The Daco-Roman Continuity Theory Makes No Sense!

[Ion Basescul]

Two out of the three first-attested Wallachian dukes/leaders had Slavic names too, it doesn't have to imply a recent Bulgarian origin. A significant part of the Romanian vocabulary used to be Slavic anyway, until those words were purged and despite that even today you still say 'da' for 'yes'

Likewise Aromanian settlment was minor outside of Dobruja and oddly enough Dobruja is a bit more northern than Muntenia according to the averages you yourself made.

They weren't purged. They exist as archaisms. It's the same thing as with any other language.
The language had to be standardised and a lot of neologisms were used. A very similar situation happened with Russian. Here's a good video on the Russian case (it has English subtitles if needed).

[Ion Basescul]

oddly enough Dobruja is a bit more northern than Muntenia according to the averages you yourself made.

Because the Northern part of Dobruja (Tulcea county) is even nowadays about 7% Russian+Ukrainian. In 1850 they constituted about 11% in all of Dobruja.
But even without that, many settlers in Dobruja come from all over Romania and Republic of Moldova. This is why, among individuals, in Dobruja you find the most Southern samples from Romania (including Wallachia), but also some that look out of place for the region.

[CommonSense]

They weren't purged. They exist as archaisms. It's the same thing as with any other language.
The language had to be standardised and a lot of neologisms were used. A very similar situation happened with Russian. Here's a good video on the Russian case (it has English subtitles if needed).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-lat...on_of_Romanian

Eliminating 'archaisms' by adding words from French and Italian? If you had to go borrowing words from other languages to replace them, it means you had no local equivalent of your own.

[Kökény]

Great points, especially about Gesta Hungarorum.

Off topic, but what's your take on the origin of Székelys?

[Ion Basescul]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-lat...on_of_Romanian

Eliminating 'archaisms' by adding words from French and Italian? If you had to go borrowing words from other languages to replace them, it means you had no local equivalent of your own.

We have, most Romanians know like at least 3 words for love and many other words. In most cases the injected neologisms didn't even pick up, which is why the oldest texts in Romanian like Neacsu's letter are perfectly intelligible, apart from the formal opening and ending in pure Bulgarian.

[Mingle]

And why would Romania have to be the one more northern and not Albania too southern for its modern position?

Did you even read a single thing I wrote?

Because there is complete homogeneity in Romanian dialects, which is impossible if the language originated in Romania. Romanian doesn't even have any dialects, just regional accents. It makes much more sense for the language to have originated around Moesia in northwestern Bulgaria and eastern Serbia.

And also, historically it doesn't make sense. There are records of East Romance people south of the Danube centuries before those north of it. And based on historical records and toponymic evidence, the first Romanians came to modern Romania around the beginning of the 13th century.

Now your turn to explain why it makes more sense for the Romanian and Albanian place of contact

In fact, the consensus is that modern albanians originated in a place neighbouring Romania and no theory so far of romanians originating in a place other than the modern one has ever been proven.

"Modern consensus", in Romania? Check the maps I posted. They're based on theories put forward by scholars and not a single region there is north of the Danube for reasons I mentioned.

Btw, if you've ever read books regarding the subject, you'd know that there are plenty of evidence(archaelogical, documents etc..) proving the transition from the conquered dacians to romans. I don't care about later imports: turkics, slavs etc...

I used to support this theory cause of a book I read from a Romanian perspective that mentioned this. The evidence for it is overall small and lacking when looked at deeper. Also, specify what archaeological evidence and whatnot you're referring to that marks the transition, because I debunked the Romanian arguments in my fifth post that mentioned things like the existence of Roman coins and churches. And the Dacians were completely wiped out and the region was populated by many people afterward. Even if Romanians are native to Transylvania, they're not descended from Dacians.

[ixulescu]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-lat...on_of_Romanian

Eliminating 'archaisms' by adding words from French and Italian? If you had to go borrowing words from other languages to replace them, it means you had no local equivalent of your own.

You're insisting with this "elimination" or "replacement". It never happened. The old words still exist in the language. They can be found in dictionaries, they're used mostly in liturgical context. Only the words that were used to describe realities that don't exist anymore (medieval stuff) are no longer in common use, but again, they are still in the dictionary.

[Mingle]

Dacians were not wiped out by the Romans. That's nonsense, no sensible historian would support this. The common arrangement of the Roman settlements/cities in Roman Dacia was to be supported/surrounded by Dacian farmer's villages. This has been the case until 6th century AD. There's ample archaeological evidence for this. There were far more Dacians in Roman Dacia than Romans. Thinking otherwise is just dumb.

If Dacians weren't wiped out by Romans, then why were only 2% of names in Roman Dacia of Dacian origin and why did Romans claim that Roman Dacia was cleansed of Dacians?

[Mingle]

Romanians never originated in Transilvania, I dont know who told you this lie.

The former Roman province of Dacia is mostly in Transylvania.



So where do you believe they originated then if not Transylvania?

Szekelers are different than romanians and from hungarians from Hungary but closer to romanians

[ixulescu]

Did you even read a single thing I wrote?

Because there is complete homogeneity in Romanian dialects, which is impossible if the language originated in Romania. Romanian doesn't even have any dialects, just regional accents. It makes much more sense for the language to have originated around Moesia in northwestern Bulgaria and eastern Serbia.

And also, historically it doesn't make sense. There are records of East Romance people south of the Danube centuries before those north of it. And based on historical records and toponymic evidence, the first Romanians came to modern Romania around the beginning of the 13th century.

Now your turn to explain why it makes more sense for the Romanian and Albanian place of contact

Dude, you're trying to instill life into a 19th century corpse.

All Balkanites have closer ties to Albanians that Romanians, both genetic and cultural/linguistic ties.
Just stop with this nonsense.

Romanians were leaving Transylvania in the 13th century, not coming in. You simply don't know the basic history of this place.