Who understands each other better, the Slavic speakers or Romance speakers?

Who understands each other better, the Slavic speakers or Romance speakers?

Aren't they roughly the same age, from around the 5th century AD onward?

Attached: Romance_languages.png (2100x1525, 97K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balto-Slavic_languages#Historical_dispute
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Written Romance is piss easy for everyone. Spoken is hard unless speaker is trying to make himself understood.

>Written Romance is piss easy for everyone.
i can't understand a single word of romanian

slavs.

So is Romanian a special case among Romance because of its heavy Slavic influence?

kinda
we can understand bits of other romance languages though, especially italian

Well, as you can see they are isolated from us while we had historically a strong relationship by trade, political bonds and literature. Occitan was a language of poets in Iberia alongside galician-portuguese.

We can understand them. But they cant understand us because of our accents.

So what's the hardest non-Romanian Romance language for you? Sardinian?

If I asked someone in better Europe to take a stroll on a dick I suppose, I would be understood better, than some Romance language speaker did his version in worst Europe.

French for me

Eu-PT -100% written. 99.8% spoken
SP- 99% written. 95% spoken
FR- 85% written. 50% spoken
IT- 85% written. 65% spoken
RO- Ayy lmao

Why is that? Isolation or foreign influence?

Romance speakers.

>Who understands each other better, the Slavic speakers or Romance speakers?
Slavic speakers have the same words but different grammar
the ones that are closer alike are serbian, slovakian and ukrainian
Romance speakers have different words but the same grammar
i'm tempted to say the closer alike are portuguese, castillian and catalan/occitan, but sounds like cheating because they're all iberian
>Aren't they roughly the same age
because you used the word "roughly" then yes

>the ones that are closer alike are serbian, slovakian and ukrainian
lol wut

Germanic influence.

Their accent and the weird way they write.

Italian and spanish are supposedly mutually intelligible
I've seen tourist pamphlets labeled "Spanish/Portuguese" and just be written in spanish

>Their accent and the weird way they write.

Seconded. Both Italian and Spanish are way more phonetic languages than French. And that's what makes Spanish way more easy than French for me. Grammar is not that different.

>the weird way they write
Germanic influence. It's the only reason Latin "a" endings became "e"

this

>Italian and spanish are supposedly mutually intelligible
Almost. I can understand most of written spanish, when spoken it's a bit harder.

yeah, because ending words in e makes it totally incomprensible for me, thanks

That was just an example among others. Stop acting daft if you don't want to be treated as such.

yeah the words are different and there's a fuckton of false friends as well but it's not that difficult

ask around
friends i have from those different countries are like "why can i understand when you speak but not when you write?". once one of them learns the inflections they can translate any of those languages to theirs

Slavs.

>So is Romanian a special case among Romance because of its heavy Slavic influence?
Romanian isn't really a Romance language, during the 18-19th century they just had a language reform, where they inflated their own vocabulary with thousands of French and Latin words.

ukrainian is closest to russian
serbian is closest to slovenian
ikd about slovakian
out of all slavic languages, you cannot say those three are most alike, that's retarded

Attached: worry.jpg (1191x790, 655K)

Slovakian is like Czech mixed with Polish.

>ukrainian is closest to russian
wrong... if you're talking about languages
>serbian is closest to slovenian
yes, and to bosnian. croatian is the odd one out of the 4

my sources say you have it reversed: czech is slovakian mixed with polish

>my sources say you have it reversed: czech is slovakian mixed with polish
Don't let Czechs see this.

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

polish and czech have too much germanic (grammar) influence
why the fuck you write like you write, after all

Latin influence isn't Germanic.

Cyrillic Slav > Latin Slav

Attached: images.png (400x139, 16K)

>polish and czech have too much germanic (grammar) influence
>grammar
Maybe you mean lexical influence?!

yes that, sorry

Attached: images.jpg (570x237, 19K)

Well Romanian sound like Romance language but spoken with a Slavic accent because they had been under Bulgarian rule, and also because they were Latin rite Christians who were transferred to the Byzantine Slavic rite in the 800s because of photius which had a great effect on the development of the Romanian language from vulgar Dacian Latin.

>tfw I can understand all of these words without looking at translation

desu i was trolling about czech

Attached: images.png (780x201, 10K)

I'm not a linguist or a historian but I'm pretty sure you're not telling the whole truth.

>pic
OMG! Ukrainian and Belarusian have at least 8 (EIGHT!) words from Polish. So they're literally the same languages!

Why is Russian so different? Finno-ugric influence?

lmao

Nope, just in these some cases Russian uses other Slavic words than Polish/Belarussian/Ukrainian. But most of these Russian words either exist or could exist in Polish as they have Slavic roots.

For example, "nalog" in Polish means "addiction" but it comes from a Slavic verb "nalozyc" (both in Russian and Polish it means "to impose", "to put something on something"). Russian "utro" is related to Polish "jutro" which means "tomorrow". "Dvizhenie" is related to Polish "dzwiganie" which means "to carry", "trud" in Polish means "effort", so it's related to "work" as well, etc. etc, the only Russian word out of all these listed ones that doesn't have its cognate in Polish is "khorosho" (but "dobry" is used in Russian too, in phrases like "dobryj den" - "good morning")

They assimilated a lot of Mongoloid/non IE tribes, but you probably knew that.

>the only Russian word out of all these listed ones that doesn't have its cognate in Polish is "khorosho"
We can't know that for sure. There's a theory that хopoшo is derived from хopoшь - short form of хopoбpый/chrobry.

...

So basically what you're saying is that Russians descend from ancient Poles?

they all came from Old Slavonic if you're genuinely asking
which of the slavic languages sounds the oldest and unchanged though?

>Germanic influence.
lmao ok Moruk, keep telling yourself that

>which of the slavic languages sounds the oldest and unchanged though?
Old Church Slavonic desu

Actually romanian is easier to understand than say, french. French spoken form is the weird one of the family, romance languages tend to be phonetic in general, spelling matching the written form and without too many homonophones.
French is just a mess, it's too dependent on context.

NOUS

Slavs come from ancient Hyperboreans.

>which of the slavic languages sounds the oldest and unchanged though?

Out of the "living" ones? Imo it's Serbian.

ETIONS

in my opinion too, though my friend said slovenian

they come from ancient alien bosnians
just look at the pyramids they left

Bosniaks are mixed. The closest people to original Slavs are Lusatians, Poles, Czechs and West Belarusians.

Shouldn't the most untouched sound like Baltic languages? Aren't they very conservative?

yeah i was just memeing on that reply

no, because baltics came from another place than slavs. see the post above yours

>Czechs
They even look different why did you put them in the row with Belarusians?

czech look like Shrek villagers
very ancient
do they look like original slavs though?

Like who?

Don't they descend from the same common language though, proto-Balto-Slavic?

>Why is Russian so different?
It isn't. How the hell did you even manage to make such a global conclusion from a 8 word long list?

>Finno-ugric influence
is non-existent in standard Russian.

You don't need foreign influence to become different from the other languages of your family. Time and geographical/social distance between the idioms is enough.

All the mongoloid hordes that ruled over modern South and East Russia. As well as ethnics like Udmurts.

>though my friend said slovenian

Slovene has some archaic features like dual form of verbs, but every Slavic language retained some archaic features that have disappeared from other languages (Polish has nasal vowels for example). And Slovene uses the "new" way to create future tense (to be + verb in past participle), unlike Serbian, where the old construction "to want + verb in infinitive" survived.

Also, it's hard to say what is "the oldest" in case of Slavic languages, because we usually associate it with "what is the most similar to Old Church Slavonic", while we have to remember that Old Church Slavonic was already a southern dialect of Old Slavic language, therefore it underwent many changes before it even emerged as "Old Church Slavonic" and Serbian, as a South Slavic language connected with orthodox culture must be the most similar to it and therefore we think it sounds the oldest, but it's not entirely true, as the most original Old Slavic, that is thought to have emerged in the swamps of the Prypiat' river, must have been more similar to languages spoken there (so the borderland between West and East Slavic languages) than in southern Europe.

Also, the funniest thing is that the language that is deemed to be the most direct descendant of the Church Slavonic (Bulgarian), is also the least similar to it, modern Bulgarian dropped the case system and adopted articles, which is totally different from other Slavic languages (and Old Church Slavonic itself). Modern Bulgarian is gramatically more similar to English than to any Slavic language (it has Slavic vocabulary, though).

that's stretching it too far in time
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balto-Slavic_languages#Historical_dispute
it's like you want to compare sanskrit to modern greek and italian. i thought OP was interested in living languages relations

>All the mongoloid hordes that ruled over modern South and East Russia.

Attached: татары1.jpg (1545x803, 371K)

>is non-existent in standard Russian.

It is believed that the prevalence of the form "u menya est'" instead of "ya imeju" like in all other Slavic languages is a Finnish influence on Russian.

Russia has many nationalities.

Attached: ethnic groups of russia.jpg (3000x2313, 1.44M)

>nationalities
ethnicities*
or, since we're in Sup Forums, """races"""

Is its prevalence in Irish a Finnish influence as well?

Irish is a language from a Gaelic group so what does it have to do with Slavic languages?

The problem is why Russian is the ONLY language out of all Slavic languages where this form is used as the main one.

Udmurts are not mongoloids though. Theyre far more proto-indo-european than you are.

Yes, but what does it have to do with the statement "They assimilated a lot of Mongoloid/non IE tribes"?

I didn't say they're mongoloid. I called them "ethnics".
Correct. I'm drunkposting.

You think there aren't any influences in Russian language because of all the tribes Muscovites assimilated?

Btw, Serbian is the best sounding Slavic language and it's the best language to write songs in. It has very simple phonology.

>the old construction "to want + verb in infinitive"
Are you sure ću construction is the old?

Maybe Gaulish influence? Also I heard that modern French pronounciation was made up by French nobility. Like they intentionally made it to sound more "noble", how true is that?

In Russia we call them nationalities though, not ethnicities. Yes, Russian language is a little fucked up with terminology.

t. polish living in italy, I can understand Ukrainian, Slovak, Czech and Slovenian, never heard other slavic languages.
I can't understand other romance languages, they're too different betweenn them

Yes. In the Old Slavic language the future tense was expressed by either "I have + verb" or "I want + verb". "I will be + verb" is an innovation. I read about it somewhere, because I was curious about that Serbian and Bulgarian way of creating the future tense and it turned out this is the most archaic form.

"I will be + verb" is also an old construction, but only as "I will be + verb in past participle". It was initially used as English "future perfect", so to express that something will happen in the future before something different happens. And it's still used this way in Serbian ("budem dosao" - I will have come). Meanwhile, in Polish it became just another way to create future continuous ("będę robić"/"będę robił - both mean "I will be doing"). In Russian this form disappeared completely.

Reading Spanish, Italian, Catalan, Portuguese, etc. as a French speaker isn't that bad, you can get the general idea of what is written. I can't understand Spanish or Italian speakers when they speak full speed. I can't really understand Romanian or the other less relevant Eastern Romance languages at all.

The only language family that actually influenced (standart) Russian is the Turkic one, and even their impact is quite insignificant on a scale of a whole language. French alone probably has left more traces in Russian than all indigenous languages combined.

>"I will be + verb" is an innovation.

"I will be + verb in infinitive" to be more exact.

If the person speaking goes slowly you can understand most of what they say. As a Catalan I find Italian the easiest to understand.

>Gaulish influence
that would be Breton language, though French has some celtic words their main influences are Latin and Normand

There are a lot of French words of Celtic origin, but many more of Germanic origin. They're both still dwarfed by the Latinate words.

Also, Slavic languages are definitely more different from each other than Romance languages, but it's fun to learn other Slavic languages for a Slav, because you learn more about your own language too.

For example, only when I started to learn Serbian, I understood that Polish "personal endings" in verbs in past tense are leftovers from the old Slavic past tense that fully remained in Serbian.

It's pretty funny, because this Old Slavic past tense is created like " to be in present tense + verb in past tense". So "I was" in Serbian is "I am was", "I did" is "I am did" (Serbs sometimes write like that in English, it's a typical mistake for them), while in Polish we have only endings that are glued to verbs and Poles don't really know these endings come from "to be".

I don't think we can understand that much french without studying it

pls don't abandon this thread ;_;

yeah i was told the same
when it comes to word difference, Romance languages are more separated like noticed. but the sentence structure and even most suffixes and prefixes are all latinized
if you have some sort of Rosetta Stone among romance languages you can know which word means what because the syntax is the same
dunno if it's the same with slavic languages. some (my friend complained) are """over-complicated""" compared to serbian and others

Attached: images.png (512x818, 31K)

Well, Irish uses the construction "to me is" instead of a separate word for "to have" as well, so it seems like you don't really need Finno-Ugric influence for that.

My point is that the usage of this construction is a PIE archaism preserved in East Slavic, Indo-Arian and Irish languages while having a separate word for it is a common European innovation spread during the last millennia.

Attached: михи эст.png (554x736, 257K)

>if you have some sort of Rosetta Stone among romance languages you can know which word means what because the syntax is the same

Well, if you put Bulgarian aside (which is to Slavic languages the same what English is to Romance languages - it has Slavic vocabulary but its grammar is from another galaxy), then syntax is more or less similar, but not all patterns can be seen at first glance, like explained in with the past tense.

Every language has its own peculiarities, though.

>dunno if it's the same with slavic languages. some (my friend complained) are """over-complicated""" compared to serbian and others

Actually, Serbian is quite complicated, as it retained quite a lot of old Slavic features (old Slavic was very, very complicated and all modern Slavic languages are basically simplified old Slavic, just this simplification followed different patterns in different Slavic dialects and then languages).

Bulgarian has probably the simplest grammar, but it's like saying that out of all Romance languages, English has the simplest grammar, so you kinda understand this comparison isn't completely right. Again, if Bulgarian is put aside, Russian is probably the easiest Slavic language in terms of grammar (it has complicated pronunciation with free stress, though).

romanian language has less slavic influence than german or italian.

actually closest related to original latin from the romans, vulgar latin