No/si = Nu And Da!

[virg]

In most modern Latin tongues the words for "yes" and "no" and "si" and "no". French words at least rhyme. Slavs use "nyet" and "da". Romanians say "nu" and "da"? Changed half of a set of opposites?

 

Can anyone here explain their use of "da" (but not "nyet" without citing the presence of Slavs in Romania?

When did this begin. What hardnosed Slav conqueror taught them to say "yes" his way? When?

[Kosmo]

romanian-english

nu=no

da=yes

I have no ideea why. Maybe the linguists here will tell you.

Slavs were present in romania from the times of Justinian. They were assimilated, but slavonic (old slav language) was church and official language until XVI-XVII century. The chirilic alphabet was used until mid XIX century.

Ethnical origins of the leaders of the oldest (X century) political organizations in Romania are still debated. So, no hardnose slav conqueror is known.

[docoflove1974]

Such words are difficult, because they are so integral to the language, so in theory they should be 'native' and not borrowed...yet it happens often. The Slavic element is huge, to say the least, and I assume that it would be possible that they would be borrowed. I don't have a copy of Graham Mallinson's Rumanian (1986) on hand, but perhaps he says something.

[Gaius Octavius]

This may help a bit.

From: "Manual of Foreign Languages"; Geo. F. von Ostermann; Central Book Co.,Inc., 1952.

 

"This language sharply reflects the history of the Roumanian people. The basis of the language is a vulgate Latin, introduced by Trajans's legions when they occupied Dacia 101-107 A.D.

In the sixth century, however, the Slavs and the Bulgarians made conquests, and their influence bore heavily on the language, altering sounds, introducing novel forms, and in other ways affecting the composition and derivation of the vocabulary; thus the Latin dis- was displaced by the Slavonic ragu-, the nagative in- by the corresponding Slavonic ne-, etc.

In later years, the Albanians, Byzantines, Hungarians, Poles, and Turks, people with whom they lived on friendly or hostile terms also impregnated the language with word forms from their own stock, so that the language acquired characteristics that distinguish it from the other Romance languages.

The orthography also has undergone a number of successive changes beginning with 1866, when the Roumanian Academy was first established. Other radical changes were made in 1869, 1879, 1881, 1895, and finally in 1904, the Academy abandoned the etymological principles based on Latin orthography and adopted the phonetic principles in use today."

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Sadly for learners of classical Latin, we have no actual words for yes and no but rather repeat the sentence just asked by the questioner including keyword desginations for Yes or No. Nonne is the designation for yes while Num is for no. Well I might be wrong.

 

So I have no idea how Vulgar latin or any other Latin derived language developed single actual yes or no words.

Edited June 21, 2006 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Andrew Dalby]

Sadly for learners of classical Latin, we have no actual words for yes and no but rather repeat the sentence just asked by the questioner including keyword desginations for Yes or No. Nonne is the designation for yes while Num is for no. Well I might be wrong.

 

So I have no idea how Vulgar latin or any other Latin derived language developed single actual yes or no words.

 

That's exactly it. On this rare occasion I disagree with Docoflove (above) who said that such words are integral to a language and would be expected not to be borrowed. It can't be true, DOL, because Latin speakers (and ancient Greek speakers for that matter) didn't apparently feel the need for simple yes and no words at all. Or if they did they never wrote them down!

 

They do seem simple words to us standard English speakers ... and yet we often substitute for them. We say Yeah, Mm-hmm (however you spell that), Of course, I don't think so, and lots of other alternatives, when what we mean is Yes or No.

 

And that's true in the Romance languages as well.

 

When I was learning Portuguese 30 years ago, my teacher (who was Portuguese) advised against saying simply Sim (yes) or N

[docoflove1974]

On this rare occasion I disagree with Docoflove (above) who said that such words are integral to a language and would be expected not to be borrowed. It can't be true, DOL, because Latin speakers (and ancient Greek speakers for that matter) didn't apparently feel the need for simple yes and no words at all. Or if they did they never wrote them down!

 

Actually, I hesitated by saying 'tended'...I vaguely remember that CLat doesn't have the 'yes' and 'no' words in the language...but that doesn't mean they weren't there colloquially, as you and others have stated. But it was in all probability in the speech patterns of the speakers at some point, since most of the Romance world has the same words.

 

When I was learning Portuguese 30 years ago, my teacher (who was Portuguese) advised against saying simply Sim (yes) or N

Edited June 21, 2006 by docoflove1974

[Gaius Octavius]

DoL, when you get the cuss words, please pass them on.

Isn't oc the word for 'yes' in southern France?

[docoflove1974]

DoL, when you get the cuss words, please pass them on.

Isn't oc the word for 'yes' in southern France?

 

Will do...it'll happen later. I've got another couple of chapters left to write on the dissertation

 

I would imagine that the 'standard' word for 'yes' is oc, being that it's called Languedoc 'the land of oc'...but I had heard that there is much use of si for 'yes', too...and being that Monsieur Dalby lives in yonder parts of the world, I wanted to know his observations.

[Andrew Dalby]

DoL, when you get the cuss words, please pass them on.

Isn't oc the word for 'yes' in southern France?

 

Will do...it'll happen later. I've got another couple of chapters left to write on the dissertation

 

I would imagine that the 'standard' word for 'yes' is oc, being that it's called Languedoc 'the land of oc'...but I had heard that there is much use of si for 'yes', too...and being that Monsieur Dalby lives in yonder parts of the world, I wanted to know his observations.

 

As to whether 'si' is more common in the south, I don't know. But the main difference between oui and si is a matter of standard French (and it's quite difficult for an English speaker to get accustomed to): you have to say si if the previous speaker had said or suggested or implied that the answer would be non. Si means 'No, the answer is Yes!' Does that make sense?

 

As to whether 'oc' is the word for yes in the south, well ... It used to be, when Proven

[docoflove1974]

As to whether 'si' is more common in the south, I don't know. But the main difference between oui and si is a matter of standard French (and it's quite difficult for an English speaker to get accustomed to): you have to say si if the previous speaker had said or suggested or implied that the answer would be non. Si means 'No, the answer is Yes!' Does that make sense?

 

For the French, I'm sure it does.

 

As to whether 'oc' is the word for yes in the south, well ... It used to be, when Proven

Edited June 21, 2006 by docoflove1974

[virg]

As to whether 'si' is more common in the south, I don't know. But the main difference between oui and si is a matter of standard French (and it's quite difficult for an English speaker to get accustomed to): you have to say si if the previous speaker had said or suggested or implied that the answer would be non. Si means 'No, the answer is Yes!' Does that make sense?

 

For the French, I'm sure it does.

 

As to whether 'oc' is the word for yes in the south, well ... It used to be, when Proven

[virg]

Thanks, guys. Same answers I get from Romanians. It's just hard for me to accept that they'd changed just half a pair of opposites.

 

Something I googled on "Dacia" about the language; that according to both Herodotus and Pliny, the Thracian language was a coarse form of Latin. The Dac, a Thracian tribe using similar language. The Romans occupied only 14% of Dacia, for only 150 years. The author questions whether that brought their language, or they spoke a form of Latin/Thracian already.

[Primus Pilus]

The Romans occupied only 14% of Dacia, for only 150 years. The author questions whether that brought their language, or they spoke a form of Latin/Thracian already.

 

But who measured this percentage and what might it truly mean? Considering that the Romans controlled any urban areas and therefore the bulk of commerce, chances are that the Dacian natives were forced to pick up a bit of Latin whether they were under the direct yolk or not. I'm not sure what percentage of the Dacian population in the 2nd to 3rd centuries was urban but 14% seems like a terribly low number to maintain any semblence of control for such an extended period of time... against an enemy that had been persistently aggressive for over 2 decades.

 

(Though there was a rather disproportional presence of legionaries in Dacia compared to other provinces, but I'd be willing to go out on a limb and attest this to imperial border security as much as control of the Dacian population.)

[Kosmo]

Dacian was thracian and similar with the language of the getae and moesi.

Thracian was probably not close to latin. Most thracian became hellenized.

Latin influence on free dacians might have been large.