Return to the ROMANIAN ArchiveForward to the Current ROMANIAN discuss

RawkstahFriday 10th of December 2004 11:21:44 PM
Romania - I was wondering about dialects or accents in Romania. Are there different ways of saying things in different regions? Also, I've been told that people from northern Romania and people from southern Romania don't get along. I noticed that most the people i speak with online are from Bucharest, and the Romanian people I know are from Transylvania. Just wondering about stuff like that.
iubitoSaturday 11th of December 2004 12:08:01 AM
No dialects - There is no dialects in Romania (maybe some rare words used in one region and not in another one). The Romanian language was the unity between different counties.

I can't tell you precisely for the accent, but I've heard that in Bucharest, the accent is bad because there are a lot of countrymen who leaved their farmland to live in Bucharest, and they pronounce badly. :p But I've never been to Bucharest to verify that.

In Translyvania, I've heard several time
"Merem !" instead of "Mergem !" (= Here we go !)
Probably there are some little things like that, but if you know Romanian, you can speak in all the country :)

If it's like in their songs, Moldavian speak really fast. I've not been yet in Moldavia but I had a friend from this county and that's true he speak really fast !
Luludya738Saturday 11th of December 2004 02:51:13 AM
-
What you heard about the people living in Bucharest is not true. I've been living there for some months and I noticed no differences in pronounciation.
Where did you hear that from? From a foreigner or from a romanian? I'm curious...
RawkstahSaturday 11th of December 2004 02:53:12 AM
- i was just wondering about the accent thing. my boyfriend is from medias and he tells me how to say things and then i come on here and i get taught them different. he also told me about the people not liking each other
iubitoSaturday 11th of December 2004 03:56:41 AM
- [quote]Originally posted by Luludya738
What you heard about the people living in Bucharest is not true. I've been living there for some months and I noticed no differences in pronounciation.
Where did you hear that from? From a foreigner or from a romanian? I'm curious... [/quote]

I've heard it from Romanians... maybe they don't like Bucharest as in France a lot of people don't like Paris and say that Paris accent is awful (that's true, and their football team too... :D ).
sciasSaturday 11th of December 2004 05:47:15 AM
In Transylvania they - ... Sometimes use Hungarian words. for example, Transylvanians say Servus for hello. The reason for that is that Transylvania (Erdely in Hungarian, pronounced "Erday") was for many centuries dominated by Hungarians. Until 1920 it belonged to Transleithania, which was the Hungarian part of the Habsburg Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.

Transylvania and the Banat region still have in some parts a big Magyar (Hungarian) minority. There is even a small ethnic Hungarian group called the Seklers (Szekely, in Hungarian) which lives in two counties (Harigita and kovasna). Some of them still don't speak Romanian.

Transylvania has also been dominated by Germans who came there in the middle ages. The German name for Transylvania is Siebenbuergen - "the seven cities" after the cities the Germans founded there. The most "German" one to this day is Hermstadt which is known as Sibiu in Romanian.

There has also been a big Jewish population, which was mostly Hungarian cultured. So you see, the Romanians in Transylvania had lots of influence from other cultures througout history.

Since Ceauşescu got to power, many ethnic Romanians were brought into Transylvania to decrease the Hungarian ratio in the population. Other minorities didn't really bother him: Most of the Jews were killed in the Holocaust (those who lived in the part that was controlled by Hungary during the war were sent to Auschwitz, and those in the south survived and left for Israel or the America; The Germans left or were expelled after the war, and almost all the rest left after the Ceauşescu era. But the Hungarians posed a threat because some of them havn't given up hope of uniting with Hungary.

To wrap it all up, Romanians in Transylvania were influeced by different cultures, but many others settled there from other parts of Romania - so this Romanian-Transylvanian population itself is not so homogenous. The question is, how do Romanians in the Regat (the old kingdom) see them.
rbrumaMonday 13th of December 2004 05:27:08 AM
A few notes - Just to make a short summary of what I think is the general and accepted perspective:

1) People in all regions of the country do speak the same language and it is not possible that two persons do not understand each other. What it is possible, however, is that :

-- although they both know the meaning of some word, they don't usually use it at home and prefer a synonim (e.g., in Moldavia, the word expressing "a little" is "oleacă", which is understood, although generally not used by people from other regions)
-- there might be words which are so specific to a particular region that one does not understand them. They are very few (I only came across a dozen or so in all my life) and can be readily explained by the people whom you are talking to
-- the pronounciation in the various regions is a bit different, so when someone with a strong "accent" (as we call it) speaks very quickly and not clearly enough, some words (even common ones) may become non-intelligible.

Other than these, I am not aware of any other difficulties in the main dialect of Romania (there are three more, spoken in the Balkan peninsula). The same holds for (the Republic of) Moldavia too.

2) About people pronouncing badly in Bucharest. That depends on what someone considers to be "badly". A Moldavian with a strong home accent pronounces badly by pure Bucharest standards, although he cannot be accused for that. Bad or good, in my opinion, comes from poor education and lack of knowledge, not from speaking as you normally do at home. By the way, there is no standard of phonetics, as far as I know.

3) The post by scias is too long to make complete comments, only a few notes:

-- "servus", used in Transylvania, has nothing to do with Hungarian. It is a Latin word, remnant and testimony of the Roman (and consequently Romanian) domination over this territory for the last 2000 years or so.

-- Transylvania united with the Kingdom of Romania (for the second time in modern history) in 1918, not 1920

-- I don't know if and why Sibiu is "the most German" city, but surely its name is Hermannstadt and not Hermstadt.

Best regards,

Răzvan
rbrumaMonday 13th of December 2004 05:29:30 AM
... and a short advice - ... for Rawkstah:

Try to make your pic smaller. It seems that you are ready to jump over the whole office here :)

Răzvan
RawkstahMonday 13th of December 2004 11:53:53 AM
- last time i posted a pic it was really big like that for a few days and then it settled down.... i'm hopin this one will too
sciasMonday 13th of December 2004 05:39:24 PM
I made a mistake, multumesc for the correction - I'll start from the end:

1. Indeed Hermannstadt. I think it is the most famous one, because of the famous sausage, but also - its platz is very impressive and of course very German. Correct me if I'm wrong, but more Germans live there than in any other city.

2. Yes, December 1918 was the time, but formally - only in 1920 - after Trianon.

3. I don't want to get into an historiographic argument, but since you presented your side, I think its important to show the other. yes, many Romanians say they are the descendants of the Daco-Romans. After the Romans left in 275 AD, the D-R found refuge in Transylvania where they developed as a nation. Cluj (Kolozsvar/klausenburg) even got the addition of Napoca to strengthen the connection with Rome.
But the Hungarians, which treated many of their minorities badly, have a different version. Some of them claim, that Transylvania was settled by very few Slaves when they arrived in the 9th century, and that the Romanians only got their in the 12th century. The old name for Transylvania "Tara (sp?) Ungarska" is proof - according to them - that this land is theirs, because that's a Slavic word that means land of the Hungarians.

Who is right who is wrong? I don't know, and I don't think it really matters today. The reason I wrote all this, was to show that there are always many versions, and it's better not to blindly trust yours. so about the word "szervus" - I'm not sure you're right.



rbrumaMonday 13th of December 2004 11:53:27 PM
Servus! - I won't delve into the intricacies of Romanian history. This is not the place and I am surely not the most competent person to defend what is generally considered (apart from some minor advocates of late imperialistic aspirations of Hungary at the beginning of last century) as the accepted scientific view.

However, as to the word "servus", I don't have here at the office the right bibliography to give you sustaining this other generally-admited etimology. Just a quick quote from the german wikipedia:

<< Servus ist ein traditioneller, eher intimer Gruß im bayrischen und österreichischen Sprachraum. Er kommt aus dem Lateinischen und bedeutet in Kurzform "Ich bin dein Diener" oder "zu Diensten". Wie auch "Grüß Gott" kann er als Begrüßung ebenso wie zur Verabschiedung verwendet werden. Der Gruß ist auch in Ungarn (Szervus), Rumänien und Polen ("Serwus") gebräuchlich. >>

For more in-depth study, some works on the Romance influences in non-Latin languages (like Hungarian and German) should be for you the definite reply.

Regards,

Răzvan


kostyelThursday 23rd of December 2004 09:17:11 AM
tara ungarska - [quote]Originally posted by scias


I'll start from the end:

1. Indeed Hermannstadt. I think it is the most famous one, because of the famous sausage, but also - its platz is very impressive and of course very German. Correct me if I'm wrong, but more Germans live there than in any other city.

2. Yes, December 1918 was the time, but formally - only in 1920 - after Trianon.

3. I don't want to get into an historiographic argument, but since you presented your side, I think its important to show the other. yes, many Romanians say they are the descendants of the Daco-Romans. After the Romans left in 275 AD, the D-R found refuge in Transylvania where they developed as a nation. Cluj (Kolozsvar/klausenburg) even got the addition of Napoca to strengthen the connection with Rome.
But the Hungarians, which treated many of their minorities badly, have a different version. Some of them claim, that Transylvania was settled by very few Slaves when they arrived in the 9th century, and that the Romanians only got their in the 12th century. The old name for Transylvania "Tara (sp?) Ungarska" is proof - according to them - that this land is theirs, because that's a Slavic word that means land of the Hungarians.

Who is right who is wrong? I don't know, and I don't think it really matters today. The reason I wrote all this, was to show that there are always many versions, and it's better not to blindly trust yours. so about the word "szervus" - I'm not sure you're right.


[/quote]
transylvania obviously comes from trans=over and silva=forests
I've heard the medieval name for transilvania was ultrasilvania ( ultra=trans ) though never heard of tara ungarska, hehe it would be nice, i like slavic languages :D
still in "tara ungarska", tara comes from terra ( in latin = country) so even with tara ungarska one cant deny the daco-roman continuity
sandmanMonday 27th of December 2004 06:03:34 AM
- well, the fact that 'tara' comes from latin, in my opinion, cannot prove the daco-roman continuity %)
the more for the word 'ungarska' %))
for example, some american can say (in english) that romania is the land of romanians, but the fact that 'land' comes from old german 'lant' is not the prove of the german or american continuity %))
the key word in 'tara ungarska' is the 'ungarska', not the 'tara' imho %)
i'm not too deep in romanian history, and never mean to offend someone, but this is what i can say about the logic in the post of kostyel. i don't even know whether the 'tara ungarska' is true or not. maybe it was never used %)
rbrumaTuesday 28th of December 2004 12:45:11 AM
Names, places and people -
sandman, you are absolutely right. The name that is/was given to one people by any other people is no proof whatsoever about the ethnic composition of that particular people, about their language and culture. Some such denominations can even be absurd (like the 'American Indians' concept, which is not much of a proof to show that, e.g., the Cheyenne people are related to the heroes of Mahabharata)

The same holds for denomination of territories. In old times, the unknown places on the maps where marked with the expression 'Hic sunt leones' ('There are lions here'). If we assume, together with the ideas expressed by scias and kostyel, that the name of the territory is a proof of the ethnic origin of its inhabitants, we must use the same reasoning in all places... and we'd be stunned to discover how many lions lived in that old times... :)

There is only -- in my opinion -- one usefull set of names that can help understand a people. That is, the names that they use to describe themselves and the places surrounding them. AFAIK, this is the accepted scientific view today and it is the most reasonable.

Răzvan