Decebalus didnt surrender, he actually lost the battle with the romans and ran into the mountains where he took his own life (better dead than a slave of the romans)
You're right, I think I got his first defeat in 102 AD, where he surrendered and accepted terms, confused with his defeat in 106 AD, where he fled and eventually committed suicide. Thanks for pointing that out!
6:10= BECEBAL = STILL UNDERSTANDABLE IN MAGYAR - HUNGARIAN LANGUAGE -> BECAUSE THE DAHA -> DACO - DÁK PEOPLE WAS SCYTIANS MIXED WITH SARMATIANS RACE , THEY HAD AN EMPIRE BEFORE THE ROMANS = BECEBAL OR DECEBAL = BECSES BAAL OR DECSE-> DICSŐ BAAL ( BAAL = KAN -> BALCAN [ NOWDAYS : THE TERITORY OF BAAL KAN ] = THE DACIANS HAVE NEVER AND ANYTHING TO DO WITH ROMANS IN RACE THEORY , EXCEPT PICKTED UP THE ROMAN LANGUAGE SOME OF IT , IN THE BAD WAY, WITH THEY BAD TERITORIAL ACCENT ! OTHER PROOF = BULGARIAN ARE NOT SLAVIC RACE , BUT USING SLAVIC LANGUAGE . POLISH PEOPLE ARE , MAYBE ⅓ OF IT SARMATIANS , THAT'S WHY ARE BEST FRIENDS OF HUNGARIANS , WHO ARE SCYTIAN - SARMATIAN MIXED PEOPLE TOO , MOSTLY - MAINLY PANHUNS ( MED'S ) + JAZIGS , HUNS + AVARS + MAGYAR . FALSE INFO -> THE POLISH - HUNGARIANS BECOME VERY CLOSE FRIENDS , SINCE BOTH PICKED UP THE JUDEOCHRISTIANITY . WAS MUCH EARLIER THE STRONG BONDS . Etc...
I’m right here now in Bucharest and visited the country for 15 days. I’m so proud that I am here in this long time sister language romanian. I’m brazilian and speak portuguese. I learned a lot of romanian back home before arriving here.
@@steppenwolf1872 it hardly is similar. A lot closer to the italian pronunciation of words. I’m in Moldova now. i’m done with Romania already. Sadly. 😢
@@steppenwolf1872 Not really. Romanian's pronunciation is consistent, much like Spanish. Portuguese words tend to not sound as they're written, much like French, but that could be due to the influence of earlier Celtic influences on these two languages.
Its because you speak Occitan in Portugal and occitan its where the dacian visigoths settled. The visigoths were celts not germanics, just like the gauls, they had wings on their helmets, the grew vineyards as you can see on Athanaric treasure from my city, Buzau. They settled there because the languages were intelligible by the dacians. Celts.
Why to go on laying, that romanian is a latin language.The romanian language was artifically "fabricated" by "very international social scientists" from a slavic base into latin in the second half of the 19th century,even the use of former cyrilic letters was also changed to latin letters. The name of Romania has really been a great idea suggesting that they have a lot common with thj ancient Roma.(Why not Italy is named Romania?) Small part of Romania really was occipied for about 150 years by Rome compared to West Hungary under 400 years under roman rules.Nobody here pretends here to be of roman origin!!! Why?
@@imreboros9336 "Nobody here pretends here to be of roman origin!"Rhetorical question. The largest part of the population that could have done this was relocated to make room for Hungarian yurts. The remaining ones founded the Castle Culture and then were Hungarianized. As far as artificiality is concerned, you cannot associate it with an Indo-European language, and manufacturing is the same, all languages undergo reforms over time, but it was even more difficult for the manufactured Romanian to reach the isolated villages on the mountain tops.
A fi ,,română" este un adjectiv... ,,română" sau ,,românească"... Dacă tu ai scris, înseamnă că ești o persoană care se poate desemna prin cuvântul ,,româncă" (substantiv). Deci, înainte de a te mândri cu naționalitatea ta, învață decent să scrii în limba română!!! Altfel arăți exact contrariul a ceea ce intenționezi să transmiți prin scris.
Istro romanian has literaly 0 speakers...megleno romanian probably a few thousands....the only notable language there is aromanian that has around 300k speakers as far as i know. We consider those some kind of old variants of the romanian language, like if the language was frozen in time and we are looking at an older version. Daco romanian is kind of the modern one.
This video claims that Hungarian's closest linguistic relatives are Finnish and Estonian. While all three languages are indeed related, Hungarian is a very distant relation to the other two. In fact, the family tree of Uralic at 7:00 shows that Hungarian's two closest relatives are Khanty and Mansi.
What we speak in Romania today is more correctly named dacoromanian,aromanian istroromanian and others are part of the larger romania family languages,(similar from the italian family languages,and they are much more) Those days a lot of the other languages are more known as romanian dialects,but they did develop independent from the current day romanian,so it should be considered their own language
Some would say Aromanian is just a dialect of Romanian and not a language. And they would be right, because a language is just a dialect with an army and Aromanian doesn't have an army.
Arguably. It is a speech only, in this moment. It has no technical , cultural literatura, except a handful of poems and some folklore songs. Many people, scientists and simple persons, consider it as a dialect of the Romanian. In this status, it cand be preserved by teaching it in primary schools and then study the Romanian literary language to get a full university degree, the way the Swiss German speaking persons do. Otherwise, the Aromanian speech, with almost no schooling but some primary schooling will get extinct, already an endangered „language”. The Swiss germanophones continue to speak their dialects enforced naturally by the tongue of closest kinship and not forced to borrow new words from French, for instance thus making their dialect viable. This has not also turned the Swiss germanophones into Germans as many ARomanians consider themselves to be different from Romanians. Let them be, but refusing the literary Romanian language the closest of kinship as the language for full academic education, they sentenced this Aromanian dialect to disappearance, hich is next to happen. Maybe in Albania to be a small chance to survive.
@@nydydn yeah that's bullshit. There are hundreds of languages in the world who's speakers have no army. Aromanian is a distinct language that split from a common ancestor Balkan Latin dialect with Romanian. Also the arrogance of calling it a dialect of Romanian and not the other way around(neither is a dialect if the other in reality, just close sister languages), just because the much larger group has an academy and decided it is so.
I am Romanian and I have an Italian colleague. When we discuss about the languages, there are many common features between his language (Sardinia) and Romanian. I mean things that similar between Sardinian dialect (or whatever I can call it) and Romanian, bypassing the today's Italian language that has other forms. For example the word „cat” : Pisică (Romanian), Gatto (Italian) and Pisittu (Sardinia). I find this very odd, to be honest.
In Italia deget _dito nas -naso Mina -mano Mașină -machina Stradă -strada Casa - casă Tractor -tractor etc etc Sint multe cuvinte cale Noastre cu puține diferențe 😊❤
In the old romanian language, the CAT was called "catuşa" (from the Latin "catta" + the suffix "usa"). It was also preserved in the southern romanian dialects (Aromanian) "Catușea" but also in certain toponyms (Ex. Lake Catușa near Galati and I saw it somewhere around Arges but I don't remember exactly). From the onomatopoeia "pis" and the suffix "ica", the word "Pisica" was formed, which was used more often so that the initial word "catușa" was replaced in current speech.
@@mihaiilie8808 Ai scos-o de la tine sau ai vreo sursa ascunsa? Daca vrei sa afirmi ceva, vino cu argumente etimologice (fonetice, legaturi semantice, concordante gramaticele, atestari). Am sa te dezamagesc. Limba romana nu are cuvinte mostenite direct din vreunul din dialectele celtice. Singurele cuvinte atestate cu origine indepartata celtica si preluate de limba latina si ulterior si in limba romana, sunt : cal/caballus, camasa/camisia si car/carrum. Mai sunt si alte cuvinte pe care unii autori au presupus ca au origine celtica dar nu sunt confirmate.
@@h.adrian8911 Esti nebun? Limbile celtice sunt latina vulgara din care se trage si latina. Toti muntii si toate raurile Europei au nume celtice. Bucegi, Carpati, Dunare, etc. Esti in urma tare pentru ca dacii sunt celti, vizigotii sunt cei mai celti dintre celti ( nu germanici).
I am a Spanish speaking Latina, and Romanian is such a beautiful language. Besides Portuguese and Italian, I honestly understand Romanian more than French 😅. French is hard. Thanks for this lovely video. It was very informative.
I must say that the video is great. I would only like to make a few mentions, as someone who speaks Romanian since the day he was born, about some of the words in the list from 08:05: „plod“ means „little child". „trebuie” means "must”. („necessary” is translated as „necesar“). „slavă“ („glory“) is considered archaic and, for more than 100 years is slowly replaced in daily use with the word „glorie” „nădejde” („hope”) is also an archaic word. In daily speech one would rather use the word „speranță” (pronounced sperantza). “silă” means „nausea“, „loathing” or „🤢🤮“ „ceas” means „watch”. And in some particular situations can be used meaning „hour“ or „time”.( Ex. „Cât este ceasul? “ „What time (hour) is it?” „lotcă” means indeed boat, and it is again an archaic, and also a regional word mainly used in Dobrogea ( pronounced similar to Dobrodjea with „J" as in „John"). Yet, the word that is most often used for „boat" is „barcă” Otherwise, even if I may not agree with every detail in this video, I believe it is both entertaining and informative. I actually like it!
@burner555 bănuiesc că întrebi dacă cuvântul este regionalism. Caz în care, ceea ce pot spune este că originea lui este populara și că are conotații ușor peiorative. Dacă este sau nu regionalism, nu aș putea spune. Eu îl știu datorită faptului că l-am auzit în casă (deci nu l-am învățat dintr-un manual). Dar deși eu sunt născut și crescut în Ardeal, la fel ca și părinții mei, familia mea are rădăcini atât bucovinene cât și sudiste... Înclin totuși să cred că este folosit mai degrabă în zona Moldovei... Dar aici recunosc că speculez. Dacă însă întrebi altceva... Îmi pare rău, dar nu știu să îți răspund.
I am romanian too and silă doesn’t only mean nausea, if you use in this context : l-a silit să-şi facă temele( He forced him do his homework) it means to make someone do something/ force someone(in one word it would be OBLIGATION). Although you are mostly right, my romanian friend, because the meaning I told now can be considered archaic( only grandpas use it now) I find it fair to tell foreigners that although the base meaning of silă is nausea, as you pointed out, another meaning, that is not usually used to be fair, is to force someone to do something( but not only force like the autor said on the list, if you want to use it with this meaning you’ve got to put it in context) . So I don’t disagree with you but I find the use of “force” a translation mistake as it’s correct translation ONLY IF YOU USE IT IN THIS CONTEXT: A fost silit de mama sa să-şi facă curat în cameră( meaning: He was forced by his mom to tidy up his room), would be “to force to” . In the end it is not important as it is an archaic word, being replaced by “ a fost forța să…” or “ a fost obligat să… in a sentence. Overall it was a good video and I am not trying to correct you, only to add something to your explanation “care mi-a sărit în ochi😉”.
Totally agree with you. And we can add that, if we want to bamboozle someone with some Romanian words, „silā "is a great word to use. Because aside from „silā" we also have the word „silitor". One might think that a man who is „silitor", is someone who does things in (with) „silā". But...NO. we are talking about someone who does things properly, who cuts no corners, someone who works as hard as he needs in order to have the work done. He is someone for whom the word „procrastination" wasn't invented. So yes... Our language is extremely simple...
personally, i find romanian very very unique in its way of using the vulgar latin article ille after the noun instead of before. The only ones doing this are the eastern romans. While in the west and south, they placed it before the noun, resulting in french le,la, les, spanish el,la,los,las, etc. While romanian merged those articles into the noun (e.g. barbat (a man) > barbatul (the man) instead of lu barbat or something). First time i learnt romanian i was pretty confused by those -l and -le endings. edit : the first a in barbat has an accent marker but i cant write that on laptop.
They attach "the" to the end of words in Scandinavian words too: Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish. Maybe Romanian was influenced by Old Norse, but who knows?
@@bhutchin1996 i reckon it's a feature of the sprachbund? because bulgarian does it too and it's the only slavic language to do so. but your hypothesis maybe correct (i dunno), seeing that romania (or wallachia/dacia at that time) was close to ERE, and there were many varangians in the ERE at the time. who knows hahaha
@@p0py-nu1ly what did? If it's about the article then no. Portuguese definite articles came before the nouns (compare um homem and o homem), while romanian articles come after the noun (un bărbat, bărbatul).
7:06 Wrong. Hungarian is actually related to Finnish and Estonian, but not that close, since they belong to completely different Uralic branches. It's like saying English's closest relative was Russian. The actual closest relatives of Hungarian are the two Ob Ugrian languages Khanty and Mansi in Siberia. Together they form the Ugric branch of the Uralic languages, whereas Finnish and Estonian are both belonging to the Finnic branch. In fact, there's more phonologic resemblence between Finnic and the branches of Samic, Mari and Permic than between Finnic and Ugric, that's why these four are often grouped together into Finno-Permic, whose unity as one branch is, hower, still debated. That also means that Ugric is the second most divergent branch of Uralic, second only to Samoyedic, which is much more divergent even than Ugric (it even restructured almost its entire numeral system, their word for ten for example evolved from the Proto-Uralic word for five). So Finnish and Estonian definitely aren't Hungarian's closest relatives
Also ridiculous to call sunken huts or pit houses, river stone ovens or poorly decorated ceramics as a clear signal of early Slavs. Even early Anglo Saxons used sunken huts in Britain. Dacian cultures used sunken huts since BC times, long before any Slavs were recorded in history. Given the spread of these material cultures most probably is about Carpi and Costoboc Dacians, originated at east and north of Carpathians in the past, obviously mixed in time with other ethnic groups.
Thank you for the video! To make things clear, we have entire texts written in Romanian starting with 1521, Neacsu's letter to the mayor of Brasov, about an impending Ottoman invasion. So, not just isolated words or sentences, entire texts and entire books, including the complete translation of the Bible into Romanian, which was finished in 1688. This was long before the decision to model Romanian lands after the Western model (especially France) in the nineteenth century. You can analyze the texts, I dare you to compare them with Slavic texts. Usually, foreigners who aren't linguists will dump any Romanian word they don't recognize into the Slavic bucket, even when the word is of Dacian, Latin, Greek, Turkish or even German origin. But it is true that we borrowed some words from French in the nineteenth century, even some from Italian, and in general the modern words for new concepts are based on Latin, and to a lesser extent on Ancient Greek. Why would we have done otherwise, if our grammar was already Latin and most of the words of Latin origin? Politics aside, why would we have formed the words for modern concepts based on Slavic or Germanic or Finno-Ugric lsnguages, or why borrow from those languages? You couldn't give a single objective linguistic argument for that.
Yes, you are correct. I have never studied Romanian in my life, but, I speak Italian as a second language ( not a native speaker second language) and by chance I found a copy somewhere of this document from 1521 and even I could understand the odd sentence and specific phrase. Therefore this begs the question, if Romanian is not a Latin language as some hystericaly claim, why would someone who has never studied Romanian and speaks Italian as a second language understand some sentences from this document from 1521
Let me put it clear. It is impossible that some of the Dacians didn't spoke latin, especially high hierarchic men and women. Simply because money doesn't have language barrier. They would trade a lot of goods, before and after the war. It is known that dacians "stamped" false roman gold coins, that could mean that at least some of them knew latin just to help them to trade goods south of Danube. After the Aurelian retreat, is true that a lot of people migrated south, but a lot of them remained in the mountains, isolated from the influence of slavic tribes. PLUS (i don't remember the year) on the time of Bulgarian empire, wallachians come back again from the south of the Danube to occupy deserted fields left behind from the mongols (if i am not wrong). So, the people from mountains, which spoke latin + the same people who spoke vulgar latin from the south, reoccupied Wallachia and something like this gave birth to romanian language.
There is NO "re-latinization"! First of all you can't "re-latinize" what is already latin. The proportion of latin to slavic words are same before and after the so-called "re-latinization".
Dream on. According to a study conducted by the Ca' Foscari University in Venice (Università Ca' Foscari di Venezia) and the Italian Ministry of Universities and Scientific Research (Ministero dell'Università e della Ricerca Scientifica),[1][2] the vocabulary of the modern Romanian language contains about 90% elements of the Latin language, while before the creation of the state of Romania in 1861 through the union of the two principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, the Latin vocabulary in the written language was only 20%, something common to all European languages, and the remaining 80% were words, loanwords or derived primarily from Bulgarian, less Modern Greek, Hungarian, Turkish or Albanian.
@@kalinxristov1654 This dude thinks 20 million people who didn't know how to read suddenly changed the language spoken there for 1800 years and suddenly learned a totally new language and alphabet :))) Some dudes are really funny :)))
@@RaduRadonys If they didn't know how to read then yeah, they could've easily learned a totally new alphabet, lmao. And Romanian was traditionally written in the cyrillic alhpabet which means it did change alphabets, but that doesn't matter since cyrillic is just an alphabet, nothing more. Also I don't think that Romanian's vocabulary was only 20% latin, that seems low but it definitely wasn't 90% and still isn't (it's 75% latin/romance, 15% slavic and 10% other/unknown) Also you underestimate how much the upper class can change a language to their liking. It wouldn't happen now, but back then most people were, as you said, illiterate and could easily change their vocabulary to fit in with the others. FFS the latinization of Romania only happened in 100-150 years and most people stopped speaking dacian to adopt latin. So it could easily relatinize the language in 60-70 years (1865-1930s)
@@kalinxristov1654 Romanian always was a latin language. Very few Romanian words come from other languages. The majority have latin and Dacian origin. In the past we may have used Cyrillic alphabet for writing but we also used the traditional Romanian script which is latin but looks more like Byzantine Greek.
I dont understand why Romanian always gets so much hate from the other Romance languages. We are very often called a fake Romance language which is sad because Romanian Is a Romance language. Sure it may have more foreign influences than the rest of the Romance languages but it still is a majority Romance language. Its still in Top 5 closest languages to latin. Some 12% slavic influences dont turn the whole language Slavic.
It doesn't have more foreign influence, it has more diverse influence, because of the fanariot period, because of old church slavonic, because the romanian states had a privileged position for the ottomans. For example portuguese is 44% removed from Latin , yet it is still a latin language while English isn't. Vocabulary doesn't make a language latin or not , even though it is easy for romanians to learn the latin vocabulary of the english language,you cannot speak english unless you learn english grammar and english sinthax and pronounciation.
I don't see where Romanian gets hate from other Romance regions. Actually the people have become quite curious and interested. A lot of Spanish, French and Italian tourists come to Romania more recently.
This was actually the best video i found summarizing how the Romanian language exist. Thank you so much. Love from California. I’m actually Romanian myself but immigrated into the states at a very young age with my family.
Aș vrea să știi că limba română provine dintr-o limbă indo-europeană, foarte veche, natural fonetică, încă din neolitic, foarte apropiată de limba română arhaică ! Multă sănătate !
Păi, aici e vina părinților că nu te-au învățat română! Românii, cred, sunt singurii care-și uită limba după ce au emigrat. Cu siguranță copiii lor o uită, și asta e cam unic.
@@ovidiumarinelsava7928 You’re absolutely right i should. I understood what you said, but unfortunately i can’t type back to you in Romanian. I can speak it, hardly read it, but typing it/writing it out is still extremely difficult for me. Thank you so much I wish you well.
@@rusucristian1847 We immigrated into the U.S. when i was only three years old. I grew up in a Romanian household i can speak the language, but unfortunately i’m still not yet fluent. I can read your responses i just can’t answer them back in Romanian lol. With that said; it’s my fault, not my parents.
Most of the re-latinisation came from the 19th C contact with Italy and, especially, 🇫🇷. "Testament" 📃 replaced "diată". "Stradă" 🚸 replaced "uliță". Some of the older Greek, Turkish or Slavic words are still used to bring some colour in literature or journalism. PS: re-latinisation does not mean we didn't already have loads of Latin origin words, inherited from the Romans - lună 🌛, mare 🌊, nas👃🏻, verde 🟢, etc . It means we updated our language and replaced a ton of old words, most of them, non-latin.
What's interesting is that "utita" has "Ita" a Latin diminutive suffix and ulita is a small narrow street on the back, somewhere, while "ulica" in slavic is the main road.
you forgot the coastline of croatia with dalmatian as a romance language (due to roman cities/colonies/municipae) and obviously albanian, that emerged from the same era but was probably "re-albanized" later which we can see on the 60% latin word pool. the ancient people of these countries, romania included were probably much closer together and depending on the era and empires border, it could have covered almost the whole balkans. probably one of the most interesting times to dig into historically in that region
That's true, Dalmatian and a couple other eastern Romance languages survived the the Slavic migrations but have since gone extinct. It's likely that the other Romance languages in the Balkans (besides Daco-Romanian) will suffer the same fate in time.
Yes, it is. There are hundreds of languages with only a few thousand speakers or less throughout the world and a lot of them are on their way to extinction. It's very unfortunate.
Before the Heraclids changed the official language to Greek in 612 AD in Constantinople you would hear mostly Latin and VL. This was a brand new fully built Roman city, officially named for 3 centuries as "New Rome". Before 610 AD most Roman emperors in Constantinople were Roman Thracians and Illyrians from the Balkans and their mother tongue was Latin and VL.
"The Romans would usually invade and annex new regions on the periphery of existing Roman lands under the pretext of protecting the already existing borders from attack." That sounds all too familiar nowadays...
The USA says it needs to attack, invade, bomb countries on the other side of the world because "we either fight them there or fight them in the USA". It's more ridiculous than even Roman logic
the real reason was the Dacian gold in the Carpathian mountains. With the booty from there they could balance the state deficit for some years, just like they had done several times before by plundering Gallia under Caesar, sacking Egypt completely under Octavian/Augustus and looting Judea unter Vespasian/Titus.
This is a great video. No need to mention the outlandish theories though. People who believe in the absurd idea that Latin came from Dacian are an embarrassment to us, Romanians. They are a vocal minority on the internet that shouldn't be given any publicity or credibility. They aren't representative of what Romanians believe.
Romanians are thracian ( the oldest celts). These celts spoke vulgar latin and the romans are celts because etruscans are celts and even the trojans( founders of Rome from Turkey). So the ancestors of the romans spoke latin and they got it from Romania. Celts speak vulgar latin and it all started in Romania.
All indo-european languages originated in the Ukraine area ( that eventually became Latin , Celtic , Dacian etc. ) . Proto-Latin / or a population came via a migration from Nord-of-Carpathians meeting the Alps ( around Slovakia ) to enter into Italy. There is a possibility that Latin preserved some relationship to the other indo-euroean Languages and was similar to Dacian Language at least in some words. All indo-european languages have similar root worlds for some important concepts. The Theory exist and is plausible but very hard to verify as we no longer have the Dacian and Thracians languages to study.
@@CapriciousStoic2 Celtic is not indoeuropean at first. Later they got mixed with the indoeuropeans but the first celts are not. This is based on paleogenetic tests. And these celts dont come from Ukraine, but between Romania and Bulgaria and they literally got out from under the Black Sea when it was flooded 12 000 years ago. Lake Agassiz in Canada melted, ocean rised so as the Mediteranean and it flooded the Black Sea. The oldest european civilisations are right on the Black Sea shore, between Romania and Bulgaria. Bulgaria also has the oldest city in Europe, Plovdiv and Sofia is also very old. These are the thracians and the celts that built Gobekli Tepe, Plovdiv and Stonehenge.
@@CapriciousStoic2 Latin being similar to Dacian because of the Proto-Indo European common ancestor is not a meaningful statement. By the same argument, you can say that English is similar to Hindi, because both languages originate from Proto-Indo European. But how similar is English to Hindi if we're being honest?
It is already a known fact that Romanian Da (yes) derives from Latin Ita (thuss,so) and is one of many examples when "t" is interchangeable with "d" in many languages Best example is Italian "da vero"( truly so) from Latin Ita vero Otto(8) becomes Oddo in Italian Tati/ Daddy Tu in Latin/ Du in German Takk in Scandinavian/ Danke in German Visigoths becomes Vizigodos in Spanish and Portuguese Da is used instead of "the" in Chicago ( Da Bears/ Chicago Bears) Da boiz/ rap slang Ida is pronounced instead of Da in Bihor region of Romania, as they are known as slower talkers Bulgars adopted Da from Romanian and their priests introduced it to Russians via Ortodoxism Notice that Belarusians are Russians and don't say Da but the real Slavic word for Yes "tak" short from Tako/ so, like Polish and Ucrainians. Other examples when slavs borrowed Kashubians say Jo Sloveniens say Ja Both from German Ja "Tha" is yes in Scottish Gaelic. Google Ita vs Sic in Latin ( ita is a counterpart with "sic") Or A Latin Yes for Romanian word Da, by Keith Massey You Tube.
never heard of this "fact" and I also doubt it. Romanians shouldn't deny the Slavic part of their identity, it is nothing to be ashamed of. Just as Italian and French have a lot of Germanic words, Romanian has a lot of Slavic ones. So what?
@@ekesandras1481 How do slavs explain "ata" ending from "Lopata"( shovel)? "ata" is a romance suffix and gives a definition of the noun like "plata"(flat), thinned ( Subtiata), thickened ( Ingrosata) In Romanian there are other "ata" ending tools or ustensils Galeata/ pail, bucket Covata/ wooden bowl for laundry Sageata/ arrow Roata/ wheel Prelata/tarp Poiata/ chicken shack Cravata'/ tie suit
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) They were also Dacians. 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. 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.
The extinct Dalmatian language was the link between Italic languages and Daco Romanian, but it was broken. From 200 Dalmatian words, 100 are very similar to Romanian and some 20 with Albanian.
6:35 while this picture is depicting a migration of Slavs yes (serbs to be specific),it's not the one from the 16th century. It's depicting the great migration of Serbs to the Panonian basin,as an escape from Ottoman influence
7:10 "Why Dacia didnt become slavicized?" That is the question. There are 2 related distinct phenomena that are worth be mentioned. 1) The Bulgars. On a previous map with slavic migration you included Bulgars there. To my knowledge (i'm not a linguistic) Bulgar ethic were in fact "turkic" (whatever that mean, anyway not related to seljuk turkish/ ottomans/ modern day turkic peoples. Is a rich branch on "turkic") and Bulgarian Empire (!) managed for some time to dominate de area of Balkan Peninsula. The very interesting fact is that from an ethnic turkic origin, they left only with the name and started instead to speack a slavic language, called...bulgarian. So turkish Bulgar language become slavicised. And amazingly the bulgars where those who spread the cyrillic alphabet to the slavic world, to russians even, throw religious emissaries, being the first people christianized. 2) The Greeks. For a while the greek language, yes that ancient classical greek language, were losing the "fight", the area dominance against the svalonic language on their own lands even. Keep in mind that Byzantine Empire were in fact greco-roman with roman-latin roots, but heavely dominated by greek culture and personalities especially on mid-later period. Greek language resisted to latin but not to slavic. If you dig enough you will conclude that greek language were spoked mostly on islands, south Italy and Anatolia but not home, in an unfortunate period of Greece's long history. A Greek "reconquista" followed soon after. That demonstrate how agressive slavic language was spreading. And that aggressiveness in itself makes the resistance of the Vlach/ later Romanian language all the more commendable, adding to that the fact that there are no historical mentions about the vlachs for 1k years. Sorry for long comment, i did not intend to offend anyone, vote for Orban.
7:05 "[the Hungarian language's] closest linguistic relatives are Finnish and Estonian" That can be true only we consider just Europe, disregarding other Uralic languages... As far as I remember, the closest relative of Hungarian is Khansi (I'm not sure f I'm retranslating the name correctly)
even within (geographic) Europe there are many more (small) Finno-Ugric languages closer to Hungarian: Mari, Komi, Mordvin, Udmurt, etc... But those are all minority languages withing the Russian Federation that are mostly unkown by the general public.
This is such a great video. I love how you combine larger (the broad strokes of the history of rome) and smaller (Dacia and its languages) perspectives to give an overview of the question of why there is a romance language spoken in eastern europe. Liked and subscribed.
8:04 as a romanian i can say alot of these words arent used much Plod - Fruct (i have never heard this word) Slavă - Glorie (same with this so im translating the english part) Silă (it is used but not as force, more like Mi-e silă să fac asta, I dont want to/feel like do/doing this. Thats the closest translation i could think about) Lotcă-Barcă (based this off english translation, lotcă is another word i have never heard) Ceas is mostly used when asking about time (Cât e ceasul?) It is sometimes used to replace hour (oră) Mergem într-un ceas (this is not commonly used). Ceas is also the word for clock A better translation, in my opinion, would be timp. Timp is mostly used in the present: E timpul să plecăm. Its time to leave. Trup has mostly been replaced by corp but its still sometimes used and you can see it in poetry
Cum adica n-ai auzit de cuvintele "plod" si "lotca"? Plod e folosit destul de des in media - ce-i drept, la plural:"plozii", si de multe ori cu o conotatie negativa. "Plozii politicienilor", "politicienii si plozii lor" - se refera la copiii politicienilor, desi cei care il folosesc vor sa induca indeea de "lepra/lichea", plod inseamna copil. Lotca, desi e regionalism din zona Dobrogei, e cat de cat cunoscut si-n alte regiuni ale tarii. Se vede ca n-ai prea fost prin delta. :-)
Plod isn't even known to the vast majority. Slavă is strictly a church word not used with the meaning of the English glory. The proper Romanian word would be glorie. Nădejde is used, next to speranță, which technically means the same, but it's of latin origin. The 2 words are used in different contexts though. When one is hopeless, he's lacking nădejde, but when one is hopeful, he's seeking speranță. Wonder why we use these like this. Sila is only used in one expression, that is not proper Slavonic use, probably because we misunderstood the word. We say that we have silă, when we have to do something, but we'd rather not. When we have silă, we definitely don't have force, but force is used on is to do something we don't want. Zori is barely used, but only to express a very early start of the morning. The proper word that everyone uses for dawn is răsărit. Ceas means wristwatch, and archaically it was used as hour as well, but it never means time. Ceas entered the language through religion and through Russian occupation forces who used to steal watches from people.
The initial populations were celts and thracians. Then migrations over migrations came but language were kept. Vlachs were shepards, that is why thy prefered the mountians. They called themselvesl Romans and not Vlachs. Vlachs was the name given to them by othe nations, that is why the name did not stick. Since it was not used or assumed by the people labeled vlachs.
In greece the common oral tradition is that the "Romans' shepherds" emerged successful during the migration period because their semi-nomadic lifestyle was well suited for the lawlessness and lack of atrong authority. They wintered their herds in the plains and spend summers in the mountains, and the land in romania is good for this. Turks would also do this Asia Minor. It had a pretty profound effect of driving out or assimilating the settled peoples.
Before launching his theory Jirecek should have visited the history and archeological museums in Athens and Istanbul, but obviously most discoveries were made later and there was the international frenzy to serve Greek nationalism against the Ottomans.
Also take into account that Western Romance languages do have Germanic influences, which lead to confusions. For instance, the word 'White' in Latin is 'Albus.' However, in Romance languages it is 'Blanco,' or 'Blanche,' most probably a lombard (East Germanic) influence. On the other hand, the Romanians still say 'Alb' for White, as the Romans of old did.
What FSI thinks that Romance languages speakers see a language: "Oh my god! Grammar cases, this is pretty advanced and impossible, this sould be cartegory III". What FSI thinks about Romance languages with 80 forms of verbal tenses, 60 forms of conjugation, 30 modals, flexival word order depending on the context: "Easy! This language have 1% of similarity with English, by the way, doesn't exist natives of other languages, so, those languages now are cartegory l".
One of the main mistakes that scientists make is to think that the Romance languages derive from Latin. In fact, the Romance languages are languages of different origin influenced in one way or another by Latin. This is also the reason why the Romanian language has a grammatical structure closer to Latin and lexical composition more distant from other Romance languages.With the Western European Romance languages, things are exactly the opposite. Due to their common origin from Celtic, their grammar is similar, but different from that of Latin.
Only 17/20% of dacia has been conquered by romans, and they paid tribute for that ,and only for 170 years . Romania did speak a Latin before the romans arrived. that's the reason why in rome you find statues of dacian warriors as tall as the statues of the romans. United Kingdom has been conquered by romans for 370 years and they don't have a latin language.
The theory about latin coming from romanian is rubish and I m romanian. There is evidence Dacians are a subgroup of Thracian people, which spoke indo-european. Now there is a posibility Dacians spoke some kind of indo-european language. Latin is an indo-european language as well as it is Greek so people say Dacian language was close somehow to Old Latin. There is no real evidence but many people take into consideation that Dacia region was never fully conquered, yet the whole region speaks a Romance language. So it is not far fetched to say Dacian which was an indo-european language mixed with Latin and created something else. I personally do think Dacian was similar with Old Latin and when romans came Dacian got assimilated into Classical Latin which in end created the Vulgar latin of Dacia which evolved in time in Romanian.
It is Sarmisegetuza and it is read like it is written like all romanian, like you would read latin, you read the letters there is no special rule, like in english the, for sh we have a special letter which is an s with a small acolade underneath :D
the letter Z is actually not classical Latin (but Greek) and is confusing some non-Romanian speakers (because Romance languages use it differently, like Italian pronouncing it like "ț")
As for the so called Slavic migration of 6 century, there is no single piece of evidence that these tribal unions spoke Slavic or had Slavic groups in them. All the names left suggest Germanic, Baltic, Iranian, Thracian populations. Their material cultures abound mostly on the territory of east and south Romania, with an extreme spread out in today's Czechia, south Poland and west Ukraine. They are clearly former Geto - Dacian tribes, Slavicized later in time.
@@dakedakinson64 Right but their names suggest a tribal union of different ethnic groups. Also archeology shows that the first waves or rather pockets of so called Slavs were fully assimilated by the local cultures. The Sclaveni language was only 'fixed' with the south slavs from the 9-10 century onward and rather from the north west Balkans to the east, specifically the Ohrida group and the implement of Cyrillic alphabet as official in the Bulgar tsarate.
06:07 slavic migration into balkans is not as masive as hystorian claim. genetic, southern slav is not same as northen slavs. Southern slavs are only cultural slavised. Slovenian and hungarian are slavs, but croatian, serbs, bulgarian are same as romanian and very diferent from slavs, but close related to anatolian.
A tunat si va adunat . Tot felul de pacalici au ajuns sa faca filmulete cu subiect "istoric" si sa le puna pe you tube . Daca filmuletul este de noaptea mintii , comentariile vin din putul gadirii . Nu vezi un comentariu apartinand unui istoric adevarat , in schimb citim parerile unora care se pare ca au auzit de istorie la fara frecventa . Te ia cu lehamite de atatia "istorici" .
Liguists consider aromanian, istro-romanian, megle-romanian, daco-romanian dialects of the romanian language with daco-romanian being the language spoken in Romania, Moldova and by the minorities in Ukraine, Bulgaria and Serbia . Now this is also of political importance, I also support studying in their mother tongue at least for aromanians, but you see, the only country protecting vlachs from the south of the Danube , albeit very poorly , is Romania , vlach has become a tool word for asimilationist policies in Serbia, Greece, I don't think in Albania and Macedonia the borderline aromanian erasure is quite that strong . I know that Romania offers scholarships for aromanians in romanian universities , I know we have oppened romanian schools in Albania and Macedonia for aromanian students and the teachers there also teach in aromanian. If you would be to suddenly declare aromanians a minority, even with the intention to protect their culture which is very cherished in Romania , it would mean to abandon them to the bastardisation that is the helenisation of aromanian culture and history, and the straight up erasure of romanians by the Serbian government who already doesn't recognise the entire romanian minority and just calls them vlachs. It would also mean to upset aromanian nationalists, which are aromanian people that consider themselves romanians and the "bravest romanians of them all " that have endured the worst discrimination in the Balkans for their romanian identity. It is true that aromanians sought refuge and and thought of the northern danubian lands as their salvation from pogroms . I also know aromanians in Romania mean well when they want to protect their language because their children don't see a use for speaking aromanian anymore , I wish we could do something for them and also for aromanians in Albania, Macedonia and Greece that I've talked to , that are so wholesome and so patriotic, they are monarchists and they always have been , they even know how to sing Trăiască Regele in aromanian, and these are people that have never been to Romania and have never been under King Michael . At the end of the day megle-, istro- and aromanian history is romanian history and they need a benevolent state to defend them and to be their voice in Europe . Just ask yourself this , for whom is eastern european latinity important other than for Romania? Aromanians don't have a state, God have mercy neither istro- and megle- romanians, why would macedonians want latin people there ? why would serbians want latin people there? why would greeks want any latin people there? when latinity is such an easy thing to take away you might just do , why not , look at this nice and round mono ethnical society that was achieved without blooshed, hopefully. Daco-romanian was possible because it managed to create some form of statehood around it. But God have mercy on us if the fate of balkan latinity is in the hands of our government. Just listen to this grandpa speaking aromanian ruclips.net/user/shortsH8Kxvv9r6rE?si=DCNPXWCChdgUUjz6 and can I get romanians to tell me how similiar it is to daco-romanian?! N.B I did not bother to write North Macedonia, I think in this context it wasn't worth it.
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) They were also Dacians. 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 Serpent with wolf 🐺 head on a pole, was the war flag of both Dacians and Sarmatians and it was inspired from 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. Many rivers in Europe have the name based on Dan derivative in the first place. Saxons is derived from (I)saac son. 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 peasant were Latinised. Therefore Latin was not the language that formed Romanian nor the other Romance languages. It is mostly likely 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 too. 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.
@aLadNamedNathan , mulțimesc. They rarely get a mention. Aromanian is more influenced by Greek, while Istro is a Croatian-Romanian creole, and M is doing its own thing
Romanians pronounce certan words exaclty the same as Bulgarian, especially the typical ă throaty sound identical to the Bulgarian ъ. Hungarian as well has a roughly 20% Slavic influence, but the pronounciation is different.
first, for english speakers: SARMEE-SE-JETOOSA 2nd, your theory is some 1800 logic with not so many arguments, but kept alive by some lazy people. the "romanisation" process was not so much about language, culture and gods and art, was about military organization. like in all other provinces (read some books, not written by romanians, but by history and military experts from england, france). 3rd, there were only 2 legions defending, one formed with celtic/germanic troops from modern days austria/ hungary or troops from modern days serbia (moesia back then, people closer to thracia rather than latium). their language coulnt be so much latin, isnt it? (+ a lot of auxiliary troops, like syrian archers) 4th, that so intense colonisation coulnt took place so easy so fast. there are only 170 years of roman occupation, much less than romans in greece, spain, france. more than that,... there was no peace and calm. there were uprising/riots every 10-15 years (the book Historia Augusta prove it). with modern day technology and translate, the poster of this video couldnt get the name of the dacian town right, but back in first century, a bounch of peasents and sheep herd keepers would learn a new language in couple of years? silly 5th. from year ~200, the large migration begun. lots of tribes conquered first the free dacians, than the roman provence. this migration ended up after mongol invasion (~1250). yet, the langauge is somehow evenly utilise by all areas of romanian today. of course, with many influence from powerfull neighbors (slavs, hungary, turkey), but largely closer to romanic rather them. perhaps that the peasents and herd keepers spoke that "latin" language before? i would like a clear, non-bias, strongly documented analysis on this ....
Why Romanian Isn't Like Other Languages - because it is the closest to Ladino Origin of Romanic languages in Ladino, not in Latin. Amasing. 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 🇮🇱 We found the connection with the language spoken by the tribe of Dan, the Dacian, back to Israel. Incredible. Ladino. 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) They were also Dacians. 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. 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.
Decebalus didnt surrender, he actually lost the battle with the romans and ran into the mountains where he took his own life (better dead than a slave of the romans)
You're right, I think I got his first defeat in 102 AD, where he surrendered and accepted terms, confused with his defeat in 106 AD, where he fled and eventually committed suicide. Thanks for pointing that out!
@@GoCarpathian,I think you should pin this comment for the sake of correction
he wouldn't have been a slave
barbarian kings were publicly executed during the roman triumph parade, he just avoided the humiliation
6:10= BECEBAL = STILL UNDERSTANDABLE IN MAGYAR - HUNGARIAN LANGUAGE -> BECAUSE THE DAHA -> DACO - DÁK PEOPLE WAS SCYTIANS MIXED WITH SARMATIANS RACE , THEY HAD AN EMPIRE BEFORE THE ROMANS = BECEBAL OR DECEBAL = BECSES BAAL OR DECSE-> DICSŐ BAAL ( BAAL = KAN -> BALCAN [ NOWDAYS : THE TERITORY OF BAAL KAN ] = THE DACIANS HAVE NEVER AND ANYTHING TO DO WITH ROMANS IN RACE THEORY , EXCEPT PICKTED UP THE ROMAN LANGUAGE SOME OF IT , IN THE BAD WAY, WITH THEY BAD TERITORIAL ACCENT ! OTHER PROOF = BULGARIAN ARE NOT SLAVIC RACE , BUT USING SLAVIC LANGUAGE . POLISH PEOPLE ARE , MAYBE ⅓ OF IT SARMATIANS , THAT'S WHY ARE BEST FRIENDS OF HUNGARIANS , WHO ARE SCYTIAN - SARMATIAN MIXED PEOPLE TOO , MOSTLY - MAINLY PANHUNS ( MED'S ) + JAZIGS , HUNS + AVARS + MAGYAR . FALSE INFO -> THE POLISH - HUNGARIANS BECOME VERY CLOSE FRIENDS , SINCE BOTH PICKED UP THE JUDEOCHRISTIANITY . WAS MUCH EARLIER THE STRONG BONDS . Etc...
He also says in the intro Berebista i kid you not.
I’m right here now in Bucharest and visited the country for 15 days. I’m so proud that I am here in this long time sister language romanian. I’m brazilian and speak portuguese. I learned a lot of romanian back home before arriving here.
We love Brasil and Latin America, out latin brothers and sisters 🇷🇴🇧🇷
@@madalinaanton3253 I’m in Moldova now. Ejoying it a lot too.
Portuguese and Romanian are very similar in the pronunciation.💪😏💪
@@steppenwolf1872 it hardly is similar. A lot closer to the italian pronunciation of words. I’m in Moldova now. i’m done with Romania already. Sadly. 😢
@@steppenwolf1872 Not really. Romanian's pronunciation is consistent, much like Spanish. Portuguese words tend to not sound as they're written, much like French, but that could be due to the influence of earlier Celtic influences on these two languages.
Greetings to Romanian 🇷🇴 brothers from Bulgaria 🇧🇬
Give us back what you guys took from us )
gib southern dobruja back or else (yt dont delete this or else)
@@Stephen_the_Great_and_Holy write in english, if u wanna understand
@@Штефан12you mad?
@@Штефан12 No , No, no teritorials claim between us! at all! bulgarians and romnanians are brotherts!
Im portuguese and i can say that romanian sounds latin to me..and beatiful. ❤
Its because you speak Occitan in Portugal and occitan its where the dacian visigoths settled. The visigoths were celts not germanics, just like the gauls, they had wings on their helmets, the grew vineyards as you can see on Athanaric treasure from my city, Buzau. They settled there because the languages were intelligible by the dacians. Celts.
@@mihaiilie8808 thats new for me..
Limba romåna nu este foarte diferitã de alte limbi romanice.
The same thing for Romanians - we really like Portuguese and there are similar sounds - sh/Ș...
@@mihaiilie8808 Occitan is spoken in France, not Portugal. The closest language to Occitan would be Catalan.
Nice video.
Olá pessoal, greetings from Portugal 🇵🇹
i’m a simple woman. i see a linguistics video, and i click on it
Nice 👍
Teo if this is you leave Sofia alone you utter disgrace (If you're not Teo then sorry lmao)
Same
A woman on the internet? Impossible
@@DarwinskiYT unheard of!
I love being Romanian 🇷🇴
Why to go on laying, that romanian is a latin language.The romanian language was artifically "fabricated" by "very international social scientists" from a slavic base into latin in the second half of the 19th century,even the use of former cyrilic letters was also changed to latin letters. The name of Romania has really been a great idea suggesting that they have a lot common with thj ancient Roma.(Why not Italy is named Romania?) Small part of Romania really was occipied for about 150 years by Rome compared to West Hungary under 400 years under roman rules.Nobody here pretends here to be of roman origin!!! Why?
@@imreboros9336 😂 cheers hungarian neighbour let's drink something when you're less frustrated and stop banging your head against the wall
@@imreboros9336s-a detectat un BOZGOR 😂😂😂
@@imreboros9336 "Nobody here pretends here to be of roman origin!"Rhetorical question. The largest part of the population that could have done this was relocated to make room for Hungarian yurts. The remaining ones founded the Castle Culture and then were Hungarianized. As far as artificiality is concerned, you cannot associate it with an Indo-European language, and manufacturing is the same, all languages undergo reforms over time, but it was even more difficult for the manufactured Romanian to reach the isolated villages on the mountain tops.
A fi ,,română" este un adjectiv... ,,română" sau ,,românească"... Dacă tu ai scris, înseamnă că ești o persoană care se poate desemna prin cuvântul ,,româncă" (substantiv).
Deci, înainte de a te mândri cu naționalitatea ta, învață decent să scrii în limba română!!! Altfel arăți exact contrariul a ceea ce intenționezi să transmiți prin scris.
Fascinating! I've always wondered how Romanian developed despite its location and being surrounded by many Slavic languages.
"The only romance language east of Italy"
*Cries in Aromanian, Megleno-romanian and Istro-romanian*
*Major romance language
the phillipine creoles: 💀
Istro romanian has literaly 0 speakers...megleno romanian probably a few thousands....the only notable language there is aromanian that has around 300k speakers as far as i know.
We consider those some kind of old variants of the romanian language, like if the language was frozen in time and we are looking at an older version.
Daco romanian is kind of the modern one.
@@Alexandru1996_ These languages are languages of their own, not just varieties of romanian
@@igorlopes7589 they are literaly dialects of romanian
This video claims that Hungarian's closest linguistic relatives are Finnish and Estonian. While all three languages are indeed related, Hungarian is a very distant relation to the other two. In fact, the family tree of Uralic at 7:00 shows that Hungarian's two closest relatives are Khanty and Mansi.
You are fully right. Hungarian is distantly related to the Finnic Branche of Uralic languages.
I think he just did this since Finish and Estonian are the only Uralic languages the average viewer will know, but he’s you are correct.
You can trace their origins around the areas of Khanty and Mansi linguistic areas. Why they migrated will forever be the greatest mystery.
@@bcchiriac45121) climate changes, 2) searches for greener pastures for the herds, 3) Onslaught of aggressive tribes from the East.
It was meant like closest in Europe.
i've started learning romanian this week. it has been great so far
What for?
@@GoCarpathian i love languages, that's it.
The similarly named Aromanian is a distinct, albeit related, language. Sure, it only has just over 200,000 speakers, but it does count as another!
What we speak in Romania today is more correctly named dacoromanian,aromanian istroromanian and others are part of the larger romania family languages,(similar from the italian family languages,and they are much more)
Those days a lot of the other languages are more known as romanian dialects,but they did develop independent from the current day romanian,so it should be considered their own language
Some would say Aromanian is just a dialect of Romanian and not a language. And they would be right, because a language is just a dialect with an army and Aromanian doesn't have an army.
Arguably. It is a speech only, in this moment. It has no technical , cultural literatura, except a handful of poems and some folklore songs.
Many people, scientists and simple persons, consider it as a dialect of the Romanian.
In this status, it cand be preserved by teaching it in primary schools and then study the Romanian literary language to get a full university degree, the way the Swiss German speaking persons do.
Otherwise, the Aromanian speech, with almost no schooling but some primary schooling will get extinct, already an endangered „language”.
The Swiss germanophones continue to speak their dialects enforced naturally by the tongue of closest kinship and not forced to borrow new words from French, for instance thus making their dialect viable.
This has not also turned the Swiss germanophones into Germans as many ARomanians consider themselves to be different from Romanians. Let them be, but refusing the literary Romanian language the closest of kinship as the language for full academic education, they sentenced this Aromanian dialect to disappearance, hich is next to happen. Maybe in Albania to be a small chance to survive.
@@nydydn yeah that's bullshit. There are hundreds of languages in the world who's speakers have no army. Aromanian is a distinct language that split from a common ancestor Balkan Latin dialect with Romanian. Also the arrogance of calling it a dialect of Romanian and not the other way around(neither is a dialect if the other in reality, just close sister languages), just because the much larger group has an academy and decided it is so.
@@nydydn e o limbă.
This was great! More videos on România, please! :)
I am Romanian and I have an Italian colleague. When we discuss about the languages, there are many common features between his language (Sardinia) and Romanian. I mean things that similar between Sardinian dialect (or whatever I can call it) and Romanian, bypassing the today's Italian language that has other forms.
For example the word „cat” : Pisică (Romanian), Gatto (Italian) and Pisittu (Sardinia). I find this very odd, to be honest.
In Italia deget _dito nas -naso Mina -mano Mașină -machina Stradă -strada Casa - casă Tractor -tractor etc etc Sint multe cuvinte cale Noastre cu puține diferențe 😊❤
In the old romanian language, the CAT was called "catuşa" (from the Latin "catta" + the suffix "usa"). It was also preserved in the southern romanian dialects (Aromanian) "Catușea" but also in certain toponyms (Ex. Lake Catușa near Galati and I saw it somewhere around Arges but I don't remember exactly). From the onomatopoeia "pis" and the suffix "ica", the word "Pisica" was formed, which was used more often so that the initial word "catușa" was replaced in current speech.
@@h.adrian8911 pisica e celtic si catusa e germanic si slav.
@@mihaiilie8808 Ai scos-o de la tine sau ai vreo sursa ascunsa? Daca vrei sa afirmi ceva, vino cu argumente etimologice (fonetice, legaturi semantice, concordante gramaticele, atestari). Am sa te dezamagesc. Limba romana nu are cuvinte mostenite direct din vreunul din dialectele celtice. Singurele cuvinte atestate cu origine indepartata celtica si preluate de limba latina si ulterior si in limba romana, sunt : cal/caballus, camasa/camisia si car/carrum. Mai sunt si alte cuvinte pe care unii autori au presupus ca au origine celtica dar nu sunt confirmate.
@@h.adrian8911 Esti nebun? Limbile celtice sunt latina vulgara din care se trage si latina.
Toti muntii si toate raurile Europei au nume celtice. Bucegi, Carpati, Dunare, etc.
Esti in urma tare pentru ca dacii sunt celti, vizigotii sunt cei mai celti dintre celti ( nu germanici).
I am a Spanish speaking Latina, and Romanian is such a beautiful language. Besides Portuguese and Italian, I honestly understand Romanian more than French 😅. French is hard. Thanks for this lovely video. It was very informative.
Very underrated video
I must say that the video is great.
I would only like to make a few mentions, as someone who speaks Romanian since the day he was born, about some of the words in the list from 08:05:
„plod“ means „little child".
„trebuie” means "must”. („necessary” is translated as „necesar“).
„slavă“ („glory“) is considered archaic and, for more than 100 years is slowly replaced in daily use with the word „glorie”
„nădejde” („hope”) is also an archaic word. In daily speech one would rather use the word „speranță” (pronounced sperantza).
“silă” means „nausea“, „loathing” or „🤢🤮“
„ceas” means „watch”. And in some particular situations can be used meaning „hour“ or „time”.( Ex. „Cât este ceasul? “ „What time (hour) is it?”
„lotcă” means indeed boat, and it is again an archaic, and also a regional word mainly used in Dobrogea ( pronounced similar to Dobrodjea with „J" as in „John"). Yet, the word that is most often used for „boat" is „barcă”
Otherwise, even if I may not agree with every detail in this video, I believe it is both entertaining and informative.
I actually like it!
"plod" este un regionalist?
@burner555 bănuiesc că întrebi dacă cuvântul este regionalism. Caz în care, ceea ce pot spune este că originea lui este populara și că are conotații ușor peiorative.
Dacă este sau nu regionalism, nu aș putea spune. Eu îl știu datorită faptului că l-am auzit în casă (deci nu l-am învățat dintr-un manual). Dar deși eu sunt născut și crescut în Ardeal, la fel ca și părinții mei, familia mea are rădăcini atât bucovinene cât și sudiste...
Înclin totuși să cred că este folosit mai degrabă în zona Moldovei... Dar aici recunosc că speculez.
Dacă însă întrebi altceva... Îmi pare rău, dar nu știu să îți răspund.
Multe mulțumesc, eu învat limbă română și me am ajuta multe.
Sono italiano ti ringrazio tanto 💪👍
I am romanian too and silă doesn’t only mean nausea, if you use in this context : l-a silit să-şi facă temele( He forced him do his homework) it means to make someone do something/ force someone(in one word it would be OBLIGATION). Although you are mostly right, my romanian friend, because the meaning I told now can be considered archaic( only grandpas use it now) I find it fair to tell foreigners that although the base meaning of silă is nausea, as you pointed out, another meaning, that is not usually used to be fair, is to force someone to do something( but not only force like the autor said on the list, if you want to use it with this meaning you’ve got to put it in context) . So I don’t disagree with you but I find the use of “force” a translation mistake as it’s correct translation ONLY IF YOU USE IT IN THIS CONTEXT: A fost silit de mama sa să-şi facă curat în cameră( meaning: He was forced by his mom to tidy up his room), would be “to force to” . In the end it is not important as it is an archaic word, being replaced by “ a fost forța să…” or “ a fost obligat să… in a sentence. Overall it was a good video and I am not trying to correct you, only to add something to your explanation “care mi-a sărit în ochi😉”.
Totally agree with you. And we can add that, if we want to bamboozle someone with some Romanian words, „silā "is a great word to use. Because aside from „silā" we also have the word „silitor". One might think that a man who is „silitor", is someone who does things in (with) „silā". But...NO. we are talking about someone who does things properly, who cuts no corners, someone who works as hard as he needs in order to have the work done. He is someone for whom the word „procrastination" wasn't invented. So yes... Our language is extremely simple...
personally, i find romanian very very unique in its way of using the vulgar latin article ille after the noun instead of before. The only ones doing this are the eastern romans. While in the west and south, they placed it before the noun, resulting in french le,la, les, spanish el,la,los,las, etc. While romanian merged those articles into the noun (e.g. barbat (a man) > barbatul (the man) instead of lu barbat or something). First time i learnt romanian i was pretty confused by those -l and -le endings.
edit : the first a in barbat has an accent marker but i cant write that on laptop.
They attach "the" to the end of words in Scandinavian words too: Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish. Maybe Romanian was influenced by Old Norse, but who knows?
@@bhutchin1996 i reckon it's a feature of the sprachbund? because bulgarian does it too and it's the only slavic language to do so. but your hypothesis maybe correct (i dunno), seeing that romania (or wallachia/dacia at that time) was close to ERE, and there were many varangians in the ERE at the time. who knows hahaha
In Portuguese this happen too.
@@p0py-nu1ly what did? If it's about the article then no. Portuguese definite articles came before the nouns (compare um homem and o homem), while romanian articles come after the noun (un bărbat, bărbatul).
@@matthewsiregar ID io T !
Great video and very documented. Very well done!!!
7:06 Wrong. Hungarian is actually related to Finnish and Estonian, but not that close, since they belong to completely different Uralic branches. It's like saying English's closest relative was Russian. The actual closest relatives of Hungarian are the two Ob Ugrian languages Khanty and Mansi in Siberia. Together they form the Ugric branch of the Uralic languages, whereas Finnish and Estonian are both belonging to the Finnic branch. In fact, there's more phonologic resemblence between Finnic and the branches of Samic, Mari and Permic than between Finnic and Ugric, that's why these four are often grouped together into Finno-Permic, whose unity as one branch is, hower, still debated. That also means that Ugric is the second most divergent branch of Uralic, second only to Samoyedic, which is much more divergent even than Ugric (it even restructured almost its entire numeral system, their word for ten for example evolved from the Proto-Uralic word for five). So Finnish and Estonian definitely aren't Hungarian's closest relatives
Hungarian is actually most related to the Khanty and Mansi languages from Siberia.
The absolute closest being Mansi :)
Also ridiculous to call sunken huts or pit houses, river stone ovens or poorly decorated ceramics as a clear signal of early Slavs. Even early Anglo Saxons used sunken huts in Britain. Dacian cultures used sunken huts since BC times, long before any Slavs were recorded in history. Given the spread of these material cultures most probably is about Carpi and Costoboc Dacians, originated at east and north of Carpathians in the past, obviously mixed in time with other ethnic groups.
Doamne ajuta tatâ. Sa fim sanatosi. 🇹🇩
Doamne came from the Latin vocative case “Domine”
Dumnezeu came from the Latin Dominus Deus
Domn/Doamna came from the Latin Dominus/Domina
Thank you for the video!
To make things clear, we have entire texts written in Romanian starting with 1521, Neacsu's letter to the mayor of Brasov, about an impending Ottoman invasion.
So, not just isolated words or sentences, entire texts and entire books, including the complete translation of the Bible into Romanian, which was finished in 1688.
This was long before the decision to model Romanian lands after the Western model (especially France) in the nineteenth century.
You can analyze the texts, I dare you to compare them with Slavic texts.
Usually, foreigners who aren't linguists will dump any Romanian word they don't recognize into the Slavic bucket, even when the word is of Dacian, Latin, Greek, Turkish or even German origin.
But it is true that we borrowed some words from French in the nineteenth century, even some from Italian, and in general the modern words for new concepts are based on Latin, and to a lesser extent on Ancient Greek.
Why would we have done otherwise, if our grammar was already Latin and most of the words of Latin origin?
Politics aside, why would we have formed the words for modern concepts based on Slavic or Germanic or Finno-Ugric lsnguages, or why borrow from those languages? You couldn't give a single objective linguistic argument for that.
Yes, you are correct. I have never studied Romanian in my life, but, I speak Italian as a second language ( not a native speaker second language) and by chance I found a copy somewhere of this document from 1521 and even I could understand the odd sentence and specific phrase. Therefore this begs the question, if Romanian is not a Latin language as some hystericaly claim, why would someone who has never studied Romanian and speaks Italian as a second language understand some sentences from this document from 1521
Let me put it clear. It is impossible that some of the Dacians didn't spoke latin, especially high hierarchic men and women. Simply because money doesn't have language barrier. They would trade a lot of goods, before and after the war. It is known that dacians "stamped" false roman gold coins, that could mean that at least some of them knew latin just to help them to trade goods south of Danube. After the Aurelian retreat, is true that a lot of people migrated south, but a lot of them remained in the mountains, isolated from the influence of slavic tribes. PLUS (i don't remember the year) on the time of Bulgarian empire, wallachians come back again from the south of the Danube to occupy deserted fields left behind from the mongols (if i am not wrong). So, the people from mountains, which spoke latin + the same people who spoke vulgar latin from the south, reoccupied Wallachia and something like this gave birth to romanian language.
There is NO "re-latinization"! First of all you can't "re-latinize" what is already latin. The proportion of latin to slavic words are same before and after the so-called "re-latinization".
Dream on. According to a study conducted by the Ca' Foscari University in Venice (Università Ca' Foscari di Venezia) and the Italian Ministry of Universities and Scientific Research (Ministero dell'Università e della Ricerca Scientifica),[1][2] the vocabulary of the modern Romanian language contains about 90% elements of the Latin language, while before the creation of the state of Romania in 1861 through the union of the two principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, the Latin vocabulary in the written language was only 20%, something common to all European languages, and the remaining 80% were words, loanwords or derived primarily from Bulgarian, less Modern Greek, Hungarian, Turkish or Albanian.
@@kalinxristov1654 This dude thinks 20 million people who didn't know how to read suddenly changed the language spoken there for 1800 years and suddenly learned a totally new language and alphabet :))) Some dudes are really funny :)))
@@RaduRadonys If they didn't know how to read then yeah, they could've easily learned a totally new alphabet, lmao. And Romanian was traditionally written in the cyrillic alhpabet which means it did change alphabets, but that doesn't matter since cyrillic is just an alphabet, nothing more. Also I don't think that Romanian's vocabulary was only 20% latin, that seems low but it definitely wasn't 90% and still isn't (it's 75% latin/romance, 15% slavic and 10% other/unknown)
Also you underestimate how much the upper class can change a language to their liking. It wouldn't happen now, but back then most people were, as you said, illiterate and could easily change their vocabulary to fit in with the others. FFS the latinization of Romania only happened in 100-150 years and most people stopped speaking dacian to adopt latin. So it could easily relatinize the language in 60-70 years (1865-1930s)
@@kalinxristov1654 Romanian always was a latin language. Very few Romanian words come from other languages. The majority have latin and Dacian origin. In the past we may have used Cyrillic alphabet for writing but we also used the traditional Romanian script which is latin but looks more like Byzantine Greek.
@@kalinxristov1654 Bulgarian propaganda...
I dont understand why Romanian always gets so much hate from the other Romance languages. We are very often called a fake Romance language which is sad because Romanian Is a Romance language. Sure it may have more foreign influences than the rest of the Romance languages but it still is a majority Romance language. Its still in Top 5 closest languages to latin. Some 12% slavic influences dont turn the whole language Slavic.
It doesn't have more foreign influence, it has more diverse influence, because of the fanariot period, because of old church slavonic, because the romanian states had a privileged position for the ottomans. For example portuguese is 44% removed from Latin , yet it is still a latin language while English isn't. Vocabulary doesn't make a language latin or not , even though it is easy for romanians to learn the latin vocabulary of the english language,you cannot speak english unless you learn english grammar and english sinthax and pronounciation.
I don't see where Romanian gets hate from other Romance regions. Actually the people have become quite curious and interested. A lot of Spanish, French and Italian tourists come to Romania more recently.
They don't have Merda/Merde/Mierda so they're not part of the club
@@FrancisTheBerd Yeah they need to get this word 😂 maybe "merdi" or something
Good video!
This was actually the best video i found summarizing how the Romanian language exist. Thank you so much. Love from California. I’m actually Romanian myself but immigrated into the states at a very young age with my family.
Aș vrea să știi că limba română provine dintr-o limbă indo-europeană, foarte veche, natural fonetică, încă din neolitic, foarte apropiată de limba română arhaică !
Multă sănătate !
Păi, aici e vina părinților că nu te-au învățat română! Românii, cred, sunt singurii care-și uită limba după ce au emigrat. Cu siguranță copiii lor o uită, și asta e cam unic.
@@ovidiumarinelsava7928 You’re absolutely right i should. I understood what you said, but unfortunately i can’t type back to you in Romanian. I can speak it, hardly read it, but typing it/writing it out is still extremely difficult for me. Thank you so much I wish you well.
@@rusucristian1847 We immigrated into the U.S. when i was only three years old. I grew up in a Romanian household i can speak the language, but unfortunately i’m still not yet fluent. I can read your responses i just can’t answer them back in Romanian lol. With that said; it’s my fault, not my parents.
Don't worry... it's nothing wrong with you !
But it's good to know something about this language !
Kind regards !
From... România !
I'm subscribed
Most of the re-latinisation came from the 19th C contact with Italy and, especially, 🇫🇷. "Testament" 📃 replaced "diată". "Stradă" 🚸 replaced "uliță". Some of the older Greek, Turkish or Slavic words are still used to bring some colour in literature or journalism.
PS: re-latinisation does not mean we didn't already have loads of Latin origin words, inherited from the Romans - lună 🌛, mare 🌊, nas👃🏻, verde 🟢, etc . It means we updated our language and replaced a ton of old words, most of them, non-latin.
By re-Latinization I figured he meant the alphabet
What's interesting is that "utita" has "Ita" a Latin diminutive suffix and ulita is a small narrow street on the back, somewhere, while "ulica" in slavic is the main road.
you forgot the coastline of croatia with dalmatian as a romance language (due to roman cities/colonies/municipae) and obviously albanian, that emerged from the same era but was probably "re-albanized" later which we can see on the 60% latin word pool. the ancient people of these countries, romania included were probably much closer together and depending on the era and empires border, it could have covered almost the whole balkans. probably one of the most interesting times to dig into historically in that region
I heard that the Albanians just hid in the mountains until the collapse of Rome
That's true, Dalmatian and a couple other eastern Romance languages survived the the Slavic migrations but have since gone extinct. It's likely that the other Romance languages in the Balkans (besides Daco-Romanian) will suffer the same fate in time.
@@GoCarpathian that's kinda sad
Yes, it is. There are hundreds of languages with only a few thousand speakers or less throughout the world and a lot of them are on their way to extinction. It's very unfortunate.
@@GoCarpathian Dalmatian didn't come from Eastern Romance branch of romance languages, but from the italo-dalmatian branch.
Thank you.
invatati-va copiii sa iubeasca romania❤
Before the Heraclids changed the official language to Greek in 612 AD in Constantinople you would hear mostly Latin and VL. This was a brand new fully built Roman city, officially named for 3 centuries as "New Rome". Before 610 AD most Roman emperors in Constantinople were Roman Thracians and Illyrians from the Balkans and their mother tongue was Latin and VL.
"The Romans would usually invade and annex new regions on the periphery of existing Roman lands under the pretext of protecting the already existing borders from attack."
That sounds all too familiar nowadays...
The USA says it needs to attack, invade, bomb countries on the other side of the world because "we either fight them there or fight them in the USA". It's more ridiculous than even Roman logic
the real reason was the Dacian gold in the Carpathian mountains. With the booty from there they could balance the state deficit for some years, just like they had done several times before by plundering Gallia under Caesar, sacking Egypt completely under Octavian/Augustus and looting Judea unter Vespasian/Titus.
This is a great video. No need to mention the outlandish theories though. People who believe in the absurd idea that Latin came from Dacian are an embarrassment to us, Romanians. They are a vocal minority on the internet that shouldn't be given any publicity or credibility. They aren't representative of what Romanians believe.
Romanians are thracian ( the oldest celts).
These celts spoke vulgar latin and the romans are celts because etruscans are celts and even the trojans( founders of Rome from Turkey).
So the ancestors of the romans spoke latin and they got it from Romania.
Celts speak vulgar latin and it all started in Romania.
All indo-european languages originated in the Ukraine area ( that eventually became Latin , Celtic , Dacian etc. ) . Proto-Latin / or a population came via a migration from Nord-of-Carpathians meeting the Alps ( around Slovakia ) to enter into Italy. There is a possibility that Latin preserved some relationship to the other indo-euroean Languages and was similar to Dacian Language at least in some words. All indo-european languages have similar root worlds for some important concepts. The Theory exist and is plausible but very hard to verify as we no longer have the Dacian and Thracians languages to study.
@@CapriciousStoic2 Celtic is not indoeuropean at first. Later they got mixed with the indoeuropeans but the first celts are not. This is based on paleogenetic tests.
And these celts dont come from Ukraine, but between Romania and Bulgaria and they literally got out from under the Black Sea when it was flooded 12 000 years ago.
Lake Agassiz in Canada melted, ocean rised so as the Mediteranean and it flooded the Black Sea.
The oldest european civilisations are right on the Black Sea shore, between Romania and Bulgaria.
Bulgaria also has the oldest city in Europe, Plovdiv and Sofia is also very old.
These are the thracians and the celts that built Gobekli Tepe, Plovdiv and Stonehenge.
@@mihaiilie8808 lmao. What do Trojans have to do with Thracians? and moreover what do they have to do with Romans? You make no sense.
@@CapriciousStoic2 Latin being similar to Dacian because of the Proto-Indo European common ancestor is not a meaningful statement. By the same argument, you can say that English is similar to Hindi, because both languages originate from Proto-Indo European. But how similar is English to Hindi if we're being honest?
It is already a known fact that Romanian Da (yes) derives from Latin Ita (thuss,so) and is one of many examples when "t" is interchangeable with "d" in many languages
Best example is Italian "da vero"( truly so) from Latin Ita vero
Otto(8) becomes Oddo in Italian
Tati/ Daddy
Tu in Latin/ Du in German
Takk in Scandinavian/ Danke in German
Visigoths becomes Vizigodos in Spanish and Portuguese
Da is used instead of "the" in Chicago ( Da Bears/ Chicago Bears)
Da boiz/ rap slang
Ida is pronounced instead of Da in Bihor region of Romania, as they are known as slower talkers
Bulgars adopted Da from Romanian and their priests introduced it to Russians via Ortodoxism
Notice that Belarusians are Russians and don't say Da but the real Slavic word for Yes "tak" short from Tako/ so, like Polish and Ucrainians.
Other examples when slavs borrowed
Kashubians say Jo
Sloveniens say Ja
Both from German Ja
"Tha" is yes in Scottish Gaelic.
Google Ita vs Sic in Latin ( ita is a counterpart with "sic")
Or
A Latin Yes for Romanian word Da, by Keith Massey You Tube.
never heard of this "fact" and I also doubt it. Romanians shouldn't deny the Slavic part of their identity, it is nothing to be ashamed of. Just as Italian and French have a lot of Germanic words, Romanian has a lot of Slavic ones. So what?
@@ekesandras1481
How do slavs explain "ata" ending from "Lopata"( shovel)?
"ata" is a romance suffix and gives a definition of the noun like "plata"(flat), thinned ( Subtiata), thickened ( Ingrosata)
In Romanian there are other "ata" ending tools or ustensils
Galeata/ pail, bucket
Covata/ wooden bowl for laundry
Sageata/ arrow
Roata/ wheel
Prelata/tarp
Poiata/ chicken shack
Cravata'/ tie suit
@@nestingherit7012 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhold_Lopatka
Da derives from slavic. It is very probable but i cant prove it.
@@ekesandras1481 🚮
"The only Romance langyage in Eastern Europe"
Istriot, Istroromanian, Aromanian, and Meglenoromanian:
"Father, why have you forsaken us?"
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)
They were also Dacians.
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.
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 take your pills
great video
The title is about the language, the video is about geography and history wow I wasnt eclecting that
Reporter: Where is Ukraine?
American: [points Australia] Over here 🗿
And the face he make too 😂😂😂😂
The confidence in showing Ukraine on the map that guy ..., priceless 🤣
Aaahh...the American! 😂😂😂
* New Russia
@@Cjnw Never trust them in terms of geography.
The extinct Dalmatian language was the link between Italic languages and Daco Romanian, but it was broken.
From 200 Dalmatian words, 100 are very similar to Romanian and some 20 with Albanian.
6:35 while this picture is depicting a migration of Slavs yes (serbs to be specific),it's not the one from the 16th century. It's depicting the great migration of Serbs to the Panonian basin,as an escape from Ottoman influence
It is so nice that you painting orange and red the carpathian mountains without any hesitation 😀
7:10 "Why Dacia didnt become slavicized?" That is the question. There are 2 related distinct phenomena that are worth be mentioned.
1) The Bulgars. On a previous map with slavic migration you included Bulgars there. To my knowledge (i'm not a linguistic) Bulgar ethic were in fact "turkic" (whatever that mean, anyway not related to seljuk turkish/ ottomans/ modern day turkic peoples. Is a rich branch on "turkic") and Bulgarian Empire (!) managed for some time to dominate de area of Balkan Peninsula. The very interesting fact is that from an ethnic turkic origin, they left only with the name and started instead to speack a slavic language, called...bulgarian. So turkish Bulgar language become slavicised. And amazingly the bulgars where those who spread the cyrillic alphabet to the slavic world, to russians even, throw religious emissaries, being the first people christianized.
2) The Greeks. For a while the greek language, yes that ancient classical greek language, were losing the "fight", the area dominance against the svalonic language on their own lands even. Keep in mind that Byzantine Empire were in fact greco-roman with roman-latin roots, but heavely dominated by greek culture and personalities especially on mid-later period. Greek language resisted to latin but not to slavic. If you dig enough you will conclude that greek language were spoked mostly on islands, south Italy and Anatolia but not home, in an unfortunate period of Greece's long history. A Greek "reconquista" followed soon after.
That demonstrate how agressive slavic language was spreading. And that aggressiveness in itself makes the resistance of the Vlach/ later Romanian language all the more commendable, adding to that the fact that there are no historical mentions about the vlachs for 1k years. Sorry for long comment, i did not intend to offend anyone, vote for Orban.
Fascinating
7:05 "[the Hungarian language's] closest linguistic relatives are Finnish and Estonian" That can be true only we consider just Europe, disregarding other Uralic languages...
As far as I remember, the closest relative of Hungarian is Khansi (I'm not sure f I'm retranslating the name correctly)
Hungarian is Ugric, how it ended there is still mystery.
even within (geographic) Europe there are many more (small) Finno-Ugric languages closer to Hungarian: Mari, Komi, Mordvin, Udmurt, etc...
But those are all minority languages withing the Russian Federation that are mostly unkown by the general public.
This is such a great video. I love how you combine larger (the broad strokes of the history of rome) and smaller (Dacia and its languages) perspectives to give an overview of the question of why there is a romance language spoken in eastern europe. Liked and subscribed.
Thanks so much, glad you liked the video!
8:04 as a romanian i can say alot of these words arent used much
Plod - Fruct (i have never heard this word)
Slavă - Glorie (same with this so im translating the english part)
Silă (it is used but not as force, more like Mi-e silă să fac asta, I dont want to/feel like do/doing this. Thats the closest translation i could think about)
Lotcă-Barcă (based this off english translation, lotcă is another word i have never heard)
Ceas is mostly used when asking about time (Cât e ceasul?) It is sometimes used to replace hour (oră) Mergem într-un ceas (this is not commonly used). Ceas is also the word for clock
A better translation, in my opinion, would be timp. Timp is mostly used in the present: E timpul să plecăm. Its time to leave.
Trup has mostly been replaced by corp but its still sometimes used and you can see it in poetry
Nădejde i couldnt really translate but not used much from my experience
@@alex857tgg I prefer speranta.
they are more common in some villages than in towns but even then it sounds like churchly speech which kept a lot of the slavonic terminology
Cum adica n-ai auzit de cuvintele "plod" si "lotca"? Plod e folosit destul de des in media - ce-i drept, la plural:"plozii", si de multe ori cu o conotatie negativa. "Plozii politicienilor", "politicienii si plozii lor" - se refera la copiii politicienilor, desi cei care il folosesc vor sa induca indeea de "lepra/lichea", plod inseamna copil. Lotca, desi e regionalism din zona Dobrogei, e cat de cat cunoscut si-n alte regiuni ale tarii. Se vede ca n-ai prea fost prin delta. :-)
@@bbronxx da nu am fost prin delta, trebuia sa pun ca probabil e regionalism.
Hey ❤❤ I am your 12th subscriber❤❤
Normie!!!
Happy to be Romanian🇷🇴🇪🇺
Well-made video (very funny aswell)
Plod isn't even known to the vast majority.
Slavă is strictly a church word not used with the meaning of the English glory. The proper Romanian word would be glorie.
Nădejde is used, next to speranță, which technically means the same, but it's of latin origin. The 2 words are used in different contexts though. When one is hopeless, he's lacking nădejde, but when one is hopeful, he's seeking speranță. Wonder why we use these like this.
Sila is only used in one expression, that is not proper Slavonic use, probably because we misunderstood the word. We say that we have silă, when we have to do something, but we'd rather not. When we have silă, we definitely don't have force, but force is used on is to do something we don't want.
Zori is barely used, but only to express a very early start of the morning. The proper word that everyone uses for dawn is răsărit.
Ceas means wristwatch, and archaically it was used as hour as well, but it never means time. Ceas entered the language through religion and through Russian occupation forces who used to steal watches from people.
Nobody uses "plod" unless they want to insult your children lmfao.
These words are now archaic because of relatinisation, but they were used more frequently before
I use the word slavă and other arhaic words on a daily basis.
@@AleodorImparat yeah, but for you it makes sense, since you're a fictional character from an old fairy tale. I was more referring to real people.
@@nydydn 😁 You have a point.
In Sicilian ; unni
Romanian; unde
In English; where
Romanian is unde.
Rural north Romania is pronounced undi or uni.
Latin; unde
Romanian; unde
Portuguese; onde
Spanish; donde (de unde --> de onde)
In the eastern half of Romania and in the R.Moldova they say "undi"
Romanian and Sicilian ❤
9:54 That is not the flag of Moldova, it's just the romanian flag with its coat of arms on it
The initial populations were celts and thracians. Then migrations over migrations came but language were kept. Vlachs were shepards, that is why thy prefered the mountians. They called themselvesl Romans and not Vlachs. Vlachs was the name given to them by othe nations, that is why the name did not stick. Since it was not used or assumed by the people labeled vlachs.
The number of native Romanian speakers is actually over 26 Million.
Fantastic video, as perfect as it gets from start to end.
Glad you enjoyed it!
how this video has only 200 views ? i think it was 200k lol
In greece the common oral tradition is that the "Romans' shepherds" emerged successful during the migration period because their semi-nomadic lifestyle was well suited for the lawlessness and lack of atrong authority. They wintered their herds in the plains and spend summers in the mountains, and the land in romania is good for this. Turks would also do this Asia Minor. It had a pretty profound effect of driving out or assimilating the settled peoples.
Before launching his theory Jirecek should have visited the history and archeological museums in Athens and Istanbul, but obviously most discoveries were made later and there was the international frenzy to serve Greek nationalism against the Ottomans.
To be more strict there are other smaller sister languages to Romanian spoken in Eastern Europe, including Aromanian in Greece.
Can Americans put more than 0 effort into pronouncing words from other languages? Why do they think its normal to guess
Womp womp
Ask a brit to say taco
Dacia > "Deshia"
Dacia is the correct pronunciation in English
Greek was the administrative language of the Byzantines . Even the ottoman adapted Greek for administration
Also take into account that Western Romance languages do have Germanic influences, which lead to confusions.
For instance, the word 'White' in Latin is 'Albus.' However, in Romance languages it is 'Blanco,' or 'Blanche,' most probably a lombard (East Germanic) influence. On the other hand, the Romanians still say 'Alb' for White, as the Romans of old did.
Avem și cuvintele "bălan" (alb), "bălai"( păr blond, deschis la culoare).
What FSI thinks that Romance languages speakers see a language:
"Oh my god! Grammar cases, this is pretty advanced and impossible, this sould be cartegory III".
What FSI thinks about Romance languages with 80 forms of verbal tenses, 60 forms of conjugation, 30 modals, flexival word order depending on the context:
"Easy! This language have 1% of similarity with English, by the way, doesn't exist natives of other languages, so, those languages now are cartegory l".
Interesting point of view, but wrong.
I wonder whos family name that letter in Romanian Cyrillic comes from ?
One of the main mistakes that scientists make is to think that the Romance languages derive from Latin. In fact, the Romance languages are languages of different origin influenced in one way or another by Latin. This is also the reason why the Romanian language has a grammatical structure closer to Latin and lexical composition more distant from other Romance languages.With the Western European Romance languages, things are exactly the opposite. Due to their common origin from Celtic, their grammar is similar, but different from that of Latin.
Wrong. Romance languages are derived from Latin and then diverged
In fact? Evidence? And scientists don't study languages, that would be linguists.
we have the most easy language on the earth. gretings from romania
The most beautiful language ever...
Russian is.
@@m.dewylde5287 Russian is a beautiful language too but as the poem says: “Mult e dulce și frumoasă limba ce o vorbim,
@@m.dewylde5287 Russian is as beautiful as a pigs behind.
@@m.dewylde5287 Russian is as beautiful as Arabic.
@@m.dewylde5287 ruzzian is as beautiful as its countryside. It's 💩
Do a video on the Luo linguist group withim East afrika, Uganda Ethiopia,South Sudan and Kenya Tanzania is their homelands
Only 17/20% of dacia has been conquered by romans, and they paid tribute for that ,and only for 170 years . Romania did speak a Latin before the romans arrived. that's the reason why in rome you find statues of dacian warriors as tall as the statues of the romans.
United Kingdom has been conquered by romans for 370 years and they don't have a latin language.
Dacians didn’t spoke a Latin language, closest living language to Dacian is Albanian and the Romans conquered almost half of Dacia.
The theory about latin coming from romanian is rubish and I m romanian. There is evidence Dacians are a subgroup of Thracian people, which spoke indo-european. Now there is a posibility Dacians spoke some kind of indo-european language. Latin is an indo-european language as well as it is Greek so people say Dacian language was close somehow to Old Latin. There is no real evidence but many people take into consideation that Dacia region was never fully conquered, yet the whole region speaks a Romance language. So it is not far fetched to say Dacian which was an indo-european language mixed with Latin and created something else. I personally do think Dacian was similar with Old Latin and when romans came Dacian got assimilated into Classical Latin which in end created the Vulgar latin of Dacia which evolved in time in Romanian.
It is Sarmisegetuza and it is read like it is written like all romanian, like you would read latin, you read the letters there is no special rule, like in english the, for sh we have a special letter which is an s with a small acolade underneath :D
the letter Z is actually not classical Latin (but Greek) and is confusing some non-Romanian speakers (because Romance languages use it differently, like Italian pronouncing it like "ț")
2:22
SAR-mee-ze-ge-TOO-sa
8:07 I am romanian and I never heard about plod.... I heard just fruct, which means fruit.
There are various other Romance languages east of Italy, by the way. They’re just not national languages.
First picture is from my neighborhood.
Hungarian is closest to Khanty and Mansi linguistically
He took over a lot from Turkish languages as well because of the neighborhood and from Ossetie like the Russians.
As for the so called Slavic migration of 6 century, there is no single piece of evidence that these tribal unions spoke Slavic or had Slavic groups in them. All the names left suggest Germanic, Baltic, Iranian, Thracian populations. Their material cultures abound mostly on the territory of east and south Romania, with an extreme spread out in today's Czechia, south Poland and west Ukraine. They are clearly former Geto - Dacian tribes, Slavicized later in time.
Romans called them Sclaveni.
@@dakedakinson64 Right but their names suggest a tribal union of different ethnic groups. Also archeology shows that the first waves or rather pockets of so called Slavs were fully assimilated by the local cultures. The Sclaveni language was only 'fixed' with the south slavs from the 9-10 century onward and rather from the north west Balkans to the east, specifically the Ohrida group and the implement of Cyrillic alphabet as official in the Bulgar tsarate.
There also was the dalmatian language.
06:07 slavic migration into balkans is not as masive as hystorian claim. genetic, southern slav is not same as northen slavs.
Southern slavs are only cultural slavised.
Slovenian and hungarian are slavs, but croatian, serbs, bulgarian are same as romanian and very diferent from slavs, but close related to anatolian.
we actually name it SarmisegetuZa ... don't know why. Guess the word got some regional / modern influences.
A tunat si va adunat . Tot felul de pacalici au ajuns sa faca filmulete cu subiect "istoric" si sa le puna pe you tube . Daca filmuletul este de noaptea mintii , comentariile vin din putul gadirii . Nu vezi un comentariu apartinand unui istoric adevarat , in schimb citim parerile unora care se pare ca au auzit de istorie la fara frecventa . Te ia cu lehamite de atatia "istorici" .
Spune-ne ce este gresit in video, Dorule. Nu ne fa sa ghicim, daca si stii.
Liguists consider aromanian, istro-romanian, megle-romanian, daco-romanian dialects of the romanian language with daco-romanian being the language spoken in Romania, Moldova and by the minorities in Ukraine, Bulgaria and Serbia . Now this is also of political importance, I also support studying in their mother tongue at least for aromanians, but you see, the only country protecting vlachs from the south of the Danube , albeit very poorly , is Romania , vlach has become a tool word for asimilationist policies in Serbia, Greece, I don't think in Albania and Macedonia the borderline aromanian erasure is quite that strong . I know that Romania offers scholarships for aromanians in romanian universities , I know we have oppened romanian schools in Albania and Macedonia for aromanian students and the teachers there also teach in aromanian. If you would be to suddenly declare aromanians a minority, even with the intention to protect their culture which is very cherished in Romania , it would mean to abandon them to the bastardisation that is the helenisation of aromanian culture and history, and the straight up erasure of romanians by the Serbian government who already doesn't recognise the entire romanian minority and just calls them vlachs. It would also mean to upset aromanian nationalists, which are aromanian people that consider themselves romanians and the "bravest romanians of them all " that have endured the worst discrimination in the Balkans for their romanian identity. It is true that aromanians sought refuge and and thought of the northern danubian lands as their salvation from pogroms . I also know aromanians in Romania mean well when they want to protect their language because their children don't see a use for speaking aromanian anymore , I wish we could do something for them and also for aromanians in Albania, Macedonia and Greece that I've talked to , that are so wholesome and so patriotic, they are monarchists and they always have been , they even know how to sing Trăiască Regele in aromanian, and these are people that have never been to Romania and have never been under King Michael . At the end of the day megle-, istro- and aromanian history is romanian history and they need a benevolent state to defend them and to be their voice in Europe . Just ask yourself this , for whom is eastern european latinity important other than for Romania? Aromanians don't have a state, God have mercy neither istro- and megle- romanians, why would macedonians want latin people there ? why would serbians want latin people there? why would greeks want any latin people there? when latinity is such an easy thing to take away you might just do , why not , look at this nice and round mono ethnical society that was achieved without blooshed, hopefully. Daco-romanian was possible because it managed to create some form of statehood around it. But God have mercy on us if the fate of balkan latinity is in the hands of our government. Just listen to this grandpa speaking aromanian ruclips.net/user/shortsH8Kxvv9r6rE?si=DCNPXWCChdgUUjz6 and can I get romanians to tell me how similiar it is to daco-romanian?!
N.B I did not bother to write North Macedonia, I think in this context it wasn't worth it.
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)
They were also Dacians.
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 Serpent with wolf 🐺 head on a pole, was the war flag of both Dacians and Sarmatians and it was inspired from 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.
Many rivers in Europe have the name based on Dan derivative in the first place.
Saxons is derived from (I)saac son. 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 peasant were Latinised.
Therefore Latin was not the language that formed Romanian nor the other Romance languages. It is mostly likely 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 too.
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.
9:54 We must be one country...
Slavic substrates and centuries of separation from western romance languages will do that.
Slavic substrate? You mean adstrate or maybe superstrate.
romanian does not have a slavic substrate
*slavic influence
The western romance languages have a gothic/germanic substrate that separate them from Latin.
@@UlpianHeritor And celtic substrate.
The extinct Dalmatian language was the link between Italic languages and Daco/Romanian.
Only? You missed the other three
You obviously didn't watch the video. Go to 7:43.
@aLadNamedNathan , mulțimesc. They rarely get a mention. Aromanian is more influenced by Greek, while Istro is a Croatian-Romanian creole, and M is doing its own thing
like
Romanian isn’t the only Romance language in Eastern Europe. There’s also Aromanian
Romanians pronounce certan words exaclty the same as Bulgarian, especially the typical ă throaty sound identical to the Bulgarian ъ. Hungarian as well has a roughly 20% Slavic influence, but the pronounciation is different.
Ă vine din tracă, de aceea.
The sound you're looking for is /ə/ and it's not throaty.
first, for english speakers: SARMEE-SE-JETOOSA
2nd, your theory is some 1800 logic with not so many arguments, but kept alive by some lazy people. the "romanisation" process was not so much about language, culture and gods and art, was about military organization. like in all other provinces (read some books, not written by romanians, but by history and military experts from england, france).
3rd, there were only 2 legions defending, one formed with celtic/germanic troops from modern days austria/ hungary or troops from modern days serbia (moesia back then, people closer to thracia rather than latium). their language coulnt be so much latin, isnt it? (+ a lot of auxiliary troops, like syrian archers)
4th, that so intense colonisation coulnt took place so easy so fast. there are only 170 years of roman occupation, much less than romans in greece, spain, france. more than that,... there was no peace and calm. there were uprising/riots every 10-15 years (the book Historia Augusta prove it). with modern day technology and translate, the poster of this video couldnt get the name of the dacian town right, but back in first century, a bounch of peasents and sheep herd keepers would learn a new language in couple of years? silly
5th. from year ~200, the large migration begun. lots of tribes conquered first the free dacians, than the roman provence. this migration ended up after mongol invasion (~1250).
yet, the langauge is somehow evenly utilise by all areas of romanian today. of course, with many influence from powerfull neighbors (slavs, hungary, turkey), but largely closer to romanic rather them. perhaps that the peasents and herd keepers spoke that "latin" language before?
i would like a clear, non-bias, strongly documented analysis on this ....
Why Romanian Isn't Like Other Languages - because it is the closest to Ladino
Origin of Romanic languages in Ladino, not in Latin. Amasing.
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 🇮🇱
We found the connection with the language spoken by the tribe of Dan, the Dacian, back to Israel.
Incredible.
Ladino.
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)
They were also Dacians.
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.
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.
You sound crazy rn
Supine is Romanian and latin only merge is latin and Romanian only
Is Burebista not Berebista! You must be from USA
noi Români vorbim latină an rest nu contează
As someone who has never studied Romanian but speaks Italian I can say from real life experience you are completely correct