Print Page | Close Window

Development of Romance languages...

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Linguistics
Forum Description: Discuss linguistics: the study of languages
Moderators: gcle2003, King John
URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=6633
Printed Date: 17-Sep-2019 at 05:46
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Development of Romance languages...
Posted By: Pelayo
Subject: Development of Romance languages...
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2005 at 16:33

for you linguist experts.

 

French to me has a unique sound (native spanish(1)  & english(2) speaker) and I find it interesting how that local patois or provencal latin developed into the parisian language we hear today.

 

Was it the celtic influence, the frankish input, the time period of conquest that developed that peculiar and not unpleasant sound?




Replies:
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2005 at 13:52

 The history of the French language is very complicated, first it's not the Parisian French we speak but the Tourrangeau one, that was spoken in Tours.

This is why today the purest French is considered to be from Tours.

First, you have to know Gaul was not homogenous at all back to the pre-roman era.

The main group were the Gauls, Brennus, Vercingetorix and so on. They spoke a celtic language which was a Gallic language, the Gaulish one.

http://http://www.orbilat.com/Encyclopaedia/G/Gaulish_language.html - http://http://www.orbilat.com/Encyclopaedia/G/Gaulish_langua ge.html

This page show an overview of it, as you can see it was fairly close to Latin already with some differences though. Aside of the Gauls the southwest bank of the Garonne River spoke Aquitanian, a now extinct Basque related language.

The Roman colonies like Narbonne spoke Latin and the Greek colonies like Marseille spoke Greek.

Under the Roman Empire, the Greek colonies switched to vulgar latin while the gauls would adopt it fairly easily too due to the similarities, the Aquitanians would retain their non indo-european language for a longer time.

In the 5th century, the Aquitanians started to devellop their own Romance language called Gascon. But it came from the Aquitanians to the latin so it has a very distinct spelling and pronounciation. The southern languages, Languedocian, Provencal and Catalan develloped from one side, Corsican also develloped as an Italo-Romance group.

In the north, the Germanics left a bigger influence on the spelling.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/o/oa/oath_of_strasbourg.htm - http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/o/oa/oath_of_s trasbourg.htm

The Oath of Strasbourg between Charles the Bald and Louis the German is remembered as the first text in old French, and the first text in a distinct romance language to Latin. It's writen in both Old French and Old German.

Quote

Old French: Pro Deo amur et pro christian poblo et nostro commun salvament, d'ist di en avant, in quant Deus savir et podir me dunat, si salvarai eo cist meon fradre Karlo, et in aiudha et in cadhuna cosa, si cum om per dreit son fradra salvar dift, in o quid il mi altresi fazet, et ab Ludher nul plaid numquam prindrai qui meon vol cist meon fradre Karle in damno sit.


Old High German: in godes minna ind in thes christanes folches ind unser bedhero gehaltnissi fon thesemo dage frammordes so fram so mir got geuuizci indi mahd furgibit so haldih thesan minan bruodher soso man mit rehtu sinan bruodher scal in thiu thaz er mig so sama duo indi mit ludheren in nohheiniu thing ne gegango the minan uillon imo ce scadhen uuerdhen

 Old French: Si Lodhuvigs sagrament que son fradre Karlo jurat conservat, et Karlus meos sendra de suo part non lostanit, si jo returnar non l'int pois, ne jo ne neuls cui eo returnar int pois, in nulla aiudha contra Lodhuuvig nun li iv er.

Old High German: oba karl then eid then er sinemo bruodher ludhuuuige gesuor geleistit indi ludhuuuig min herro then er imo gesuor forbrihchit ob ih inan es iruuenden ne mag noh ih noh thero nohhein then ih es iruuenden mag uuidhar karle imo ce follusti ne uuirdhit.

The Breton would settle in Brittany, comming from the British Isles and Germanic would settle in large amount in Flanders (Nord Pas de Calais), Lorraire (Metz and Nancy) and Alsace, there the Germanic languages would prevail as the Flemish, Frankish and Alsatian languages.

Then, in the middle ages, we could put this distinction:

 

http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/monde/langues_celtiques.htm - http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/monde/langues_celtiques.htm

There you have a good desciption of the Celtic languages. Apart the Gaulish about little is known.

The big French group could be descripted as heterogenous, people in Paris had a strong accent, while people from the Loire Valley had a "flatter" one. East of the Loire Valley, Gallo develloped as a mix of French and Breton.

Poitevin and Saintongais had some features of the Occitan Group, Champenois and Picard had some minor differences too. Norman had a slightly different spelling and some Norse vocabulary, especially about maritime term... All this big French group was mutually intelligible without problems most likely.

Franco-Provencal is a subgroup having features of both French and Occitan, it was spoken in Savoy, French speaking Switzerland and Aoste in Italy.

The Occitan group was characterised by the word used for "yes" that was "oc", in contrario of the "oil" used in northern France.

This is a rather extensive map, I develloped Gascon, most of those languages develloped more or less the same way from vulgar latin apart Gascon.

 

The Basque is a direct descendant of the Aquitanian language. It's not indo-european.

Corsica had an Italo-Romance language, sounding like the one spoken in Sardaigna.

Catalan is fairly close to Occitan and develloped nearly the same way until the rise of Catalan sensibility proclaimed it apart of Occitan.

Frankish, Flemish and Alsatian are Germanic languages with a different history.

Finally, Franis I King of France, made French of Tours the language for administrations and parliaments.

Richelieu founded the Academie Nationale to regulate it.

Finally, it was decided everyone should speak it and adopt it.



-------------
Vae victis!


Posted By: Jhangora
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2005 at 14:21

I'm not a linguist Pelayo n I may be drifting from the topic.I read in a novel about a village on the French-German border.They spoke a language which was a mix of French n German.

What does that language/dialect sound like.French is one of the sweetest tongues in the worl d while German is one of the hardest on ears.



-------------
Jai Badri Vishal


Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 24-Jan-2007 at 15:41
Wait a tick, Jhangora. That's really biased... oh wait, you got suspended. Figures.
 
If you look at the general pattern of Romance langauge areas... they are generally from Southern Europe. Could the Romans have been responsible for developement of Romance language, or no...?


-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 24-Jan-2007 at 17:01

Uhhhh, pekau, why do you think they call them Romance languages? The various dialects that coalesced into the modern languages of French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Catalan, Galician and Romanche are all derived from Latin: the differences are explained by the various external differences and lingustic drift.



-------------
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi



Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 24-Jan-2007 at 19:08
What about English? That's from Latin... right?
I am not an expert with languages, as you already found out...


-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: Dan Carkner
Date Posted: 24-Jan-2007 at 21:54
Very interesting pictures, thanks for posting them!

If anyone is interested in a good read, there is a book called The Story of French, that traces the history and current state of French in the world, but it's not at all boring.  It looks at it from many fresh and worthy angles.
http://www.amazon.com/Story-French-Jean-Benoit-Nadeau/dp/0312341830


Posted By: Leonardo
Date Posted: 25-Jan-2007 at 02:50
From the page cited by Exarchus ( http://www.orbilat.com/Encyclopaedia/G/Gaulish_language.html - http://www.orbilat.com/Encyclopaedia/G/Gaulish_language.html ):
 
"When Cicero's brother Quintus was besieged by the Nervii in Gaul, Julius Caesar sent him a secret message -- in Greek, not Latin, so it could not be read by the enemy if they intercepted it. This is because the Latin and Gaulish languages were very similar to each other, whereas Greek was only a distant relation (and also had a different alphabet). "
 
Interesting, never heard of it before
 
 


Posted By: Mixcoatl
Date Posted: 25-Jan-2007 at 08:36
Originally posted by pekau pekau wrote:

What about English? That's from Latin... right?

No, English is a Germanic language, together with German, Dutch, Swedish, Danish, etc. It does have many latinate words though, more than the other Germanic languages, because of the Norman conquest. Nonetheless its grammar and most of its vocabulary are still Germanic.


-------------
"Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts"
"Atheists deny the existence of Satan, while simultaneously doing his work."

- Conservapedia


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 16:30
As a side note, French began to drift away from Latin several centuries before Spanish, Portuguese and Italian did.  Thus Spanish and Italian share more vocabulary and pronunciation with each other than they do with French.  I am unsure about Romanian.
 


Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 20:12
Nobody's really sure about the exact evolution of Romanian, due to the lack of available sources during its formation. I can tell you that it is actually very close to Latin (and was the only modern latin language to have kept quite a few peculiarities from Latin). It also has some very strong slavic influences. One thing which is rather interesting about Romanian is its monolithism: almost alone among the languages of the world with a significant number of speakers, it has virtually no dialects. Thoguh some would consider the 3 related languages of Aromanian, Meglenoromanian and Istroromanian to be dialects of Romanian...

-------------
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi



Posted By: sreenivasarao s
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2007 at 00:02
Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

Spanish and Italian share more vocabulary and pronunciation with each other than they do with French. 

I agree . Please see my post  " the language of  crusaders" under Linguistics.
Regards


Posted By: Carles
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 18:52
Originally posted by Pelayo Pelayo wrote:

I find it interesting how that local patois or provencal latin developed into the parisian language we hear today.

 

Tha "patois" (derogative word to refer to non-french languages of France) or Provensal Latin didn't developed into Parisian Language! Provenal or Occitan has nothing to do with French, as well as Catalan has nothing to do with Spanish (I mean, apart from roots) but they are different languages.


-------------


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 19:28
Originally posted by Decebal Decebal wrote:

Nobody's really sure about the exact evolution of Romanian, due to the lack of available sources during its formation. I can tell you that it is actually very close to Latin (and was the only modern latin language to have kept quite a few peculiarities from Latin). It also has some very strong slavic influences. One thing which is rather interesting about Romanian is its monolithism: almost alone among the languages of the world with a significant number of speakers, it has virtually no dialects. Thoguh some would consider the 3 related languages of Aromanian, Meglenoromanian and Istroromanian to be dialects of Romanian...
 
Well, Russian also doesn't have any dialects.
 
 But I still think small differences exist between "Romanian dialects". For example some words which are used in Moldovan Romanian or Bessarabian Romanian (the Romanian language spoken in the republic of Moldova) are not used in Romania.
 
For example poama is grapes in Moldova, but Romanians call grapes stuguri etc.
 
 


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2007 at 08:29
 
Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:

Originally posted by pekau pekau wrote:

What about English? That's from Latin... right?

No, English is a Germanic language, together with German, Dutch, Swedish, Danish, etc. It does have many latinate words though, more than the other Germanic languages, because of the Norman conquest. Nonetheless its grammar and most of its vocabulary are still Germanic.
 
I wouldn't say 'most' either of grammar or vocabulary. In fact the grammar is usually closer to French than German, although a lot of the time it isn't like either, since it has developed more in the last 500 years or so. No noun declension for instance puts it closer to French, whereas no grammatical gender (apart from physical sex), and the freedom to use words as either nouns, verbs, adjectives or adverbs pretty much at will is not allowed in German or French. Intonation and pitch are also much more important in English than in French or German (though maybe no more so than in Norwegian or Swedish).
 
On another tack, ever since I first worked in Portugal it's interested me that something that's written in Portuguese often sounds French when spoken. Take 'estupido' which written looks just like Spanish, but when your taxi-driver shouts it at another driver it comes out as 'stupide' just as in French.
 
 


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2007 at 10:19
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
 
 
I wouldn't say 'most' either of grammar or vocabulary. In fact the grammar is usually closer to French than German, although a lot of the time it isn't like either, since it has developed more in the last 500 years or so.  
 
I wouldn't say that; English grammar is quite different from French one. On the other hand, I see a lot of similarities between  English and Danish and other Scandinavian laguages' grammar.
 
The majority of Germanic invaders to England was from Scandinavia, not from the territory of modern Germany. 


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 09:24
Originally posted by Sarmat12 Sarmat12 wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
 
 
I wouldn't say 'most' either of grammar or vocabulary. In fact the grammar is usually closer to French than German, although a lot of the time it isn't like either, since it has developed more in the last 500 years or so.  
 
I wouldn't say that; English grammar is quite different from French one. On the other hand, I see a lot of similarities between  English and Danish and other Scandinavian laguages' grammar.
Well, yes, there are similarities. But English people usually find French easier to learn than German, largely because the grammars are more similar. Word-order for instance is more alike between French and English, and neither of them still decline nouns, like German does. Simply bunging on an 's' to get the plural also makes French more like English. French and English sentence structure are also much less complex.
 
I'm talking here of course about the grammar and syntax only: intonation and pronunciation are a very different matter. And, as I indicated, English is much further along the path to becoming an isolating language than either of French and German (or any other European language I'm aware of).
Quote
 
The majority of Germanic invaders to England was from Scandinavia, not from the territory of modern Germany. 
 
That of course is true. But none of the Germanic ones has been anything like as influenced by Romance ones as English has been by Norman-French - which is why there is such a clear distinction between Anglo-Saxon, which no-one except specialists in England understands any more, and English.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 10:41
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
That of course is true. But none of the Germanic ones has been anything like as influenced by Romance ones as English has been by Norman-French - which is why there is such a clear distinction between Anglo-Saxon, which no-one except specialists in England understands any more, and English.
 
I totally agree, with you that English is the most romanicized Germanic language. Most of the vocabularly definetely comes from Latin.
 
I just meant that English is still a Germanic language and IMO it was put in this group due to the grammar.
 
Not all Germanic languages' grammars are similar to the German one. Scandinavian Germanic languages' grammar is a good example. German grammar is actually more complicated than the grammar of Dannish and Swedish.
 
At the same time, English and Scandinavian languages share a lot of similar grammatical rules, while we can not say that about English and French.


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 11:27
 
Originally posted by Sarmat12 Sarmat12 wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
That of course is true. But none of the Germanic ones has been anything like as influenced by Romance ones as English has been by Norman-French - which is why there is such a clear distinction between Anglo-Saxon, which no-one except specialists in England understands any more, and English.
 
I totally agree, with you that English is the most romanicized Germanic language. Most of the vocabularly definetely comes from Latin.
 
I just meant that English is still a Germanic language and IMO it was put in this group due to the grammar.
 
Not all Germanic languages' grammars are similar to the German one. Scandinavian Germanic languages' grammar is a good example. German grammar is actually more complicated than the grammar of Dannish and Swedish.
 
At the same time, English and Scandinavian languages share a lot of similar grammatical rules, while we can not say that about English and French.
 
I quoted a couple of cases where you can: depicting the plural by a simple 's' is one. Putting the definite article at the front of the noun instead of the end is another (at least compared to Danish, the only Scandinavian one I know much about). Danish doesn't decline verbs. Danish still has grammatical gender - it's 'huset' not 'husen' and so on - but of course so does French with 'la maison' not 'le maison'.
 
I admit I was originally concentrating on the differences with German as opposed to those with French, and the Scandinavian languages are much closer to English grammatically than German is. In a lot of cases however, that's where all three, English, Scandinavian and French follow the same pattern (particularly in word order). That's true increasingly with verb declension which is diminishing in English, and, if you listen to the sound rather than the spelling, is diminishing also in French.
 
Of course the reasons for some of this similarity (as opposed to German) may be that French is also partly a (west?) Germanic language.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 11:56
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
Of course the reasons for some of this similarity (as opposed to German) may be that French is also partly a (west?) Germanic language.
 
Yes, that's right. To my knowledge, while English is the most romanicized Germanic language, French is the most Germanized Romance language. Smile


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2007 at 08:09
Quote
But I still think small differences exist between "Romanian dialects". For example some words which are used in Moldovan Romanian or Bessarabian Romanian (the Romanian language spoken in the republic of Moldova) are not used in Romania.
 
For example poama is grapes in Moldova, but Romanians call grapes stuguri etc. 
Well, technically a dialect is not defined only by a certain (and not very large) number of vocabulary elements. The varieties of Romanian (Moldavian, Wallachian, Oltenian, etc.) can be seen as an intermediate forms between accents and dialects been classified either as one or the other, but the most of the times they are considered only accents.
These varieties are chiefly remarked by some pronounciation particularities but they have also few specific words. Since the progress of the education in the 20th century virtually all Romanian speakers understand each other (i.e. in your case in Moldova people understand strugure only that they use poamă coloquially, while also many other Romanian speakers know that poamă - which exists also as a Romanian word meaning "fruit" - in Moldova is used sometimes only to name the "grapes") and most regional words are included in the dictionaries of the Romanian language (if you understand Romanian you can check http://dexonline.ro - http://dexonline.ro ).
 
Moldovan Romanian (as spoken in the Republic of Moldova) is a special case because of the intense Russification which happened there in the last two centuries. I'm not sure how the current situation of the language is described. Most Romanian linguists reject the existence of a Moldovan language regarding it as an artificial cultural product. Also a part of their cultural elite tries to shift back to their Romanian roots. But only the time will tell if the dialectal features will accentuate or diminish.


Posted By: The_Jackal_God
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2007 at 22:34
when they say a language is just a dialect with an army, it makes a lot of sense in view of France, Spanish, and Italian, where one dialect achieved superiority over the others. i guess not so much for Italian, being standardized italian what we learn but no one speaks.
 
i was just watching godfather pt ii, and sicilian just doesnt have that staccato sound to it imo.
 
Dalmatian is an interesting detail
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatian_language - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatian_language
 
going extinct - so sad. the pater noster is so different.


Posted By: Pelayo
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 07:08
Smile
 
 
Fantastic replies, I thank everyone for sharing.
 
Can anyone comment on the development of Leonese/Castilian vs. Galician and Catala?
 
I have heard that Iberian languages, esp. Castilian/Andalusian are Latin spoke with a Basque accent and heavy Arabic influences (which gives it a ? harsh quality to Native English peoples), as compared to non-Iberian Romance languages?
 
 
 
 
 
I am working towards my goal of speaking a passable form of every Romance language, before I move onto Scandi/Germanic group, Slavic, then non-Indo.
 
 


Posted By: jayeshks
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 14:43
IIRC the differences have to do with the pre and post Roman groups in the region.  After the fall of Rome, the Suevi moved into the North West of the peninsula, the Visigoths took over Old Castile and the Vandals Catalonia.  The Germanic rulers didn't leave any significant linguistic influence but they managed to disconnect the regions allowing the dialects to take a different course in each kingdom.  Gallego-Portuguese developed from the heavily accented Latin spoken by the pre-Roman Celtic inhabitants of the region (Lusitani etc.), Catalan was connected (by Vandal conquest) to Southern France and developed in similar fashion to langues-d'oc like Occitan.  Castilian and Aragonese both were influenced by Basque and later Arabic in the case of Castilian.  I don't think that Arabic significantly affected the phonology of Castilian though as in most cases it was Castilian speakers taking up Arabic rather than the other way around.  

-------------
Once you relinquish your freedom for the sake of "understood necessity,"...you cede your claim to the truth. - Heda Margolius Kovaly


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2007 at 04:27
Originally posted by sreenivasarao s sreenivasarao s wrote:

Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

Spanish and Italian share more vocabulary and pronunciation with each other than they do with French. 

I agree ....
 
Indeed. As an Spanish Speaker I have the sensation that Italian is the closer language to Spanish (Castillian) of all. Closer than Portuguese and of course, closer than French.
 
I also have the sensation that both Spanish and Italian mantain a phonetic pronounciation that is very close to the ancient Latin of Romans. Both Italian and Spanish are languages whose speakers are fanatics of phonetics, while Portuguese and French are a lot less strict in the correspondence between writen and pronounced words.
 
 


Posted By: Alkibiades
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2008 at 17:46
Fascinating thread, everyone!
 
I'm not a linguist by any means, but I'm fascinated by languages. I've been reading through your comments on Romance languages and their closeness to/distance from Latin, as well as references to Norman French and its influence on the English language, etc.
 
One Romance language that was only mentioned in passing is Sicilian, although many would argue that it is not a language but a dialect. A (Sicilian) friend recently informed me that here are scholars who regard it as a language in its own right (Prof. Gaetano Cipolla at St. John's University, for example). I've also heard it said that it is the oldest Romance language currently in use. Sicilian interests me because of its remarkable wealth of influence from so many other languages: Greek, Norman, Arabic, Catalan, Provencal, Spanish, and so on. It is also rather beautiful to listen to. Pirandello wrote a number of plays in Sicilian, as well as in standard Italian and, much further back, in the Middle Ages, the Sicilian School of poets wrote verses of courtly love during the reign of Frederick II.
 
Interesting also is that many Sicilian words end in "u" rather than the "o," "i" or "a" we associate with Italian noun and verb endings. (Example: "nostru" as opposed to "nostro.") In that respect I'm reminded of Romanian, although the two languages may have little else in common. Does anyone here have information on this?


-------------
...sed sic sic sine fine feriati, et tecum iaceamus osculantes...


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2008 at 17:58
Originally posted by Alkibiades Alkibiades wrote:

I've also heard it said that it (Sicilian) is the oldest Romance language currently in use.
IThe oldest Romance language in use and the one that remains closest to Latin might be the Sardinian Languages / dialects.  Sardinia's isolation has really limited the number of foreign influences.
 
 
 


Posted By: Alkibiades
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2008 at 19:31

Yes, good point; another language generally viewed as a dialect (although Sardinian, like Sicilian, has its own dialects).

 



-------------
...sed sic sic sine fine feriati, et tecum iaceamus osculantes...


Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 09:21
Sardinian and Romanian are both languages that maintained the original latin grammar where as italian, french, spanish etc, have not. The main difference between the two however is that Romanian was also influenced by slavic, greek, turk, though 90 percent of the words are of latin origin. Sardinians...well they were on an island. :p


Posted By: Dacian
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2009 at 19:56
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Quote
But I still think small differences exist between "Romanian dialects". For example some words which are used in Moldovan Romanian or Bessarabian Romanian (the Romanian language spoken in the republic of Moldova) are not used in Romania.
 
For example poama is grapes in Moldova, but Romanians call grapes stuguri etc. 
Well, technically a dialect is not defined only by a certain (and not very large) number of vocabulary elements. The varieties of Romanian (Moldavian, Wallachian, Oltenian, etc.) can be seen as an intermediate forms between accents and dialects been classified either as one or the other, but the most of the times they are considered only accents.
These varieties are chiefly remarked by some pronounciation particularities but they have also few specific words. Since the progress of the education in the 20th century virtually all Romanian speakers understand each other (i.e. in your case in Moldova people understand strugure only that they use poamă coloquially, while also many other Romanian speakers know that poamă - which exists also as a Romanian word meaning "fruit" - in Moldova is used sometimes only to name the "grapes") and most regional words are included in the dictionaries of the Romanian language (if you understand Romanian you can check http://dexonline.ro - http://dexonline.ro ).
 
Moldovan Romanian (as spoken in the Republic of Moldova) is a special case because of the intense Russification which happened there in the last two centuries. I'm not sure how the current situation of the language is described. Most Romanian linguists reject the existence of a Moldovan language regarding it as an artificial cultural product. Also a part of their cultural elite tries to shift back to their Romanian roots. But only the time will tell if the dialectal features will accentuate or diminish.



different words from different regions of Romania are most likely the cause of foreign influence (E or S slavic and so on)

as an example the word for watermelon
in Moldova (Romanian province) they use mostly "harbuz"
in the rest of the country the main used word is "pepene (rosu)" as in red=rosu melon
in Oltenia (S part of Romania) the word is "lubenita" (the t has a comma under it so it would be read as lubenitza I guess...dunno the phonetic translation) most likely coming from serbian

for now everybody knows what each one means its just what they are usually using.





Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net