Who are the Romanians?

[Unurautare]

Even thought, they are Latinized Dacians, they look heavily Slavic influence.

What exactly do you perceive as being "heavily slavic" about our look?

[Lithium]

Dacians + some Slavic influence

[Humanophage]

Even thought, they are Latinized Dacians, they look heavily Slavic influence.

I agree with this. Dacians with significant Slavic influence, possibly some minor Latin.

But then who are 'Dacians'?

(from Dodecad K=12)


Significant Cuman admixture would have indicated much higher North and Southeast Asian elements, as in Nogays. Significant Turkish influence would have meant a higher West Asian score, but Romanians fit more or less seamlessly into the transition between Hungarians/Ukrainians and Bulgarians. They have a high East European score, which is normal for the region and which peaks in Slavs and Balts. Roman admixtures seem to be present as well, elevating the Mediterranean score beyond that of Bulgarians.

[morski]

Slavic stands for linguitic affiliation not for looks.

[Humanophage]

Slavic stands for linguitic affiliation not for looks.

It is just a convenient label for the genetic admixture that predominates among Poles, Russians, Baltic ethnicites, etc. It is prominent among all Slavs and the populations caught inbetween, like Hungarians or Romanians, meaning they intermixed with Slavs or were of a similar stock from the beginning. It seems to coincide with Slavic migrations, like R1a. The rest of the admixtures are different, which means a Pole and a Yugoslav will generally look not too similar. That doesn't cancel out the large "Slavic" (northeast European) element in the Balkan populations.

[morski]

It is just a convenient label for the genetic admixture that predominates among Poles, Russians, Baltic ethnicites, etc. It is prominent among all Slavs and the populations caught inbetween, like Hungarians or Romanians, meaning they intermixed with Slavs or were of a similar stock from the beginning. It seems to coincide with Slavic migrations, like R1a. The rest of the admixtures are different, which means a Pole and a Yugoslav will generally look not too similar. That doesn't cancel out the large "Slavic" (northeast European) element in the Balkan populations.

I understand this but it's inaccurate none the less.

[Unurautare]

Slavic stands for linguitic affiliation not for looks.

What do you think about Old Church Slavonic? Most of the Romanian "slavic affiliation" comes from that but I read yesterday the whole language was made by Greek monks for Orthodox conversion purpose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Church_Slavonic (I believed only the Cyrillic script was) and it remained as official Church and administration language here for a long time although most people couldn't understand anything.
At least we share the Mărţişor with Bulgarians,but that comes from the Thracians(or Romans from Italia),not the Slavs.

[Mordid]

What exactly do you perceive as being "heavily slavic" about our look?

Not just their look, but also, their language and culture have greater Slavic influence. if you look at thread Romanians, I think it is sufficient to just look at the pictures of Romanians in that thread to see obvious Slavic influences like him.

and so go... I dont think you can find these look among original Balkans..

[Unurautare]

I dont think you can find these look among original Balkans..

First one is a magyarized European,at least in name, born in Romania called Tamaş,the rest are ruskies,maybe old Russian believers that immigrated to Romania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipovan .
Language and culture are related to church - see Old Church Slavonic,doesn't necessarily have to do with Slavs but with the fact that we're orthodox,just like Polish people(and catholic Germans) are influenced by Catholicism.

[HungAryan]

http://www.imninalu.net/myths-Vlach.htm

The Roman occupation of Dacia was bloody and relatively short-lasted if compared with other areas where Latin language did not prevail ‒ like Britain or Pannonia, lands where Romans ruled for more than three and half centuries, or like Judea, from which Romans even deported almost the whole of the original population.
The Roman presence in Dacia (106-271 c.e.) was characterized by frequent revolts of the local inhabitants, and the occupation did never achieve a complete control of the region since different Dacian tribes kept their independence in earthen fortifications that they built on mountain peaks, and others moved outside the imperial borders. Roman historians attest that the pugnacious Dacian people were hard to surrender and even women and children fought the Roman legions. In such a background it is honestly very difficult to imagine a process of assimilation of any kind. Far from adopting the invaders' language, the Dacian groups that were not subjected by them would have reverted any process of Romanization (in case that there was any) as soon as the Romans fled away from the country. Romans evacuated Dacia not only because the Gothic invasions were at the gates, but also because they had no support of the native population that perhaps would have welcomed the Goths and in such conditions the Romans were unable to keep the control of the region ‒ on the contrary, if the Dacians would have been assimilated, the Romans would have dared to afford the Germanic hosts with the support of the local inhabitants. Even with favourable conditions, such an assimilation would have been impossible in such a short period, an unique event in the history of mankind. A further fact is that the Roman rule over Dacia did never concern the whole territory, but was only partial, and withdrawal from the eastern area begun several years before the definitive evacuation. Consequently, the theory that suggests a possible Daco-Roman blend is untenable in the light of the historic events.

The Daco-Roman myth was framed mainly on the basis of Romanian language, which is classified in the Neo-Latin group. Such classification is correct; what is erroneous is the explanation given by the supporters of such theory concerning the reason by which it is a Neo-Latin tongue, and the place where it supposedly developed from Latin into modern Romanian. As most languages, it has also features that do not correspond with the general pattern shared by the other tongues of the same group, but belong to the substratum ‒namely, the language spoken by the original population before they were Romanized‒ and other characteristics adopted from external influences in different historical periods. These features and the evolution of Latin into Romanian show in a definite manner the actual origin of the language and its geographic distribution according to historical stages.
At present there are two main dialects of the Vlach language: Romanian and Aromanian, and both have also a sub-dialect: Istro-Romanian from the first one and Megleno-Romanian from the second one. Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian are still spoken in the original homeland of all Vlach peoples ‒Albania, Macedonia and Greece‒ while Istro-Romanian is represented by an exiguous number of speakers in Istria. Evidences prove that there was only one Vlach language until the 11th century c.e., when the mediaeval ancestors of present-day Romanians began to get in touch with the peoples dwelling in the lands north of the lower Danube and thus they progressively acquired loanwords from them, while Aromanian continued its development separately. Yet, both dialects are still understandable to each other.
The characteristics of modern Romanian show that this language evolved in the southwest of the Balkan region since its very origins and during the centuries of Roman domination, that there was an intensive interaction with Albanian and a close relationship with the Southern-Italian dialects during that period, and that later it developed within the Bulgarian realm until the 11th century c.e.
On the other hand, there is a complete absence of Old Germanic terms that must have been transferred into Romanian, at least in a minimum amount, during the centuries of Gothic-Gepid rule, if Romanians were actually in Transylvania as the Daco-Roman myth supporters claim. There is also not any toponym in Transylvania having Romanian etymology before the 13th century c.e., nor any originally Romanian name for that region is recorded ‒ actually, the present and historic denomination (Ardeal/Transylvania) has been taken after Hungarian (Erdély). Indeed, the Romanian term ʹArdealʹ has no meaning, but is an adaptation of the Old Magyar name Erdő-elve, that means "land beyond the forest", translated into Latin as "Transylvania". Such a name reflects the Hungarian viewpoint, as for Romanians that region should have been called "Transcarpathia", the land beyond the Carpathian Mounts! Consequently, if Romanians were already there when Hungarians arrived, why then did they adopt the Magyar name? How could have they completely forgotten the denomination by which they knew the region before the arrival of Árpád's hosts?
In order to present in a comprehensible manner the linguistic aspects of Romanian that are relevant to the origin and evolution of the language, we will consider its relationship with Albanian, with Italian dialects and with Slavic separately.

The Romanian-Albanian Connection

A good amount of the non-Latin features present in Romanian language have their correspondence in Albanian, not only concerning lexicon but also structure, phraseology and idioms. These characteristics belong to two linguistic periods: the substratum, that is the language spoken by the Vlach before their Romanization ‒which may be the same of Albanian or a similar language‒, and the subsequent close contact between both peoples throughout a long period, mainly regarding their common life-style as shepherds.
Since the controversy about the origin of Albanians is presented by two main theories, one proposing the Illyrian stem and the other the Thracian stem, the advocates of the Daco-Roman myth vehemently support the second possibility, as they cannot deny the strong links between the Vlach and the Albanian peoples in early times. It is not our task to discuss about the origin of Albanians here, and in any case it is irrelevant whether one or the other theory is the right one, because the whole complex of proofs point out in a definitive manner to the area of present-day Albania and surrounding territory as the birthplace of the early Romanians and not the eastern side of the Balkans ‒ even if the Albanians would not be autochthonous but coming from any other place, it is in the area they live today where both peoples met and not elsewhere. A further factor is that there is not any historical record attesting any hypothetic migration of Albanians from Dacia (and there is not any vestige of their presence in that land), while there are many documents proving that the Vlach people lived since the early centuries by the southern Adriatic coastland ‒even before the Roman occupation of Dacia!‒ and as a matter of fact, there are still historic Romanian communities (Aromanians) living there.
Linguistic research has determined that most of the words shared by Romanian and Albanian are not loans from one tongue to the other but have a common origin in the substratum, before than these two languages began to be distinguished from each other. Romanian terms that are similar to Albanian mainly regard primary elements like body parts, names of animals and plants, and words specifically related with the pastoral life. It is significant that such vocabulary in Romanian is not found in Slavic or any other language spoken in the Balkans but only in Albanian. Another interesting fact concerns the very name of the capital city of Romania: Bucureşti, a word that is similar to the Albanian term "bukurisht", having the same meaning.
While the Vlach people were thoroughly Latinized, Albanian language has also received the influence of Latin since early times. A common territory and life-style shared by both peoples have produced the same semantic changes in both languages: a considerable number of Latin terms have undergone identical changes of meaning without parallel in any other tongue, and they cannot have happened just by chance or by any logical reason except because both peoples were living in a common environment and in the same territory.
Among the unusual features present in Romanian that are explainable by a comparison with Albanian we find also the definite article, that in Classic Latin precedes the noun but is enclitic in Romanian and follows the same patterns as in Albanian, and the personal pronoun in accusative case, that contains the suffix ~ne, exactly like in Albanian.

History records and scientific research on the people and their culture, their language and their religious tradition show the truth about Romanian origins. Unfortunately, an artificial and untenable theory has been deeply embedded on that people to the detriment of truth and honesty by fanatic nationalist leaders. The knowledge of the truth will not cause their expulsion from the land where they live, on the contrary, will grant them the freedom that they have never had...