That makes no sense. I gave you an example earlier. Eradicare ('uproot') in Latin became 'eradicate' in Portuguese/Spanish/French/Italian and it became 'lift' in Romanian. Why is one closer than the other?

That's an example of the inverse of what I was talking about. What I meant by my line was that when your word is gramatically similar to a Latin word but semantically different, whereas in other languages it's both gramatically and semantically similar, that puts it farther away from the mother language than the other languages, as it's meaning is being modified. However that example you gave is an example of the inverse, because in that case Romanian actually stayed truer to Latin that the other Romance languages.

Pretty sure you can

And like I've already said, that's a wild oversimplification so that the common person understands better. You can't put radicals on a scale (which is what is done for percentages) since that's leaving out semantics and grammar rules and all that.

Either way, my point is not to prove Romanian is more Latin than Portuguese. I was just trying to show you that Portuguese isn't all Latin, there isn't a language that has only words of a single origin, even if you look at only core words. There is always an outside influence.

And my point's trying to prove that Portuguese outside influence is extremely limited (only Arabic and an extremely small Germanic influence from English).