Contents |
The Romanian territory was inhabited in ancient times by the Dacians, an Indo-European people. They were defeated by the Roman Empire in 106 and part of Dacia (Oltenia, Banat and Transylvania) became a Roman province. Because the province was rich in ores, and especially silver and gold ,[1] the Romans heavily colonized the province,[2] brought with them the Vulgar Latin as the language of administration and commerce and started a period of intense Romanization, giving birth to the "proto-Romanian" language.[3][4] But in the 3rd century AD, with pressure from Free Dacians and invasions of migratory populations such as Goths, the Romans were forced to pull out of Dacia in 271 AD, making it the first province to be abandoned.[5][6] Whether the Romanians are the descendants of these people that abandoned the area and settled south of the Danube or of the people that remained in Dacia is a matter of debate. (See also Origin of the Romanians.) Ovid Densuşianu, have placed the origin of the Romanian language in Illyria. Other scholars also suggest a relatively uniform Romanization of the entire northern Balkans - Dacia, Illyria and Moesia. (See also Jireček Line, Thraco-Romans, and Classification of Thracian.)
Due to its geographical isolation, Romanian was probably among the first of the Romance languages that split from Latin. It received little influence from other Romance languages until the modern period (until the middle of the 18th century), which can explain why it is one of the most uniform languages in Europe. It is the most important of the remaining Eastern Romance languages and more conservative than other Romance languages in nominal morphology. Romanian has preserved declension, but whereas Latin had seven cases, Romanian has five, the nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, and the vocative, and still holds the neuter gender as well. However, the verb morphology of Romanian has shown the same move towards a compound perfect and future tense as the other Romance languages.
All the dialects of Romanian are believed to have been unified in a Proto-Romanian language up to sometime between the 7th and 10th centuries, when the area came under the influence of the Byzantine Empire. It was then when Romanian became influenced by the Slavic languages and to some degree Greek. For example, Aromanian, one of the closest relatives of Romanian, has very few Slavic words. Also, the variations in the Daco-Romanian dialect (spoken throughout Romania and Moldova) are very small. The use of this uniform Daco-Romanian dialect extends well beyond the borders of the Romanian state: a Romanian-speaker from Moldova speaks the same language as a Romanian-speaker from the Serbian Banat. Romanian was influenced by Slavic (due to migration/assimilation, and feudal/ecclesiastical relations), Greek (Byzantine, then Phanariote), Turkish, and Hungarian, while the other Romance languages adopted words and features of Germanic.
The Polish chronicler Jan Długosz remarked in 1476 that Moldavians and Wallachians "share a language and customs".[7]
The oldest surviving writing in Romanian that can be reliably dated is a letter sent by Neacşu Lupu from Dlăgopole (Câmpulung), Wallachia, to Johannes Benkner of Braşov, Transylvania. From the events and people mentioned in the letter it can be inferred that it was written around the 29th or 30 June, 1521. Other documents do exist from the same period, but could not be dated accurately.
Grigore Ureche, in his The Chronicles of the land of Moldavia (1640s), talks about the language spoken by the Moldavians and considers it to be an amalgam of numerous languages (Latin, French, Greek, Polish, Turkish, Serbian, etc.) and is mixed with the neighbouring languages.[8] The author however assumes the preponderance of Latin influence, and claims that, at a closer look, all Latin words could be understood by Moldavians.
Miron Costin, in his De neamul moldovenilor (1687) wile noting that Moldavians, Wallachians, and the Romanians living in the Hungarian Country have the same origin, says that although people of Moldavia call themselves "Moldavians", they name their language "Romanian" (româneşte) instead of Moldavian (moldoveneşte).[9] Also, in his Polish language Chronicle of Wallachia and Moldavia, Miron Costin assumes that both Wallachians and Moldavians once called themselves "Romans".
Dimitrie Cantemir, in his Descriptio Moldaviae (Berlin, 1714), points out that the inhabitants of Moldavia, Wallachia and Transylvania spoke the same language. He notes, however, that there are some differences in accent and vocabulary.[10] He says:
Cantemir's work is one of the earliest histories of the language, in which he notes, like Ureche before him, the evolution from Latin and notices the Greek, Turkish and Polish borrowings. Additionally, he introduces the idea that some words must have had Dacian roots. Cantemir also notes that while the idea of a Latin origin of the language was prevalent in his time, other scholars considered it to have derived from Italian.
In old sources, such as the works of chroniclers Grigore Ureche (1590–1647), Miron Costin (1633–1691), or those of the Prince and scholar Dimitrie Cantemir (1673–1723), the term Moldavian (moldovenească) can be found. According to Cantemir's Descriptio Moldaviae, the inhabitants of Wallachia and Transylvania spoke the same language as Moldavians, but they had a different pronunciation and used some words not understood by Moldovans. Costin and, in an unfinished book,[11] Cantemir attest the usage of the term Romanian among the inhabitants of the Principality of Moldavia to refer to their own language.
Following annexation of Bessarabia by Russia (after 1812), the language of Moldavians was established as an official language in the governmental institutions of Bessarabia, used along with Russian,[12] as 95% of the population was Romanian. The publishing works established by Archbishop Gavril Bănulescu-Bodoni were able to produce books and lithurgical works in Moldavian between 1815-1820.[13]
Gradually, the Russian language gained importance. The new code adopted in 1829 abolished the autonomous statute of Bessarabia, and halted the obligatory use of Moldavian in public pronouncements. In 1854, Russian was declared the only official language of the region, Moldavian being eliminated from schools in the second part of the century[14]
According to the dates provided by the administration of Bessarabia, since 1828, official documents were published in Russian only, and around 1835 a 7-year term was established during which state institutions would accept acts in the Romanian language.[15]
Romanian was accepted as the language of instruction until 1842, afterwards being taught as a separate subject. Thus, at the seminary of Chişinău, the Romanian language was a compulsory subject, with 10 hours weekly, until 1863, when the Department of Romanian was closed. At the High School No.1 in Chişinău, students had the right to choose among Romanian, German, and Greek until 9 February 1866, when the State Counselor of the Russian Empire forbade teaching of the Romanian language, with the following justification: "the pupils know this language in the practical mode, and its teaching follows other goals".[15]
Around 1871, the tsar published an ukase "On the suspension of teaching the Romanian language in the schools of Bessarabia," because "local speech is not taught in the Russian Empire".[15]
The linguistic situation in Bessarabia from 1812 to 1918 was the gradual development of bilingualism. Russian continued to develop as the official language of privilege, whereas Romanian remained the principal vernacular. The evolution of this linguistic situation can be divided into five phases.[16]
The period from 1812 to 1828 was one of neutral or functional bilingualism. Whereas Russian had official dominance, Romanian was not without influence, especially in the spheres of public administration, education (particularly religious education) and culture. In the years immediately following the annexation, loyalty to Romanian language and customs became important. The Theological Seminary (Seminarul Teologic) and Lancaster Schools were opened in 1813 and 1824 respectively, Romanian grammar books were published, and the printing press at Chişinău began producing religious books.[16]
The period from 1828 to 1843 was one of partial diglossic bilingualism. During this time, use of Romanian was forbidden in the sphere of administration. This was carried out through negative means: Romanian was excluded from the civil code. Romanian continued to be used in education, but only as a separate subject. Bilingual manuals, such as the Russian-Romanian Bucoavne grammar of Iacob Ghinculov, were published to meet the new need for bilingualism. Religious books and Sunday sermons remained the only monolingual public outlet for Romanian. By 1843, the removal of Romanian from public administration was complete.[16]
According to the Organic Statute of 1828, the Moldovan language was also the official language of Ottoman-dominated Moldavia.
The period from 1843 to 1871 was one of assimilation. Romanian continued to be a school subject at the Liceul Regional (high school) until 1866, at the Theological Seminary until 1867, and at regional schools until 1871, when all teaching of the language was forbidden by law.[16]
The period from 1871 to 1905 was one of official monolingualism in Russian. All public use of Romanian was phased out, and substituted with Russian. Romanian continued to be used as the colloquial language of home and family. This was the era of the highest level of assimilation in the Russian Empire. In 1872, the priest Pavel Lebedev ordered that all church documents be written in Russian, and, in 1882, the press at Chişinău was closed by order of the Holy Synod.[16]
The period from 1905 to 1917 was one of increasing linguistic conflict, with the re-awakening of Romanian national consciousness. In 1905 and 1906, the Bessarabian zemstva asked for the re-introduction of Romanian in schools as a "compulsory language", and the "liberty to teach in the mother language (Romanian language)". At the same time, the first Romanian language newspapers and journals began to appear: Basarabia (1906), Viaţa Basarabiei (1907), Moldovanul (1907), Luminătorul (1908), Cuvînt moldovenesc (1913), Glasul Basarabiei (1913). From 1913, the synod permitted that "the churches in Besserabia use the Romanian language".[16]
The term "Moldovan language" (limbă moldovenească) was newly employed to create a state-sponsored Ausbausprache to distinguish it from 'Romanian' Romanian. Thus, Şt. Margeală, in 1827, stated that the aim of his book was to "offer the 800,000 Romanians who live in Bessarabia,... as well as to the millions of Romanians from the other part of Prut, the possibility of knowing the Russian language, and also for the Russians who want to study the Romanian language". In 1865 Ioan Doncev, editing his Romanian primer and grammar, affirmed that Moldovan is valaho-româno, or Romanian. However, after this date, the label "Romanian language" appears only sporadically in the correspondence of the educational authorities. Gradually, Moldovan became the sole label for the language: a situation that proved useful to those who wished for a cultural separation of Bessarabia from Romania. Although referring to another historical period, Kl. Heitmann stated that the "theory of two languages — Romanian and Moldovan — was served both in Moscow as well as in Chişinău to combat the nationalistic veleities of the Republic of Moldova, being, in fact, an action against Romanian nationalism". (Heitmann, 1965). The objective of the Russian language policies in Bessarabia was the dialectization of the Romanian language. A. Arţimovici, official of the Education Department based in Odessa, wrote a letter, dated 11 February 1863, to the Minister of Public Instructions stating: "I have the opinion that it will be hard to stop the Romanian population of Bessarabia using the language of the neighbouring principalities, where the concentrated Romanian population may develop the language based on its Latin elements, not good for Slavic language. The government's directions pertaining to this case aim to make a new dialect in Bessarabia, more closely based on Slavic language, will be, as it will be seen, of no use: we cannot direct the teachers to teach a language that will soon be dead in Moldova and Wallachia... parents will not want their children to learn a different language to the one they currently speak". Although some clerks, like Arţimovici, realised that the creation of a dialect apart from the Romanian spoken in the United Principalities could never be truly effective, most of them "with the aim of fulfilling governmental policy, tendentiously called the majority language Moldovan, even in the context where Romanian had always been used previously".[16]
This section presents the sound changes that happened from Latin to Romanian. The order in which the sound changes are listed here is not necessarily the order in which they actually happened in reality.
In Vulgar Latin, short /e/ and /i/ followed by another vowel were changed to a semivowel /j/. Later, /j/ palatalized preceding coronal and velar consonants, changing its quality. The results in modern Romanian are:
Notice that the dental plosives t and d were changed to postalveolar affricates before o and to alveolar affricates before other vowels. This alternation is still productive in modern Romanian, cf. credinţă ('faith') - credincios ('faithful'), oglindă ('mirror') - oglinjoară ('little mirror').
The above palatalizations occurred in all of the Romance languages, although with slightly differing outcomes in different languages. Labial consonants, however, were unaffected by the above palatalizations. Instead, at a later time, the /j/ underwent metathesis and the labial consonant stayed unchanged:
Classical Latin had ten pure vowels (monophthongs), along with three diphthongs. By the 1st century AD, if not earlier, Latin diphthong ae became [ɛː], with the quality of short e but longer; and oe soon afterwards became [eː], merging with long ē. This left au. An early trend in the urban Latin of Rome, already during Cicero's time (c. 50 BC), merged it with ō, and a few common words reflect this in Romanian, e.g. coadă "tail" < cōda < Classical cauda; similarly ureche "ear" < ōricla < Classical auricula. But in general, the territories outside of Rome were unaffected by this change; /au/ remained everywhere for centuries afterward, and continues to this day in Romanian.
Long and short e,i,o,u differed in both quality and quantity, with the shorter versions lower and laxer (e.g. e [ɛ] vs. ē [eː]). Long and short a differed only in quantity. At a certain point, quantity ceased being phonemic, with all vowels long in stressed open syllables and short elsewhere. This automatically caused long and short a to merge, but the remaining vowels took two different paths:
Romanian and other Eastern Romance languages follow a mixed scheme, with the back vowels o,u following the Sardinian scheme but the front vowels e,i following the Western Romance scheme. This produces a 6-vowel system (contrast the Sardinian 5-vowel system and Western Romance 7-vowel system).
Back vowels:
Latin short u seems to have been lowered to o when stressed and before m or b in some words:
Also, Latin long ō was changed to u in a few words:
Remember that front vowels underwent the following pan-Romance changes:
Individual consonants did not undergo major changes. The labialized velar plosives were changed to labials before a and to plain velars before other vowels; in question words beginning with qu-, this was never changed to p- (presumably through analogy):
Another important change is the labialization of velars before dentals, which includes the changes ct > pt, gn > mn and x > ps. Later, ps was simplified to s in most words.
As in Italian, all final consonants were lost. As a consequence, there was a period in the history of Romanian in which all words ended with vowels.
At some point, intervocalic l was changed to r. From the evolution of certain words, it is clear that this happened after the above-mentioned palatalization, but before the simplification of double consonants (as ll did not change to r) and also before the palatalization due to following i. Some examples:
The dental consonants t, d, s, l were palatalized again by a following i or j (from the combination je/ja < ɛ < stressed e):
Unstressed a became ă (except when at the beginning of the word) and unstressed o became u. Then ă became e after palatal sounds. Unstressed o was kept in some words due to analogy.
The vowel e was changed to ă when preceded by a labial consonant and followed by a back vowel in the next syllable (i.e. it stayed e when the following vowel was i or e):
These are changes that did not happen in all dialects of Romanian. Some belong to the standard language, while some do not.
In southern dialects, and in the standard language, dz is lost as a phoneme, becoming z in all environments:
The affricate dž became j only when hard (i.e. followed by a back vowel):
Former palatal resonants /ʎ,ɲ/ were both weakened to /j/, which was subsequently lost next to /i/:
Former intervocalic /l/ from Latin -ll- was lost entirely before /a/:
But Latin -ll- that became word-final due to later vowel loss was preserved:
Former intervocalic /v/ (from Latin -b-,-v-) was lost, perhaps first weakened to /w/:
the accented u preceded by a n lengthens and develops a nasal infix, n.
This affects only a few words:
It also explains the plural mână - mâini ('hand(s)'). This is also specific to southern dialects and the standard language; in other regions one may hear câne etc. It is a compensatory lenghtening followed by dissimilation : pâne > pââne > pâine. Appears only in the Oltenia dialect, and has spread from it to literary Romanian. Has alternatively been explained as palatalization followed by metathesis : câne > cân'e > câine. (Oltenian has câine, all other dialects have cân'e.
This is specific of northern dialects. It means that these consonants can only be followed by back vowels, so any front vowel is changed to a back one:
|
|||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||