the migratory tribes invaded. These tribes came from the steppes of Asia, unfamiliar with the mountains and were afraid to enter them. That is why the first capitals of Wallachia and Moldavia were in the mountains and moved to the plains when the states gained power.
@@BenLlywelyn There is no evidence for this claim. The fertile plains with agriculture have always had a denser population and could extend their territories.
Sp. - Como tu crees, que yo soy un tonto, yo no soy un tonto, tu eres un tonto! Ro. -Cum tu crezi că eu sunt un tont, eu nu sunt un tont, tu ești un tont.
Romanian is also unique among the Romance languages in having. borrowed a fair number of words from Slavic languages such as Serbian and. Bulgarian . Instead of Si for yes, it has "Da ". Time is. "vreme " but "timp " is also used . There are quite a few other borrowings from Slavic languages , and until fairly recent linguistic reforms , there were far more . And there are also several words derived from Dacian , such as "brinze ", for cheese .
The 'Relatinization' of the Romanian language is not what you think it is, Romanian was already very much Latin even before that point. It was just a bunch of loan words entering Romanian (which was already a Romance language) from French which did push up the % of Latin words of the lexical volume but I challenge you to go read texts before the relatinization such as the 'Scrisoarea lui Neacsu' and see how many Slavic vs Latin words you can find.
Da , ia numara tu cuvintele de origine slavica din scrisoarea lui Neacsu . Eu le-am numarat si sunt aproape jumatate - fara formulele de introducere si incheiere care sunt in limba bulgara. Te tii cu dintii de toate aberatiile . Vezi ca in romana , in ziua de azi sunt mult peste 30% cuvinte provenite din franceza , dintre care 22% sunt cuvinte folosite in vorbirea curenta . Ia vezi tu ce cuvinte au inlocuit cele 22% provenite din franceza ! Iti spun eu ca tu ai idei fixe - pe cele provenite din slava . @@akuleet6029
Da is not only Slavic because it exists in Italy. It's obvious that we have it from Bulgaria, the oldest country with the oldest city and culture of Europe. Sofia is 6000 years old. Old bulgarians are the ancestors of Greeks and Romanians are the ancestors of Roman's.
@@mihaiilie8808 Nonsense. More than 90% of the function words, 80% of the adverbs and 68% of the adjectives in the Romanian language were directly inherited from Latin and 10-15% are of slavic origin. The closest language to Romanian is Italian at 77% lexical similarity. It was preceded by Vulgar Latin spoken in Dacia.
@@spacecoasttactical There is not such thing as vulgar Latin. It's a wrong theory. Read some of my other comments where It says Romanian etymology dictionary had just 20% Latin and now just 7 %. Latin got their words from our ancestors not reverse.
@@mihaiilie8808 Oh well. That's it then. People should just believe you instead of the hundreds of historical etymologists that ALL show that the "non existant" vulgar latin is the basis of ALL the romance languages
History says that the Dacians were part of the Thracian tribes, an Indo-European population. So it is an Indo-European language. The Indo-European area stretches around the Black and Caspian Seas. Or from all the old and extensive pollutions, the Thracian-Dacian language has disappeared , not Slav, not Greek, not Persian, not Hindi,only Tracho-Daca?!Well, let's see. I will use the same way as you. Ex. there are many, but I will give only a few. The word OAIE, OI (PL) is said to come from Lat. OVIS, which comes from PIE H²OWIS. But between PIE and Lat is proto-Italic where we have OWI, just like in ancient Greek. But we also find it in other ancient languages, Germ. OUIS, Dutch OOI, Irish. OI, snskrt AVI, lit AVIS, Slav. OVICA.As you can see, it does not belong to Latin, there are other languages where it is closer to Romanian.We are told that the word PIATRA (stone) comes from the Latin PETRA, but we also have ol Greek PETROS and the Indo half of Indo-European PATHARA, PATAR. The word PUSTIU (wildness, desert) with unknown etymology (like many others) is as autochthonous as possible. The evidence attacks the Latinity of another primordial word which we are told is comes from Latin.The word CASA is also found in South Slavs with different variations KUSATA (casătă) KUCA etc. and in Northern Slavs DOM and variations. Both DOM and CASA are also found in Latin. The 2 languages did not come into serious contact. The migration was made by north to south, not the other way around, many centuries later. TOPOR, primordial word (AXE, Eng-Lat.) is said to come from the Slavic TOPORU but we also find it in Persian TABAR! Now, historically speaking, the population of Dacia numbers between 750 thousand and 2 million people. Decebal's army numbered approximately 35 thousand. After the victory, the military-administrative formation numbered approximately 55 thousand people, concentrated in a few cities in approximately 35% from the current territory of Romania. The majority of the Dacian population was rural and spread over the entire surface. In that period, contacts over medium and long distances were rare, so information between them circulated very difficult. Or in this situation, how was the linguistic influence at such a time short enough to impose his language?! An etomological dictionary has recently appeared in which the author, an expert in Indo-European studies, after a 40-year study, proves that 75% of Romanian words do not come from Latin but from Proto-Indo-European (PIE). Ex. the verb A GANDI (to think) comes from the Hungarian GOND together with other words, but the same words, the Hungarians say they come from Romanian. The author claims that it comes from the radical PIE GAN. I found in Sanskrit, GANIT which means mathematics. Or mathematics implies thinking! GANDIT -think, thinking. So, there are no crazy people on the other side either. The arguments about the non-Latinity of the Romanian language are strong.So there you have it, these elements of words common or not with Latin, common with both Latin and Slavic, with Slavic but not with Latin but also found in other Indo-European languages, along with historical elements and analysis based on Proto-Indo-European Don't they show the exact opposite? Non-Latin language?!
Eu sunt da/ci (pronouncietion is the trick) , de aci , de aici ! 😉Just showed you that you read propaganda nothing else ,you know nothing about our language . Your fishing for wievs/money . Khazar propaganda.🥇
"De aici".? You can't be serious lol. These are signs of apophenia. Ben knows more about the foundations of Romanian than you and that is a shame because you are supposedly Romanian. Although clearly a very uneducated Romanian.
@@BenLlywelyn Go fish , Im done with you , I was listening to you , you were interesting until you jumped on Khazar boat of the khazar history dillusion . Dan Alexe,George Hodorogea (small hint ,tiny ) and others
@@cristiangaban960 If you say so , but from what I remember they called us Getae not Daoi ,but your the experts here . And Roxin didn't invent anything is just what it is ,nothing elese, and by the way he is not a guru in dacian history , there are people there more educated in the mater . 😉 "The Dahae, also known as the Daae, Dahas or Dahaeans (Old Persian: 𐎭𐏃𐎠, romanized: Dahā; Ancient Greek: Δαοι, romanized: Daoi; Δααι, Daai; Δαι, Dai; Δασαι, Dasai; Latin: Dahae; Chinese: 大益; pinyin: Dàyì;[1] Persian: داهان Dāhān) were an ancient Eastern Iranian nomadic tribal confederation, who inhabited the steppes of Central Asia" Wait is that DAOI ? How is your friend Dan Alexe or George Hodorogea ? Say hy to them from me .
...Dacian was a sister language to latin slightly similar but not the same ..we didn't get born out of Latin 😂 There's no way ...dacia got conquered only 33% of it initial size ..let me ask you this what does Arabic and Egypt has to do with Latin? They've been conquered in the entire length for far more decades than us 😂..how do you explain that Egypt has nothing to do with Latin but romania does? Yet we haven't been conquered on our entire length and somehow all 100% of the empire forgot our roots language to learn Latin? 😂lolll ..recent discoveries prove that dacians were very respected by the romans ..in fact we are the only conquered "empire" who eventually ruled Rome 😅 2..more than 80% of the so "called Roman sculptures" are actually dacians 😅 3 that is old dacian language...many of us still speak it mostly in Moldavia region they speak the romanian closet to ancient dacian ..you should look at the manuscript wrote by Michael the Great in 1599 you'll be surprised it is 90% the same ...4 the only reason dacians ruled Rome is because they spoke similar languages not entire the same bcs undoubtedly we do have slavic in our language...you look at the bad words 😂in romanian polish and Russian they are identically the same prononciation too
@@UlpianHeritor When did Rome rule Moldavia all the way to the Dniester River? Then, why did they forget their mother tongue “dacian-getae” and adopted the eastern version of the vulgar latin as their own language which then survived centuries and actually thousand plus years of Russian and Ottoman occupation with the Austrian occupation of Bucovina / Buchenland in the northernmost area of Moldova? Moldova wasn’t even under the Constantinople rule to say that they adopted the language of Byzantium which was not latin but greek, especially after the great schism. I’m not a “dacopath” since allot of that stuff they talk about is nothing but a bunch of ‘Bravo-Sierra’, very whacky stuff, but darn it boys and girls, to claim that an entire nation which never ever lived under Roman occupation just decided some two thousand yers ago to willfully forget their mother tongue and adopt latin it’s just as whacky as the dacopathy crap !
@@hereintranzit they never did ..rome only conquered wallachia ..@ulpian is Arabic latin tooo? Romans were in Egypt for far more years than us ..and Egyptian has nothing but nothing to do with Italian ..how can you pathetically believe after 169 years under roman rule the entire length of the country forgot their own roots religion and language to simply incorporate Latin..its absurd look at Egypt and any other country take England..nothing in English is latin ..or Egypt after 600 years of being conquered in the entire length they still speak Arabic 🙄 🤔 and somehow us only being conquered 33% of our length we forgot everything lmaoo 😂 noobs
from can also be used as "a" or "al" in romanian. But it has a more strange way... like belong to. My suspicion is that Dacian and Latin where related languages and that's way you find sometimes strange things like this plus the easy adapt of "latin" in romanian. Like two similar languages come together with the power of Rome behind the vulgar latin. Related as in Italian and Romanian now
Proximity between Latin and Celtic languages within Indo-European made Latin assimilation of Celtic languages across the West much easier. And I think something similar happened with Dacian.
Romanian here the biggest problem is that people try to make comparisons with the Vulgar Latin and Romanian language has more elements from classical Latin and also some slavic influences because we are surrounded by Slavic countries! We have also just couple words from Dacians left cheese: Brinza! Thank you Ben for promoting my beautiful and underrated country!
... blah-blah-blah ... ... ... it is absolute nonsense to say that the Romance languages emerged from Latin ... that Latin changed and changed and changed and the Romance languages emerged ... for example ... when the Romans arrived in ancient Dacia (now Romania) inhabitants of that area already spoke a language related to a Proto-Romance (let's call it that...) ... the Romans only stayed in Dacia for 170 years (they were expelled by the local people) and it is unlikely that in 170 years the Latin of the Romans created ancient Romanian, which in fact its roots were already established. At the same time, the regions of Hispania, Gaul and other regions today populated by speakers of Romance languages had already received waves of speakers of "Proto-Romance" long before the Roman hosts arrived... The peoples carrying "Proto-Romance" They migrated from the region where Ukraine is today, they arrived to what is now Romania and from there to regions today occupied by Spain, France, Italy, bringing among other variants the Latin that settled and flourished in the region of Latio. For historical reasons, Latin was standardized and became a language of political and ecclesiastical power and has been awarded the "paternity" of the Romance languages that were already consolidating in the regions of Hispania, Gaul and what is today the Italian peninsula before the Romans were to arrive. Simply the so-called scholars who repeat what they hear and are based on opinions and not facts (and don't seek other sources) have already followed an iron doctrine of justifying the unjustifiable today and display their so-called "titles" and believe they have a monopoly on knowledge... and what's worse, they dare to brand those who do not follow the mainstream as conspiracists... This fascinating countercurrent actually has many followers. I think that whoever wants to know investigates and searches and is not satisfied with what's been said ... and whoever can, should travel to Romania (gateway where the first babblings of Proto-Romance were heard) and get in contact with seekers of other alternatives... I know that taking this course implies "dismantling" an entire hypothesis (because it is not proven fact) of the paternity of Latin as a precursor of the Romance languages... ... ... I hope that those interested become seekers and not blind repeaters of a montage that has pleased the ego of churchgoers and others not so notorious... ... ...
Another dacopath bot. We have no remaining source in the Dacian language, so coming up with the conclusion that Dacian was already a proto-romance language is utterly ridiculous. First you people say Dacian was Latin, now you guy's changed your mind and call it proto-romance. Utterly gibberish argument and hilarious nonetheless🤣
You are wrong. Look at this evidence. All languages developed individually from one another. From LaDin and Romeika. Latin was also created from a Pre-Latin languages. There is a language in Dolomites called LaDin but this is also not the original LaDin. Yet. The numbers in Dolomites LaDin are almost identical with Romanian not with Italian. While Ladin people and Romanians never met. Therefore they came from Asia with a IndoEuropean language of the Dacians that is the nowadays Romanian. There were are romani people including the Gypsies and they called their languages also romani like. Aromanian, Istroromanians and other Vlachs have developed individually away from Romanian. They have the same Romanian words, nothing like Italian. This is an argument against Latinisation of Greek for Aromanians and of Slavic for Istroromanians. The only explanation is that there were tribes immigration from Asia of related people speaking the same language that was already a romani language and that spread through the mountains of Thracia and Dacia, developing individually. Rome occupied Dacia only for 150 years and only 1/4 of the territory. How come all Romania, Moldova, Basarabia and south of UKRAINE speak Romanian? Ottoman empire occupation was 500 years in Romania, yet nobody speaks Turkish unless they are Turks. The same about the 300 years of Germanic occupation. Nobody speaks Hungarian or German unless they are colonists. Your theory is wrong. Pleases read The Serpent's Trail of the lost tribes of Israel. Read also about the Jewish roots of the Serbes. Thracians were Sarmatians and both Sarmatians and Dacians are Semitic. The lost tribes of Israel. Etruscans are Semitic too. They left Egypt by boat to escape slavery their. They are part of the Lost tribes of Israel as well. Whole Europe is SEMITIC. Now see the rest of the information. Aromanian is like archaic Romanian. The tribe of Dan scattered all through Asia Minor and Europe and formed Romance languages. Aromanian and Romanian, as well as all the Romance languages including Latin, were not formed from Latin but from ancient-culture LaDin, a Semitic language that formed also the LaDin in the Dolomites. LaDin the mother of European language including LaTin. Ladin is a Semitic language of the tribe of Dan. The semitic Ladin language, is the basis of Romanian language It could be that the original Ladin is not from Latin but the other way around. Romanians have almost exactly the same numerals and they are formed far away from the Dolomites. Romanian comes from Ladin, Dacian, not Latin. Wow 😮😮😮😮 Why Romanian Isn't Like Other Languages - because it is the closest to Ladin Origin of Romanic languages in Ladin, not in Latin. Amazing. Ladin and Ladino is the Semitic language, mother of all European languages. It is not that Spanish influenced this language. It is the other way around. Latin America is in fact Ladino America 🇺🇸. The continent where Ladinos or Jews emigrated. I always thought it has something to do with romance languages from Europe, but it is even prior to Americo Vespucci. Wow. It all makes sense. It comes full circle. Incredible. Ladino, romance language spoken in Israel 🇮🇱 coming from Europe, but basen on ancient-culture LaDin language. The language of the tribe of Dan. We found the connection with the language spoken by the tribe of Dan, the Dacian, back to Israel. Incredible. Ladin is the language Ladino are the people. In Spain they developed another version. Ladino. A Semitic language. Iberia is the country of the Hebreuws. Latin America, could be Ladino America. 70% Jewish genes in Latin America. Either Ashkenazi or of the lost tribes of Israel. A huge revelation for today. Zal-Moxis Dacia Dan Look for the Serpent's Trail If you consider the other Romanian like languages such as Aromanian, istroromanian and others, that developed away from Dacia, you cannot say that the Dacian language was Latinised. And you cannot say that Aromanian is Latinised Greek. Because the way the latin words are spoken into these languages is close to Romanian and not Latin. How can a Latinised Greek develop 2000 km away from Dacia in the exact way as the Latinised Dacian language? No chance. It is more like Dacian language was a language that gave birth to Latin. Important to know!!!! Dacians and Sarmatians are THE LOST TRIBES OF ISRAEL. Sarmatians are Samaritans. Dacians are the Dan's. The lost tribe of Dan. They colonized first what became Thracia and Dacia and move forward up north when the Romans invaded Dacia and colonized Scandinavia known as Province of Dacia and formed also countries like Olan-da, Dan-mark. The people living in Olanda/Holland/The Netherlands, are called Dutch (pronounced Daci), also Dacians of the tribe of Dan. Dacians of Dacia were of the same tribe with Samson. That is why they had uncut beards 🧔🏽 and hair. Dan-mark was called Dacia in the 4th century. The tribe of Dan, colonized Iberia, France and Wallonia, as well as Irland and Scotland. Zal-Moxis was Chief Moses, the God of the Dacians. Why? Because Moses brought Israel out of Egypt. The Tribe of Dan was in Exile as well and got Moses worship 🛐 to be their protector. The Serpent with wolf 🐺 head on a pole, was the war flag of both Dacians and Sarmatians and it was inspired from the Old Testament book of Numbers 21.4-9. The serpent on the pole of Moeses. Moesia comes from Moses. Is the country of Moses people. Moesel is the river of Moses. Dan-ube is the river of Dan. Samarina is a colony of the Sarmatian, Samaritans. They were also Dacians Many rivers in Europe have the name based on Dan derivative in the first place. Saxons is derived from (I)saac sons. The sons of Isaac. Europe is therefore Semitic. România 🇷🇴 was occupied by many other powers over the centuries. The Ottoman Empire was there for 500 years yet Romanias don't speak Turkish. The Austr-Hungarian Empire was there for 300 years. Yet only the colonized villages in specific regions where Hungarians and Germans emigrated 700 years ago, speak Hungarian and German and are the emigrants. No Românian people ever spoke another language. The Roman occupation was only 150 years at maximum. It is no way the Dacian peasants were Latinised. Therefore Latin was not the language that formed Romanian language nor the other Romance languages from Iberic Peninsula, France, Wallonia, Italy. It is most likely that all these languages developed separately from a Semitic language that became Dacian language that got variations according to the region the segmented parts of the Tribe of Dan emigrated to. It is extraordinary and fascinating at the same time. Look for the article. The Serpent's Trail of the lost tribes of Israel. The tribe of Dan. Btw. The Gypsies are Semitic too. They are from the lost tribes of Simeon. Sardinia was also colonized by the Tribe of Dan. Romanian language and Sardinian language are similar. This is another hint.
Romanian language got into India through the massagetae and became Sanscrit. The european indians call themselves Jaat wich means getae and they say their ancestors come from romania. Thats why the gipsy call themselves roma, they know their ancestors. And if romanian is older than sanscrit, then means romanian is the proto indoeuropean and the mother of all languages, like not just latin but also slavic, germanic, etc. Budhist priests in China that speak sanscrit also say its the language of the getae.
BTW toarnă, toarnă, frate is perfectly modern Romanian but a turna in modern Romanian usage would mean to pour (meaning something like to pour (some wine etc) in, my brother) original obviously missing the wine part....😊
@@arcadie8155 Absolut Numai din Latină in Romăna sa schimbat înțelesul măcar partial fie ca vprbim de a turna/tornare sau că votbim de torquere /toarce /a intorce
Many words in romanian that don't appear of latin origin ,have somehow a latin origin The word for garlic is widely known as"usturoi"but i heard people in the country side saying"aliu"it's latin I think
I love your videos! I have noticed something though… in classical Latin, the V is pronounced like an English W. Like you said Ventus for old, when it is like Wen-toos. However you got it right in Vulgar Latin.
Lucky Romania has The Column of Traian….otherwise some people will say that actually Romanians arrived after the Hungarians…probably in 19th century 😂😂😂😂😂… To learn a new language from the year of 105-106 to the year of 273 ….huh…The Romanians are the smartest people on earth 😂😂😂😂😂 In UK nobody learned any Latin….but the language evolved only after the 1006….or so. Same in Egypt or even today Israel etc …..must be something special about Romanian people 😂😂😂😂😂…the only nation on earth to evolve so fast including a new language
Romanians are the only European people who have their identity document carved into the stone, 40 meters high, in the f0king heart of Rome! Hundreds of statues of Dacians in all Italy! When a Romanian peasant arrived there in the 1800's , dressed in traditional Romanian clothes, he was interviewed in the Italian newspapers (they can be found online) they wrote: "A Dacian came down from the column!"
So, the conclusion is that even the Classic Latin language is so different that, the Vulgar Latin language, they are the "same" language? And because the the ProtoRomanian language is similar with the Vulgar Latin, that means the Romanian language comes from it? If that is the truth, how come after 2000 years, Romanian language sounds the same and the "original" one disappeared? It is because the Romanian people kept their language from the beginning, and the ones that taken from outside changed it, in what you are calling, today, Romance languages? Just think.
we love and admire you very much. those veterans, Romanian colonists and Latinized locals, gave us a Latin language, with a rich baggage of Latin words, or Latin roots. Many Latin culints, from squares in the Romanian language, more than enough to be discovered by the current linguists who use artificial intelligence, to reconstruct vulgar Latin from the idioms existing today.
descendants of the Dacians/Thracians/Illyrians are in Albania. The Albanian language has a lot in common with the Romanian language. they influenced each other, very likely somewhere in today's Macedonia. then proto-Romanian influenced the Bulgarian language significantly. very interesting
Well, almost all languages in Europe are indo-european (latin and germanic too). Indo tribes, passed through iran/persia and assiriaa, then anatolia and entered Europe through Balkans (the only place not covered in snow). First they settled for a while (centuries), then as climate changed, some of them emigrated to new territories. They took with them the balkanik sprachbund, not the other way around, then it changed as centuries passed. It changed, but is logical that infuence was from balkans , not the other way around. I am not saying they are dacian or thracian, iliran, agatarshi or others they were here, but it is a bit logical that the western languages (as they are people that came from balkan area- first stop in Europe) to have infuenced them, not the other way around, as they lived for a while in balkans then continued their journey west. Also, if you look, vulgar latin is quite a different language to latin like english and french. They have some comonalities, but they have techically other words. As you see with the word horse and others. There are very different words. And in my book, vulgar latin is quite the balkan initial language but latinesed. As english is germanic language, but latinised. Some vulgar latin is in french since they have celtic ancestry and celts stationed in balkans for a while in their route to west. Reserarch should be made on the vulgar latin origin.
Emperor Traian said he conquered the land of his ancestors. The Burii and Dacian tribes were flying the Wolf Draco and Rome creation mith of Romulus and Remus being raised by a she wolf show a common origin. The Celts were flying the Stag and Boar, Goths had the Raven, the bear was flown on the Russian steppes, Greeks have a thing for dolphins. Rome adopted the Eagle. Common sense shows a westward migration of "Dacian" peoples. They were speaking a common language that gave birth to Romanian and Latin. Later vulgar Latin was reinforced with the conquest as it was the international business language of the empire. Someone from Gaul could do business in Dacia, Moesia, Britannia and Spania using Latin. Romanian has words from archaic, classical and Vulgar for the same thing; Cuvinte, Vorbe and Palavre, Camasa and Tunica, Acvila and Pasare, Cal and Armasar, Din and De La (From), etc. In time some words were more popular and set into Standard Romanian while others remained in the Vulgar Romanian lexicon. You have to get a more complete picture looking at historical, mythological, genetic and linguistic data. The oldest writing is from Tartaria in Romania; 1000 years before Sumerian and nobody knows what language that was. At the end of the day nobody knows for sure, we can only have a best guess consensus based on the current information. The only sure thing is that all Europeans like cheese.
Ati fi surprins sa vedeti cate cuvinte din limba Romana sunt sunt aproape identice cu cele indo,sanskrita...Nu intru in detalii.Toata nebunia asta m-a facut sa caut raspunsuri.Ar trebui sa faca multi asta.Ideeea e ca multe din cele explicate prin latina,slava sau maghiara sunt la fel de legate si de sanskrita,sau variante indo.Banuiesc ca intelegi,din moment ce stapaniti,latina vulgara.
Specialists in linguistics from the USA, Spain, France and Romania are researching the origin of the Romance languages. Real, valuable studies.. Mihai Vinereanu - former professor City University of New York. Look for his studies on the origin of the Daco-Romanian language. Post scriptum: Where did our Dacian ancestors learn Latin when in the Kingdom of Dacia the Romans stayed for 165 years on only a small part of Dacia's territory. The Romans stayed in Greece, Malta, Egypt, Israel for many hundreds of years and they did not become Romanized. The Romans conquered only 1./ 6 of the huge Dacia. Today, the Romanian language is a unified language, without dialects, and it is spoken even 1000 km from the territories that were conquered by the Romans. How did they become Romanized? The Republic of Moldova, our ancestral territory, torn from Romania by Stalin and Chorchills and further towards today's Ukraine. No Roman stepped foot here. Today, the Latin-sounding Romanian language is spoken throughout the territory of Ancient Dacia. You have to be glad that controversies and different opinions have been created here. It means that your video is a success.
Dacia is the name of the province ruled by the Romans 106-271, north of the Danube, and had nothing to do with Illyrian P. The inhabitants were Northern Thracians also called Geto-Dacians (the main ancestors of Romanians). The Romanian language was formed south and north of the Danube especially, where it suffered some Slavic influences in the first millennium AD.
Wish to point a detail. Latin horse is "equs" (which gave us the social class of "equites", Roman knights). But vulgar Latin used the gaulish loanword "caballus" (work horse), which gave all those romanse words: caballo (sp), cavallo (it), cheval (fr), cal (ro). But in Romanian, Latin word "equs" also gave the word "iapa", which is a female horse.
The reality its the western latin language was introduced in Romania over 200 years ago ,yes Romania speak now a mixed latin but in the countryside you can"t say there they speak latin ,actually its opposite.Not either they don"t speak any russian .
I can see your point but, you compared with modern romanian language. modern romanian language is(obvious) not the same as it used to be before all the kingdoms united. hundreds of years shaped the language into what Romania use now. there are so many words that we dont use in the modern version of romanian, that we spoke even 30-40 years ago. but at the end of the day, we can appreciate both languages and thats the cool part ;)
