What country has the best accents and why is it Romania?

What country has the best accents and why is it Romania?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accent_(sociolinguistics)
youtube.com/watch?v=OIh78GiTqrE
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
dictionary.com/browse/harsh
nde-ed.org/EducationResources/HighSchool/Sound/components.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=olGLix8L_2M
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>"""""""latin""""""" language spoken with slavic accent

no

I've only ever heard them speak English and it's sexy af

Only moldovans have slavic accent.Romanians dont have any accent when speaking english because our language is "read as you write".

That's not what accent means in this context.

Seriously? A Romanian speaking English sounds like the stereotypical "Dracula" voice, especially with the men. The women sound more German in my opinion.

It does in romanian.

Whether a romanian speaks english or romanian, the accent is the same and depends on the region

i've been told once I sound transylvanian too when speaking english

Gypsy Latin

Yes, and that accent is foreign to a Canadian. Or do you think their accents are exactly the same as yours?

what do you mean?I don't think this is the thread theme.

In the context that the word accent is used in this thread, everyone has an accent, unless they're mute. It simply refers to the distinctive way a person speaks, almost always because of where they're from.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accent_(sociolinguistics)

and?

see I was answering to not to OP

>Romanians dont have any accent when speaking english because our language is "read as you write".

South romanians don't have an accent when speaking.They speak bland english, like a robot.

Everyone has an accent, unless they're mute.

If you put it like this then south romanians have this accentuated robot accent which sounds bland.

Whether it sounds bland or not is subjective.

Accent is not subjective,unless you have different ears.

It sounds bland to you, but to someone from another part of the world it can sound very strong.

It's completely subjective.

No.Its the same how slavic accent sounds harsh,french one girly etc

>no, it's how [subjective opinions]
OK

Only subjective thing is if you like it or not.A sound cannot be subjective.

Whether something is harsh or girly is subjective because it's possible for someone else to judge it completely differently than you.

>Whether something is harsh or girly is subjective because it's possible for someone else to judge it completely differently than you.

But if you judge it on how it sounds it will always be the same result :)

The sky will always be seen as blue if you look during the day.

>But if you judge it on how it sounds it will always be the same result :)
No, it won't be. Some people call it harsh or girly, others call it bland.

>The sky will always be seen as blue if you look during the day.
The accent is always slavic or french, but it's not always harsh or girly. Just like the sky is always blue during the day, but it's not always warm or soothing or whatever the fuck you want to make up for it.

See the difference? "Blue" or "Slavic" are objective descriptions. "Warm" or "harsh" are subjective perceptions.

>No, it won't be. Some people call it harsh or girly, others call it bland.

Slavic phonetics are always harsh.

>but it's not always warm or soothing or whatever the fuck you want to make up for it.

Im talking about the color.

>Blue" or "Slavic" are objective descriptions. "Warm" or "harsh" are subjective perceptions.

Slavic is not a parameter.Harsh/Girly/Warm are parameters :)

You're just pretending to be retarded, right?

>Slavic is not a parameter.Harsh/Girly/Warm are parameters :)
Slavic is the only parameter in that sentence. All the others are subjective opinions. I like how you included warm in there though, it's like you're confused by your own arguments.

You do not seem to understand.Slavic will always sound harsh for the normal ear.If it doesn't then it is something wrong with your ears not with the language.Romance languages will always sound warm.

You cannot change this, its due to the language structure.

>You do not seem to understand.Slavic will always sound harsh for the normal ear.
You do not seem to understand that there is no such thing as "the normal ear".

The perception of an accent is not tied to the physical sound itself, but to the interpretation your mind creates.

What you're saying is the equivalent of "Salty foods will always taste harsh to the normal tongue."

Salty foods will always taste salty to the normal tongue.

Are you retard?

>Slavic accents will always sound slavic to the normal ear.
I can agree with that, just don't add subjective crap on top.

>Slavic accents will always sound slavic to the normal ear.

and slavic sound is harsh.

Slavic accents will always sound harsh to the normal ear.

And you called me a retard for doing the same thing you just did here. Ironic :^)

Again you do not seem to understand.

>Slavic accents will always sound slavic to the normal ear

but what is slavic sound?Slavic sound is harsh.Why?Due to the language structure.

Slavic sound cannot be multiple sounds, just one.

user, you don't seem to understand. The normal slavic sound can only be described as slavic. Something can't be objectively harsh unless you're talking about the abrasiveness of a physical surface. Likewise a romance accent can't objectively be called warm, because an accent can't have a temperature.

By the way, I asked three people if romance accents are warm and they only looked at me strangely (and told me to stop having stupid arguments over the internet). It just proves what I told you earlier. You're dealing in subjective terms and pretending they're objective. It might be a common subjective perception in your country, but it just doesn't work for people who are different enough from you.

harsh,warm are metaphores used to describe dumbo.

> I asked three people if romance accents are warm and they only looked at me strangely (and told me to stop having stupid arguments over the internet). It just proves what I told you earlier.

>3 sheep are black => all sheeps are black

Nice logical fallacy you have there dumbo.

>You're dealing in subjective terms and pretending they're objective.

You're the one adding constantly different parameters to the equation dumbo.

>It might be a common subjective perception in your country, but it just doesn't work for people who are different enough from you.

your ears cannot be different than mine unless you are sick dumbo.

>objective metaphor
:^)

I REALLY can't tell if you're just pretending to be retarded now. Keep it up, it's funny.

>Nice logical fallacy you have there dumbo.
Sorry for not making a wide study on the phenomenon. My experiment was still larger than yours though :^)

>You're the one adding constantly different parameters to the equation dumbo.
You're the one who doesn't know how the equation is set up, dumbo.

>your ears cannot be different than mine unless you are sick dumbo.
I just think you're developmentally retarded. It would explain why you have trouble with such basic concepts like what the difference between an opinion and a fact is.

how can a metaphor be subjective or objective?When i say harsh I mean harsh.You are just putting words into my mouth.

>You're the one who doesn't know how the equation is set up, dumbo.

Its simple.A language can only sound in one way due to its structure.If it sounds different than you have a different accent,speech impediments etc those are parameters that cahnge the equation.

>difference between an opinion and a fact is.

its a fact that a language has only one phonetic structure.You cannot sound warm and harsh at the same time.

>When i say harsh I mean harsh.
No you don't.

If you did then you were also saying that romance accents are warm in objective terms. That they literally have a temperature, like a physical object.

If we really are dealing with objective warmth here, then you should be able to measure it with a thermometer.

Then tell me. How many C° does your accent have?

>Its simple.A language can only sound in one way due to its structure.
This is wrong. It's like saying a painting or poem can only be perceived in a single way. Then why do different interpretations exist?

I'll remind you that I actually have four opinions that are different from yours here. No, neither I nor any of the people I asked have any kind of mental illness or retardation.

Try it yourself. Ask your friends or family or whoever you have on hand to tell you what accents sound like to them in a single word.

>its a fact that a language has only one phonetic structure.You cannot sound warm and harsh at the same time.
Harshness or warmness are not terms you can use when talking about language in objective terms.

If you think they are, then please show me a formal definition. Cite a source. I'll wait.

Romanian accents are so shit
Ești prost sau te faci?

>No you don't.

Now you even know what i meant? :) This is subjectivity.

>If you did then you were also saying that romance accents are warm in objective terms. That they literally have a temperature, like a physical object.
>If we really are dealing with objective warmth here, then you should be able to measure it with a thermometer.

>Then tell me. How many C° does your accent have?

You have no ideea what a metaphor is.Then why are you even speakign with me if you lack those basic things? :)

>This is wrong. It's like saying a painting or poem can only be perceived in a single way. Then why do different interpretations exist?

This is another subject.I do not want to enter in polemics with you.Ultimately your question leads to "Do we have free will".If we do then different interpretations exist, if we dont then ideally everyone will have the same interpretation.

>I'll remind you that I actually have four opinions that are different from yours here. No, neither I nor any of the people I asked have any kind of mental illness or retardation.

Logical fallacy.

>Try it yourself. Ask your friends or family or whoever you have on hand to tell you what accents sound like to them in a single word.

Go to 0:50.This is the ideal russian accent.It will always sound harsh to every year.

youtube.com/watch?v=OIh78GiTqrE

>Harshness or warmness are not terms you can use when talking about language in objective terms.

So what are you saying is that we cannot describe how a language sounds :)))

again take a deep breath and reanalyze your sentences before posting.

Interpretation isn't a function of free will. You don't decide to interpret something differently on purpose. Well, you can if you want to, but generally you just see it the way you see it.

>Logical fallacy.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

>This is the ideal russian accent.It will always sound harsh to every year.
Doesn't sound harsh to me.

>So what are you saying is that we cannot describe how a language sounds :)))
Can you read? I'm saying you can't describe your feelings about an accent in objective terms, because your feelings like "harsh" or "warm" are subjective.

>again take a deep breath and reanalyze your sentences before posting.
Take your own advice.

>Thread about Romania

>walls of text

Every

Single


Time

>Interpretation isn't a function of free will. You don't decide to interpret something differently on purpose. Well, you can if you want to, but generally you just see it the way you see it.

Interpretation differs on different factors.But if everyone sees the world the same then there are not other factors.Again this is another subject.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

Had a good 5minute laugh.What is next, if the food is rotten then it does not mean its bad? kek It is obvious that if 3 sheeps are black than there is tiny chance(0.0000000001%) for all the other billions to be black too.

>Doesn't sound harsh to me.

Then you have different factors that darkened your judgement like for example anal fissures from this thread. The more consonants a language sounds => the more harsh it sounds and vice versa.

>Can you read? I'm saying you can't describe your feelings about an accent in objective terms, because your feelings like "harsh" or "warm" are subjective.

I am not describing any feelings here just the sound that my ears receive.

...

>Interpretation differs on different factors.But if everyone sees the world the same then there are not other factors.Again this is another subject.
Everyone doesn't see the world the same. That's the basis of all the mistakes you're making here. You just assume, like many teenagers and young adults, that your opinion must be universal because it works for you.

People think differently. You'll learn about it eventually.

>It is obvious that if 3 sheeps are black than there is tiny chance(0.0000000001%) for all the other billions to be black too.
Except we only have 5 sheep in this equation, user. You still didn't go ask anyone else. So it's four against one. Your opinion is on the losing side.

>Then you have different factors that darkened your judgement like for example anal fissures from this thread. The more consonants a language sounds => the more harsh it sounds and vice versa.
user, there is no such thing as a blank slate judgement. Not when dealing with subjective feelings like we are here.

>I am not describing any feelings here just the sound that my ears receive.
The only moment you were describing pure sound was when you used the word consonant. After that you told me about how consonants feel to you: harsh.

>Everyone doesn't see the world the same. That's the basis of all the mistakes you're making here. You just assume, like many teenagers and young adults, that your opinion must be universal because it works for you.

I don't assume anything I state facts.And like I said this is a different subject.

>People think differently

True, yet here its nothing to think.

>Except we only have 5 sheep in this equation, user. You still didn't go ask anyone else. So it's four against one. Your opinion is on the losing side.

This is irrelevant, like i said.5 people cannot piss against the wind, the wind here being facts.

>Not when dealing with subjective feelings like we are here.

We aren't dealing with anything subjective here.

>After that you told me about how consonants feel to you: harsh.

Consonants have a different sound that that of vocals to anyone and all the sounds are more "though/harder".Afterall, this is one of the main differences between them and vocals.This is how you make words, binding consonats with vocals.

>I don't assume anything I state facts.
No you don't. You're pulling things out of your ass. You still didn't cite a single source for your ridiculous claims, even though I asked you for it several times. I don't even care if it's a super serious source - just give me anything. Go on, if it's really a universal undisputable fact it should be incredibly easy.

>True, yet here its nothing to think.
Just because you're too stubborn to stop pretending you're right doesn't make a concept disappear, user.

>This is irrelevant, like i said.5 people cannot piss against the wind, the wind here being facts.
Still refusing to ask anyone I see. You just refuse to do it because you know that I'm right. There is no excuse you can use here, just asking a few people is incredibly easy.

>We aren't dealing with anything subjective here.
We are, we're dealing with how harsh or warm something FEELS. Or did you actually go out and measure the temperature of your accent? You should just tell me what the °C of it is if that's the case.

>Consonants have a different sound that that of vocals to anyone and all the sounds are more "though/harder".
Tougher or harder equaling harsh is your opinion.

>You still didn't cite a single source for your ridiculous claims

There is no need to state any source here.

>Just because you're too stubborn to stop pretending you're right doesn't make a concept disappear, user.

Follow your own advice user.

>Still refusing to ask anyone I see. You just refuse to do it because you know that I'm right. There is no excuse you can use here, just asking a few people is incredibly easy.

asking people is not how you prove things :)

>We are, we're dealing with how harsh or warm something FEELS. Or did you actually go out and measure the temperature of your accent? You should just tell me what the °C of it is if that's the case.

You don't know what a metaphor is.Again, the sound that a language with more consonants than vocals produces, will always be more harsh to the ear.

>Tougher or harder equaling harsh is your opinion.

dictionary.com/browse/harsh

romanians are pretty good people but only their gypsies do bad rep

>There is no need to state any source here.
There is no source here, because nobody thinks the same way you do.

If I said that you are the absolutely only person who thinks the way you do, you would have no way to prove me wrong.

>asking people is not how you prove things :)
It is when you're dealing with how people perceive things. It's a lot better than shitposting no matter what though :^)

>dictionary.com/browse/harsh
All of the things in there are subjective perceptions. Thank you for posting a link that proves me right, I guess.

This is the most autistic argument ever

...

>There is no source here, because nobody thinks the same way you do.

Nice subjective accusation.

>If I said that you are the absolutely only person who thinks the way you do, you would have no way to prove me wrong.

This is irrelevant.If every mother except 1, would give birth to microcephalyc children , that does not mean that the normal children should b microcephalyc :)

>It is when you're dealing with how people perceive things. It's a lot better than shitposting no matter what though :^)

You can ask how many people you want.You cannot change facts same as you cannot change the sky color :)

>All of the things in there are subjective perceptions. Thank you for posting a link that proves me right, I guess.

I posted the link to show you synonyms.You are very quick to manipulate and change the subject :)

>Nice subjective accusation.
I thought you would realize that I just reversed what you've been doing.

It's good that you didn't, it's really funny to see you know perfectly well what a piece of shit you are.

>This is irrelevant.If every mother except 1, would give birth to microcephalyc children , that does not mean that the normal children should b microcephalyc :)
We're dealing with perceptions, m8. If everyone perceives something in a way, then they just do. There is no "should" about it.

>You can ask how many people you want.You cannot change facts same as you cannot change the sky color :)
What, back to the warm skies? Not everyone thinks a blue sky looks warm.

>I posted the link to show you synonyms.You are very quick to manipulate and change the subject :)
I didn't change the subject. I saw a lot of words that describe subjective experiences, which was expected seeing how they're the synonyms of another word that describes the subjective.

>I thought you would realize that I just reversed what you've been doing.
>Haha you just found out that my arguments are shit so I will just say I caught you in my trap

my fucking sides.

>We're dealing with perceptions, m8. If everyone perceives something in a way, then they just do. There is no "should" about it.

We're dealing with objective facts, m8.

>What, back to the warm skies? Not everyone thinks a blue sky looks warm.

Its not about the temperature here, thats a factor.For example I do not care that the harsh sounds of german sounds more like they are out of breath due to the 'h'.This is subjective.

You are trying to change the subjective in a subjective matter to win.

>I didn't change the subject.

You don't even realise it.Again, just be a gentleman and accept your defeat :)

>We're dealing with objective facts, m8.
Prove it.

>You are trying to change the subjective in a subjective matter to win.
I'm assuming that the second subjective in your sentence was meant to be objective.

No user, our argument from the start was whether the personal perception of the aesthetics of accents are subjective or objective.

>You don't even realise it.
Point it out then.

>Prove it.

just did above.

>Point it out then.

Just pointed it out in the post above.You don't even realise when i point it out :))

>I'm assuming that the second subjective in your sentence was meant to be objective.

my fault.Its suppose to be "You are trying to change the objective* in a subjective matter to win."

>No user, our argument from the start was whether the personal perception of the aesthetics of accents are subjective or objective.

A sound cannot be subjective.A composition of sounds can be subjective.A sound is the product of a sound wave which will have a fixed value.

>just did above.
Didn't see anything, all you do is bleat the same words over and over like a sheep. Saying "I'm right" doesn't prove anything.

So please, prove it.

>Just pointed it out in the post above.
No you didn't. You just said I didn't realize it without saying anything of substance.

So go on, point it out.

>A sound cannot be subjective.
We aren't talking about sound as a physical quantity. We're talking about human perception of the sound.

Just like how a chemical cannot be subjective, but the way it looks when you use it as paint on a canvas can.

>A sound is the product of a sound wave which will have a fixed value.
What is the fixed value of harshness or warmness then? Give me a number.

The more consonants a language has the more harsh,though,barbaric,strong it sounds.

So the soundwave produced by a consonant will always be perceived harder than a vocal.

/thread

>What is the fixed value of harshness or warmness then? Give me a number.

Sure I would, but I don't have the tools at me to measure the soundwave

>harsh,though,barbaric,strong
These are all subjective perceptions.

>So the soundwave produced by a consonant will always be perceived harder than a vocal.
Except it's not, I already gave you examples of people who don't see it that way. For another example, if you google it, you will find many people talking about slavic accents in positive terms, so they obviously don't find them harsh.

Also a lot of people apparently think romanians and portuguese people sound russian. So much for that objective warmness, eh?

>These are all subjective perceptions

No they are not.They are words used to describe the objective values.Again , a thunder is strong/loud.This is objective.Same for above.

>Except it's not, I already gave you examples of people who don't see it that way. For another example, if you google it, you will find many people talking about slavic accents in positive terms, so they obviously don't find them harsh.

I do not care.I only take objective facts.

>tly think romanians and portuguese people sound russian.

Romanian and portuguese have foreign influence in them.

having an accent = you didn't learn the language properly

>ctrl+f
>hungary not mentioned anywhere

I'm offended you know. It's like you don't even hate our guts anymore.

Also give back Transylvania already, this joke has been going on long enough.

Fuck off bozgor

>They are words used to describe the objective values.
There are no objective values.

>a thunder is strong/loud.This is objective.Same for above.
Except loud is a possibly objective judgement. Harsh means you find something unpleasant, which means you don't like it, which is a FEELING.

>I do not care.I only take objective facts.
Then why don't you have any yet?

>Romanian and portuguese have foreign influence in them.
And why is this relevant? They are examples of something which is, according to you, both warm and harsh at the same time.

>There are no objective values.

OK.So I have to explain to you like you are 12.Depending on the dB of a soundwave, there is a range for loud,warm,harsh etc

> Harsh means you find something unpleasant, which means you don't like it, which is a FEELING.

No.The only subjective thing there is the "like it".You can like a harsh sound or not.This is subjective.That a sound is harsh is objective.

>Then why don't you have any yet?

facts are presented but you refuse to understand them :(

>And why is this relevant? They are examples of something which is, according to you, both warm and harsh at the same time.

I just said that you cannot have both a warm and harsh sound at the same time.Pay attention.

Romanian and portuguese are not the best examples, this is why I pick russian/bulgarian at slavic, because its very close to old slavonic phonetics.

Thank you! See was that hard?

>OK.So I have to explain to you like you are 12.Depending on the dB of a soundwave, there is a range for loud,warm,harsh etc
Prove it. Show me a source where this is detailed.

>You can like a harsh sound or not.
No you can't. If you judge something as harsh you're saying that you don't like it. It's more specific than just disliking it for unspecified reasons, but it completely falls under that umbrella.

>I just said that you cannot have both a warm and harsh sound at the same time.
Then you contradict yourself somewhere.

Either you're saying that people on the internet don't think that romanian and portuguese sound russian. They do, just google it, you'll find that a lot of people are talking about it.

Or you're saying that either romanian and portuguese aren't warm and/or that russian is not harsh.

Something needs to go here. You can't have it both ways.

>Romanian and portuguese are not the best examples
On the contrary, they are excellent examples. They show you're wrong and even you know it.

You guys do have accent, its not a slavic one but different. Cant really explain

>Prove it. Show me a source where this is detailed.

Huh?This is common knowledge.A sound is characterised by intensity, pitch, and tone, all having a numeric value.

>No you can't

So according to you I cannot say that i like harsh sounds kek.Now this is subjective my friend :)

>Then you contradict yourself somewhere.

Where?Show me :))

Again only moldovan dialect sounds like russian because its romanian with slavic phonetics and and also alot of slavic words.

>Or you're saying that either romanian and portuguese aren't warm and/or that russian is not harsh.

Portuguese and romanian arent warm or harsh.There are more categories tahn those.

>On the contrary, they are excellent examples. They show you're wrong and even you know it.

No.Best examples are classical latin and old church slavonic :)

Again what are you trying to prove?you are running around your tail

>This is common knowledge.
I'm sorry, I only take objective facts, not random claims.

>A sound is characterised by intensity, pitch, and tone, all having a numeric value.
We aren't talking about those, we're talking about harshness and warmness.

>So according to you I cannot say that i like harsh sounds kek.
You can, but it just shows you don't know what the word means. At least when it comes to sound.

From the dictionary you copied earlier:
>unpleasant to the ear; grating; strident:
Can you like something that you don't like?

>Portuguese and romanian arent warm or harsh.There are more categories tahn those.
Ah, so not all romance languages are warm, then. But earlier you said
>Romance languages will always sound warm.
So maybe you don't even know what you're trying to say.

>I'm sorry, I only take objective facts, not random claims.

Just gave you a objective fact.Again,.a sound is characterised by intensity, pitch, and tone, all having a numeric value. :)

>We aren't talking about those, we're talking about harshness and warmness.

the harshness and warmness is a combination of those properties :)

>You can, but it just shows you don't know what the word means. At least when it comes to sound.

I am sure I can claim that I like harsh sounds without any implications.

>Can you like something that you don't like?

Just like you said, just because some dont like it, it does not mean I don't like it.Subejctivity :)

>Ah, so not all romance languages are warm, then. But earlier you said

But its not correct to judge the moldavian dialect as romance.Its not a language.If you want to judge a language use the original/common dialect.

>Just gave you a objective fact.
Which was irrelevant to the discussion.

>the harshness and warmness is a combination of those properties :)
Prove it.

>Just like you said, just because some dont like it, it does not mean I don't like it.Subejctivity :)
Ah, so you finally agree that harshness is subjective. Interesting.

>If you want to judge a language use the original/common dialect.
What, latin and old church slavonic, the ones that nobody here knows and are completely irrelevant to the discussion about today's languages? Yeah, those are great examples. If you want to derail a conversation.

>This fucking thread

Ba tu esti handicapat mental?

Hello, I heard your language is objectively warm.

Did you know calling someone warm is a way to say they're gay here, Pedro? Oh yeah, and Pedro sounds really similar to our word for faggot, kids always giggle when they hear "Pedro de la Rosa" in school.

>Which was irrelevant to the discussion.

How is it irrelevant?This is how sounds work.Are you saying that intensity, pitch, and tone are not the properties of a sound?

>Prove it.

my
fucking
sides

>Ah, so you finally agree that harshness is subjective. Interesting.

If you like it or not is subjective.

>What, latin and old church slavonic, the ones that nobody here knows and are completely irrelevant to the discussion about today's languages? Yeah, those are great examples. If you want to derail a conversation.

Romanian and portuguese spoken in conservative areas are warm.

Really? We call gays warm too. How fascinating. Though it is not offensive.

>How is it irrelevant?
You were talking about pitch and amplitude and such instead of warmness and harshness. Basically, you're trying to change the subject to something else. Please stop.

>my
>fucking
>sides
I'm sorry, I only take objective facts.

>If you like it or not is subjective.
The word harsh describes a particular way of disliking something.

>Romanian and portuguese spoken in conservative areas are warm.
Then why do they sound russian?

i've been afk with some business

Now lets return

>You were talking about pitch and amplitude and such instead of warmness and harshness. Basically, you're trying to change the subject to something else. Please stop.

warmness,harshness are given by a combination of intensity, pitch, and tone.Those are the properties of any sound.Modify one of them and you have totally different sound.

>The word harsh describes a particular way of disliking something.

thats one of its meanings.If you don't like harsh you can use other synonym.Anyway, you got the point.

>Then why do they sound russian?

Because you don't hear the original accent from their urheimat zone.

>warmness,harshness are given by a combination of intensity, pitch, and tone.Those are the properties of any sound.Modify one of them and you have totally different sound.
You can keep SAYING this, but unless you actually give some figures or citation on it and how it ties into accent, I'm going to keep repeating the retarded line you gave me first.

Sorry, I only take objective facts.

>Because you don't hear the original accent from their urheimat zone.
We aren't talking about centuries ago, we're talking about the language as it is spoken today, because not the accents and the people who judge them from the start of this argument are from today. Stop bringing in even more irrelevancies.

>You can keep SAYING this, but unless you actually give some figures or citation on it and how it ties into accent, I'm going to keep repeating the retarded line you gave me first.

Are you idiot?This is like saying that 1+1 = 3
How the fuck do you think sounds are composed then?

nde-ed.org/EducationResources/HighSchool/Sound/components.htm

>We aren't talking about centuries ago, we're talking about the language as it is spoken today, because not the accents and the people who judge them from the start of this argument are from today. Stop bringing in even more irrelevancies.

And when did I speak about centuries ago?And like I said, romanian assimilated slavic elements, obviously, and those elements are more or less noticeable depending on dialect.

youtube.com/watch?v=olGLix8L_2M

>nde-ed.org/EducationResources/HighSchool/Sound/components.htm
There is no mention of accents in this link. No mention of harsh or warm either.

>And when did I speak about centuries ago?
>urheimat zone

>There is no mention of accents in this link. No mention of harsh or warm either.

Do you think they mention everything for autists like you?I gave you to see the sound properties.

Again note:Harsh,warm, etc etc etc are SOUNDS and SOUNDS are MANIPULATED by PROPERTIES.

>And when did I speak about centuries ago?

romanian is still spoken in its urheimat zone, unlike slovenian

>Do you think they mention everything for autists like you?I gave you to see the sound properties.
I didn't disagree about the sound properties, which is only tangentially related to this conversation. I keep asking you to give a source of some sort on how it ties into accents, which is actually centrally related to this conversation.

I mean, I didn't even get to specific questions, like delineating approximately how common various sounds are in various accents. You still didn't show me even the basics yet.

user, I can't even imagine what you're trying to prove with this post. Are you proud international people think you sound like a russian or something? Because if not, I'm completely confused.

>I didn't disagree about the sound properties, which is only tangentially related to this conversation. I keep asking you to give a source of some sort on how it ties into accents, which is actually centrally related to this conversation.

we were not speaking about accents here but on how the sound properties affect the perceived sound.

Romanian obviously does not sound like russian and international people dont think so.

>we were not speaking about accents here but on how the sound properties affect the perceived sound.
No, that was you changing the subject to something completely different. I even told you to stop changing it several times.

>Romanian obviously does not sound like russian and international people dont think so.
Just google it, you immediately get dozens of results like these.

>Open thread
>3/4 of it is a slovenian and a romanian arguing

Well, I can't say that I expected this.

Also, I'm not sure what makes you think our accent is any good. Even our regional accents are dogshit. Transylvanians sound like they're lobotomized, Moldovians sound like they're inhaling helium and Wallachians sound like they're being sarcastic.

I said that he way you hear sounds is objective because the production and the reception of the sound are objective.Everyone hears the same sound.

>Just google it, you immediately get dozens of results like these.

I did not got such results, not even 1 with russian in it and I used google.com in Incognito.It is obvious you googled : "does romanian sound like russian" or variations(this is why you have Russian highlighted in black and only 1,180k results)

The only good thing from your search, like I've been saying from post number 1, is pic related.

>I said that he way you hear sounds is objective because the production and the reception of the sound are objective.Everyone hears the same sound.
Yes, but our disagreement didn't come from the scientific properties of sound, but from the subjective perceptions like harsh and warm.

>I did not got such results, not even 1 with russian in it and I used google.com in Incognito.It is obvious you googled
user, the fact that any results exist already shows that people do in fact think so.

It's not some sort of mystery. Romanian sounds slavic to clueless foreigners. Slavic sounds russian to clueless foreigners. Therefore your langauge sounds russian to clueless foreigners.

harsh and warm are not subjective but objective.We all perceive the same sound.

>user, the fact that any results exist already shows that people do in fact think so.

I also found results where "romanian sounds like a nigerian speaking latin".Is this also true?

Facts are objective.Do not try to change them.

>harsh and warm are not subjective but objective.We all perceive the same sound.
No, harsh and warm are subjective because we don't all attribute them to the same sound.

>I also found results where "romanian sounds like a nigerian speaking latin".Is this also true?
Whether it's true or not is not in question.

>No, harsh and warm are subjective because we don't all attribute them to the same sound.

Again this is just false.How a sound sounds is determined by its properties.The ear does not modify these properties, it interprets the soundwaves exactly like they enter.

>Whether it's true or not is not in question.

Then by definition there's no question so why were you even giving me google results of romanians sounding like russian?

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>Again this is just false.How a sound sounds is determined by its properties.
Yes, but how it is DESCRIBED by a person is not. That is based on convention, and there is no specific convention for harshness and warmth. Hence people hold it to mean different things, and some people would say that what you think is warm or harsh just isn't.

>Then by definition there's no question so why were you even giving me google results of romanians sounding like russian?
Because the question was whether it's perceived by people in general if it sounds russian. It is.

You have a terrible attention span.

Accent in what language? I don't think you've thought this thread out well.
Here's a (you) for effort.

He's canadian, so it's english. Or maybe chinese according to memes.