Are Balkan Slavs Slavicized Romanians?

[Token]

we have another self proclaimed expert.

it's science that doesn't know much. we still don't have proper sampling of the modern populations and you think you know what the paleobalkanites were or the mix of pre-modern populations in the balkans based on a handful of samples.

my friend, you're an idiot.

The problem is not the lack of data. The problem is your incompetence.

[ixulescu]

The problem is not the lack of data. The problem is your incompetence.

dude just stop

[Dorian]

ixulescu is right , people need to stop acting like they got everything figured out..be sure that "half"of the things repeated in such forums/blogs will be disproved ,new theories might emerge or outdated ones be proved etc.

[Dunai]

For those curious to look at the original middle Hungarian text:





This is the Unicode transliteration:




but of course idiots like Dunai will say this text doesn't exist . It was invented by shifty Romanians.

What is the source of the picture you inserted, what is the title of this work? The internet is vast, how am I supposed to look up to verify what is the context of it? When I copied your made-up "Unicode transliteration" text into google it only gave me this thread and your post as the only source of provenience. Why am I not surprised? Learn the basic rules of a debate. If you are incapable of following the rules of a debate, just because you're on the internet (lol, what a cowardly argument), than why even expect to be taken seriously? When debating you post links to sources and provide elementary information about what you are posting, especially when it comes with pictures. Secondly you are completely clueless how the rules of transliteration to period pronunciation works: you don't reproduce the original text and call it a transliteration, that is called original text dummy. A transliteration to period pronunciation is a process when you take given original text, the original orthography, and use the actual sounds how it was supposed to be written. But since the alphabet was not stabilized and adjusted to modern rules, as with all languages in the Medieval era, we get an odd looking text to modern eyes. If we only look at original orthography, especially of Early Hungarian (Latin had only a limited 23-24 alphabet, while Hungarian had around 40 sounds), but that doesn't mean the pronunciation of the text is as it appears. The orthography of a language doesn't equate its pronunciation. These are linguistics 101, lol. Heck, look at English and French as greatest examples of how different the pronunciation of these two languages are compared to what letters are actually written down. Any modern Hungarian can pretty easily understand any Medieval and Renaissance era Hungarian texts when using proper transliteration of all the sounds that were poorly written down with the limitations of the Latin alphabet. In this thread me and other Hungarian users have posted several complete texts, giving their names, their origins, and links, how their orthography looked like and how they were actually pronounced. Stupendous, that a none-speaker of Hungarian has the obscenity to pretend he knows better if a native speaker can or cannot understand our early texts. You are absolutely a disgrace to sane debate.

[WeirdLookingFellow]

Romanians are proto-Romanians + local Slavs, South Slavs are Slavs + local Vlachs.

If we base this assertion on historical migrations, both Romanians and Balkan Slavs are Proto-Balkanites + Slavs. Now these proto-balkanites can be descendants of Cucuteni-Trypillia or Celts, and it can vary based on geography.

[Tommie]

Romanians aren't half Slavs, I don't understand why people keep repeating that. Genetic-wise, their influence exists depending on the region but it's widely overstated.

[vbnetkhio]

If we base this assertion on historical migrations, both Romanians and Balkan Slavs are Proto-Balkanites + Slavs. Now these proto-balkanites can be descendants of Cucuteni-Trypillia or Celts, and it can vary based on geography.

yeah but in your case it was proto-Romanians who were mostly Dacian+Roman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Romanian_language

we had our own paleo-Balkanites or Vlachs who were distinct from proto-Romanians. but we have some proto-Romanian blood too, the influence can be seen in many toponyms and surnames.
so the answer to OP's question is yes, but only partially.

[Aspar]

yeah but in your case it was proto-Romanians who were mostly Dacian+Roman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Romanian_language

we had our own paleo-Balkanites or Vlachs who were distinct from proto-Romanians. but we have some proto-Romanian blood too, the influence can be seen in many toponyms and surnames.
so the answer to OP's question is yes, but only partially.

It's funny to me when you Serbs use 'we' when you speak about South Slavs. Not to mention that the differences are vast from a South Slavic group to Macedonians for example in both culture and genetics. We don't even look the same.

For example, we Macedonians have our own melos and traditional instruments like 'Gaida' and 'Kaval' but also our traditional dances which are quite different than your Serbian for example.

I am also administrator of our project and can reassure u that there is a big difference in our ethnogenesis as well. For example, there are many subclades among the Macedonians which are basically inexistent among the Serbs. But even those that are shared for example I-Y3120 are mostly with TMRCA of the subclade in question. There are some matches that are closer but are apparently the result of Serbian assimilation of the people from today's South Serbia who are quite different than your real Western Serb.

Maybe it's your unhidden desire to apply your thesis of 'same people' and dreams of greater Serbia but that's not the case. Not to mention that our languages are not really 'the same'...

[Pribislav]

It's funny to me when you Serbs use 'we' when you speak about South Slavs. Not to mention that the differences are vast from a South Slavic group to Macedonians for example in both culture and genetics. We don't even look the same.

For example, we Macedonians have our own melos and traditional instruments like 'Gaida' and 'Kaval' but also our traditional dances which are quite different than your Serbian for example.

I am also administrator of our project and can reassure u that there is a big difference in our ethnogenesis as well. For example, there are many subclades among the Macedonians which are basically inexistent among the Serbs. But even those that are shared for example I-Y3120 are mostly with TMRCA of the subclade in question. There are some matches that are closer but are apparently the result of Serbian assimilation of the people from today's South Serbia who are quite different than your real Western Serb.

Maybe it's your unhidden desire to apply your thesis of 'same people' and dreams of greater Serbia but that's not the case. Not to mention that our languages are not really 'the same'...

I2a & R1a Macedonians = Serbian sperm

E-V13 & J2b & R1b Macedonians = Vlach and Albanian sperm

Deal with it!

[Bosniensis]

Romanians aren't half Slavs, I don't understand why people keep repeating that. Genetic-wise, their influence exists depending on the region but it's widely overstated.

But Serbs for example are not more Slavic than Romanians.

Then nobody is half-Slav.