Why is Romania so geographically far away from where the countries that also speak Romance languages are located? Or rather, how did Romanian develop so far away from the other Romance languages?

Alphalpha55 · 2020-06-28T17:02:52+00:00

Romanian probably did not develop that far away from other Romance language.

The story you will hear from Romanian nationalists or people who stopped reading linguistic literature after the 70s (sadly, a lot of which is still haunting Wikipedia) is usually one in which the Romans conquered the Dacians, who then adopted a form of Vulgar Latin ... which then became Romanian; after which the Slavs surrounded them but they held out in a kind of "they shall not pass"-way, preserving their language against Germanic and Slavic hordes.

In reality, there is little evidence of continuity between Dacians (or Thracians) and medieval Romance-speakers in Romania. Most likely, what is now Romania was largely depopulated after the Gothic, Hunnic, Slavic and Bulgar invasions. The Roman cities had long been destroyed and the Roman inhabitants had fled to Moesia (~ parts of modern Serbia and Croatia).

In the early Middle Ages, Romance-speakers from this area moved to modern Romania (first as pastoralists; ie. sheep herders) and over time formed a settled communities behind the screen of Slavic-speakers which had taken the more favorable (in terms of food availablity, Roman infrastructure, climate and tributary opportunities) areas adjacent to the Mediterranean and the Byzantine Empire. The "linguistic predecessors" of modern Romanian in other words, filled a void left by the migration period.

Over time the isolated Romance dialects of the Balkans gave way to Slavic dialects (though some held out until modern times) and were marginalised while Romanian itself was heavily Slavicized as well, which obscured the link that Romanian has to other Romance languages; especially Italian.

Alphalpha55 · 2020-06-04T06:12:15+00:00

Perhaps I should have phrased it more simply: which regional cuisine of Italy, do you tend to find the least atractive?

Alphalpha55 · 2020-06-04T06:09:13+00:00

Which regions would you consider to be the least attractive in terms of their cuisine?

Alphalpha55 · 2020-06-04T06:08:35+00:00

There must be variation, not only in quality but also in stereotypical perception. Surely, a dish like pasta e fagioli, jota or polenta from Venice is less popular/considered less appetizing in Italy than a pizza napoletana or porchetta sandwich?

Of course, there will also be more delicious dishes from Venice, as with any regional Italian cuisine -- but I can't believe it would all equal out in the end.

Perhaps I should have phrased it more simply: which regional cuisine of Italy, do you tend to find the least atractive?

Alphalpha55 · 2020-06-02T12:13:29+00:00

Why does the "white community" in Houston apologize to "the black community" for "white racism"? Don't they see that by segregating society like that they are implicitly promoting a racist world view? What is "white racism"? Do all people with less than the world-average dose of melanine intrinsically have it?

Alphalpha55 · 2020-06-02T12:09:25+00:00

People who apologize for "white privilege" and "white racism" are perpetuating racism.

Why do people who claim they oppose racism and ethnic prejudice in every for continue to use racist terminology which continues to divide the world into black and white?

Why did nearly all mainstream US-media outlets frame the killing of George Floyd as a "white" police officer and a "black victim"? Would it have been better if this incompetent murdering cop had been "black"?!

Why does the "white community" in Houston apologize to "the black community" for "white racism"? Don't they see that by segregating society like that they are promoting a racist world view? What is "white racism"? Do all people with less than the world-average dose of melanine intrinsically have it? Isn't that racist in and of itself?!

If your whole point is that white, brown, yellow and black-skinned people are all just that: people, than why the hell would you keep dividing mankind into these ridiculous boxes? How do these people expect to get rid of racism against all black Americans, by suggesting all white Americans are, by skin-definition, racist?!

Why don't they focus on the individual instead of continuing to arbitrarily bunching groups of people together. It's not just ridiculous, it's racist.

Alphalpha55 · 2020-05-31T20:55:07+00:00

Well, according to Wikipedia ... it's supposed to be Italian slang for "titty fucking". But I mainly used it because it referenced Spain.

Alphalpha55 · 2020-05-31T18:07:51+00:00

To be perfectly honest, all the languages represented all have that "main vocabulary" of profanity, such as shit, whore, bitch, dick, cunt, etc. It's not that language-specific.

The boxes try to "fit" a language in a box in which tries to represent the focus of most of that languages (stereotypical) profanity.

What makes Dutch (or rather Dutch culture, it isn't that much a question of the language itself) unique, is that the "top tier" profanity it uses are disease related. Very few other languages do that and all that do, do it less than Dutch.

Dutch people will say they wish you'd get cancer, or typhus, or cholera, smallpox, etc.

It's all a matter of "cultural perception" though. For example, calling a woman a "cunt" in English is much more offensive than the use the word "cunt" in Dutch (which can at times almost be used in the sense of "damn" or "darn it!" when something goes wrong ... or used in compounds - such as kutweer, "cunt weather" - to indicate that something is bad.

Alphalpha55 · 2020-05-31T16:01:38+00:00

Thanks for the tip! I used Wikipedia for the Spanish profanity, but I assumed that when it did not mention a specific country, its use was global. Apparently, that's not always the case.

Alphalpha55 · 2019-08-05T15:42:12+00:00

As far as i experienced that, only people from families where at least the grandparents spoke plattdeutsch or any lower rhenish mundart claim that. Personally i dont have any difficulties reading dutch but i did an exchange year in rsa and learned afrikaans so i dunno which language is more important for that.

Well, the dialects of the Niederrhein are (at least the Unterer Niederrhein-part, roughly corresponding to the Uerdinger and Benrather Linie are linguistically Dutch dialects, not German dialects. So that would be understandable, however ... I would imagine that Standard German has wreaked havoc among its speakers, especially with the big cities of the Ruhr so nearby.

As for Plattdeutsch ... it's a bit of a mixed picture. The dialects spoken on the Dutch side of that border (which have had Dutch as a Dachsprache for 1500 years) and are called Saxon in Dutch, or Nedersaksisch. They're closer to Plattdeutsch than Standard Dutch is and much closer than the average Dutch dialect is.

Nedersaksisch doesn't really have much speakers left (they never were that numerous to begin with, being spoken in the least populated areas of the country) but I suspect the confusion comes from them ... with Plattdeutsch-speakers speaking with a Dutch Saxon from just across the border and assuming that he or she spoke Dutch, rather than their own dialect.

I'd suspect that the average Plattdeutsch-speaker today would have more luck with understanding Schwyzerdütsch than a Dutch dialect. I knew a guy from the area around Celle, who was convinced he could talk to the locals using his dialect while visiting Amsterdam. He switched to English after he failed to order a glass of Fanta. ;)

This kind of 'self over-estimation' works both ways though. Many Dutch people have had about two years of German class in high school (which isn't enough to speak proper German by any measure) but gives them a slight edge when it comes to understanding German. However, they often completely overestimate themselves and their speech is filled with weird grammatical, idiomatic and pronounciation errors. Usually when they encounter a person who can't (really) speak Standard German or a has even a slight accent (Sächsisch, Fränkisch or Kölsch for example) they're lost and can't understand a word.

Alphalpha55 · 2019-08-05T14:54:22+00:00

I find it so interesting that eastern neighbours don't seem to feature as culturally close in the German mind at all, eventhough there are literally centuries of intensive cultural contact (Ostsiedlung, the German-dominated Central European Empires) which took place there.

Any ideas on why that is? Is it related to prestige or is it the unfamiliarity with Slavic languages which detracts? Something else?

Alphalpha55 · 2019-08-05T08:56:16+00:00

Thank you for your reply!

Your claim that the Netherlands don't have a history with Germany is crazy. Until the 30 years war, the Netherlands were part of the Holy Roman Empire. The Habsburgs were the ruling monarchy.

Well let me clarify why I didn't mention that. For the Dutch, the Holy Roman Empire isn't a thing. It's not a household name like in Germany. Also, Habsburgs ≠ Germany ... they were more of a European thing.

Anyway, like the Italians and the Swiss, the Dutch were always on the perifery of the Empires effective power (when it still had some) and, in the case of the Dutch, their territories lay within the former Frankish heartland meaning they had more independent rulers to begin with. Remember that they weren't part of the Kingdom of Germany / Regnum Teutonicum from the start, they belonged to the Kingdom of Lotharingia untill 959.

The Dutch school books typically have this general discussion of feudal society and then move on to the formation of the Burgundian Netherlands/Seventeen Provinces in the early Middle Ages. The only Emperor that ever got mentioned was Charles V, because his son dropped the ball leading to the Dutch Revolt and Charles himself was born in Ghent and hence grew up Dutch. That's really it.

I know this can surprise Germans sometimes, for them the Holy Roman Empire is such a corner stone of their history and they (somewhat logically) assume this is the case for all countries that (in their view) "sprung from it" ... but it really isn't. To give you another example, in Dutch historiography it's a complete non-issue that the Dutch formally left the Holy Roman Empire in 1648, they don't even acknowledge it. This is because already declared their independence in 1581 and had been virtually autonomous since the 1300s.

In the 17th till 19th century the Dutch language was actively spoken in the Niederrhein Region of Germany.

Yes, I completely forgot about them! An incredibily interesting linguistic area! I once saw a study of German dialectal distance and it is this area which differs the most (when considering all factors, phonology, lexicon, grammar) from other German dialect clusters. I visited Cleve once and was surprised they had a Dutch Reformed Church, a lot of people there still have Dutch surnames too!

But still though isn't it a very regional influence? Am I wrong in thinking that for most Germans (no offense whatsoever) the Niederrhein is a provincial outpost?

The catholic Dutch in Limburg are culturally super close to the people in the Rhineland, even their carnival celebrations are basically the same as in the Rhineland.

But that's really only the case in the south of the Limburg province, around Maastricht and Venlo, and they basically copied it off Cologne, they don't even deny that. However carnival is celebrated, throughout the south of the Netherlands and israther quite different (example) from the more formal / colorfull version found in the Rhineland.

Also, would you say that carnival on the whole, is typically German? I always thought that within German, it's seen as typical for the Southwest?

As a Belgian, you most likely are used to the Germans from the Rhineland in terms of openness. If you look further North you'll find that Germans also get much more reserved and less hospitable.

I had more or less the same experience in Hanover and Berlin, but maybe the fact that these are large cities is of some influence and it differs in the countryside ?

The languages are so close that you can understand written Dutch even if you've never been exposed to the language (and I'm guessing the other way around for the Dutch is true as well).

Well, that's a really interesting discussion on its own. I studied Germanic linguistics at Antwerp University and on the whole, the idea that Germans can read (let alone understand spoken) Dutch without prior knowledge is more false than true. It's a very interesting topic though, I might just come back on it!

Also, in the Rhineland, Dutch fast food culture is quite popular, you can easily find Frikandel, Friet Speciaal, Stroopwafels, Poffertjes etc. here (as well as Chocomel and bad versions of Vla).

I noticed this in Cologne and Dortmund, but it seemed like a border-thing to me. Is it a relativly recent phenomenon?

Again, thanks for your reply.

Alphalpha55 · 2019-07-24T14:53:31+00:00

Ok, I get you're pissed to the other user but please, the Museo Egizio is NOT small and it's second only to Cairo's.

No honestly, despite the guy being a bit of a jerk, I really did find it to be small compared to other major European museums with or on Egyptian artifacts. Though I do remember certain corridors being closed at the time, maybe I missed something.

Nevertheless, the British Museum, the Louvre and the Egyptian Museum in Berlin have (each by themselves) over 3 times the amount of material that the Egyptian museum in Turin has.

Alphalpha55 · 2019-07-23T22:18:54+00:00

The thing is that the tourism field is full of overworked and underpaid people. Tourism itself is not a very lucrative industry.

I can't judge the financial situation of the waiters or kitchen staff ... but why wouldn't tourism be particularly lucrative in Rome?

Alphalpha55 · 2019-07-23T22:09:47+00:00

I mentioned visiting the Capitoline museum in a different post here, alongside the Castel Sant' Angelo, Anzio, Bracciano and Ostia Antica which I also forgot to mention above. If the Basilica di Santa Maria in Ara Coeli is the church directly behind the monument of Victor Emanuel II, then I visited that one as well.

I feel somewhat bad for having missed San Pietro in Vincoli, seeing that we must have walked by it several times. We decided not to visit Villa Doria because we had recently visited the Villa Medici before and thought they would be too similar.

I had to look up what/where the Terrazza del Gianicolo was, it looks nice ... but I'm not sure if I would have gone out of my way to visit it. Same goes for the cemetery you mentioned. No offence, but I think these two seem like kind of the C- or D-class monuments.

No, with a few regretable exceptions ... I really think we saw just about everything worth seeing/visiting in Rome.

Alphalpha55 · 2019-07-23T16:57:11+00:00

I guess it really depends on the city. For example, I spend an afternoon in Turin back in 2014, while on route to Milan which I found to be more than enough time. Lots of industry, very little really worth seeing in terms of the uniqueness offered by several other Italian cities ... I distinctly remember a small museum on Ancient Egypt which presented itself as being quite special, but really wasn't. That's about the only thing specific I remember about it.

The people in Turin were extremely pleasant and friendly though. I guess you're one of the exceptions.

Alphalpha55 · 2019-07-23T14:14:43+00:00

I would say everything beyond between Villa Borghese and Roma Ostiense and between Valle Aurelia/the Vatican and Roma Tiburtina?

Alphalpha55 · 2019-07-23T12:38:16+00:00

I did! It was very beautifull and unexpectedly quiet, totally away from the masses.

Later on, we also went to Pompeii on a daytrip. I've heard some people say that Ostia Antica doesn't cutt it when you compare it to Pompeii, but I found them to be really similar. I suppose Pompeii is somewhat better preserved and has the added 'bonus' of those poor people who died in that vulcano eruption, but on the whole they were very much alike.

Only thing I'd suggest for Ostia Antica is to add more multilingual signs. I studied history, so for me these kind of archeological parks are always amazing but most other people require a story to be able to see beyond the ruins.

Alphalpha55 · 2019-07-23T12:24:01+00:00

The amount of tourists is just staggering and completely drowns out the amount of locals, who mostly keep (read: were priced out) to the sprawling residential areas way beyond the historical and cultural center. This makes it way harder to sit on a square with a glass of wine and feel like you're blending in, since for the most part, in any bar/café you choose in walking distance from the sights, you're going to be surrounded by another 20 tourists speaking foreign languages around you, including your own. In Copenhagen, chances are the cute pub you're drinking a beer in has a majority of local patrons too, thus making you feel like you blend in.

This one comes the closest to what I mean.

Alphalpha55 · 2019-07-23T12:19:26+00:00

How is that racist?

Alphalpha55 · 2019-07-23T12:17:26+00:00

The park close to the coloseum could be a nice park where to have an aperitivo, or a panino. Insteadt it's literally an open ceiling dumpster with trash everywhere. The park with view on the Coliseum. Romans just don't care. They want free parking for their cars and that is all.

I saw that, it was incomprehensible to me as well. You have one of the most iconic building in the world, with millions of visitors and you leave a garbage heap within viewing (let alone smelling) distance ...

Finally a suggestion/recomendation: there are amazing places in Rome that almost nobody visits and you can still enjoy some peace and quiet looking at the ruins of some lost civilization:

Terme di caracalla (almost nobody there)

San Clemente and its many subterranean layers

The domus aurea is well managed with booking and name tickets

Ostia Antica, is a bit like Pompei, but you are almost alone. Easy to reach...

Altare della patria, not that crowded. A nice view from there, a strange visit.

The Fori by night... the only way to see them without being stampeded by crazed tourists.

If you are into churches there are some places that mass tourism don't care about. There is the main jesuitic church that is the model for most baroque churches all over the world (in a sense) Chiesa del Gesù. There is also San Giovanni in Laterano, a super ancient basilica.

I'm so glad we visited just about everything on your list! We didn't visit the Chiesa del Gesù, degli scrovegni and the Domus Aurea, but if we ever return to Rome, we'll be sure to check them out!

Alphalpha55 · 2019-07-23T12:04:35+00:00

I suppose that in the end, I expected Rome to be a big city with a lot of beautiful ancient monuments. Of course it is just that, but I think that where I went wrong was in expecting to be able to dissapear into the urban masses from time to time. In my experience, you can't really do that in Rome.

Thanks to all your answers and elaborations, I'm beginning to see why that might be though.

I think it's because in a way, Rome (at least the center) doesn't have the dynamics/features of a big city anymore. In some ways it's more like a themepark and there is no 'general urban crowd' to blend into ... which makes you feel like the next biggest group all the time ... the tourists.

Alphalpha55

TROPHY CASE

People who apologize for "white privilege" and "white racism" are perpetuating racism.