Pan Romance nationalism

Aromanian Nationalism was fairly Pan-Romance (often linked up at a close level with Romanian Nationalism and was propped up by the Italians during the invasion of Greece), but it was also highly unsuccessful.
 
I think youd need a pod in charlemagnes time, eg not conquering the saxons. Then the hre is much more latin,romance, and nostalgia later could look for its recreation. Aa pod this early butterflies away any states immediately recognizable as france or spain, though.o
 
I could perhaps see late 19th century Romania embracing some derivative of Romance (as opposed to romantic!) nationalism. Stressing their "Latin" heritage would presumably distinguish Romania from neighboring states, the implication being that Bucharest was an embattled outpost of civilization that looked more toward Paris than Moscow.
OTL numerous Romanian intellectuals were Francophile, and some like Ioneso,did their best known work after emigrating to France.

uh, that's what they did:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_awakening_of_Romania
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transylvanian_School

Romanian nationalism has always been Francophile and Italophile, and a key element has always been differentiation from the surrounding Slavic and Hungarian states.
 
I think youd need a pod in charlemagnes time, eg not conquering the saxons. Then the hre is much more latin,romance, and nostalgia later could look for its recreation. Aa pod this early butterflies away any states immediately recognizable as france or spain, though.o

You had already regular revolts of some peoples even during (or before) Charlemagne. "Surprisingly" it was always in the most romance parts.

Aquitaine (whom the inhabitants called themselves "romans"), Provence, Italy, Neustria.

The romance particularism existed since around the VII century, and as you said, before that it would butterfly anything recognizable.
 
The difference between a dialect and a language is the dialects share the same linguistical bases between them (basic morphology, basic vocabulary, basic grammar) when languages don't.

Finally the whole "Italian dialects are less intellegible for standard italian than Spanish" is a pure joke. Just because people lost the use of listening dialects doesn't mean it's as different as a language.

Sorry. Sicilian and Lombard, for example, do not share basic morphology, vocabulary and grammar, any more than standard Tuscan and Castilian do, or maybe only barely so. There is a quite important linguistic divide between peninsular and "padan" Italy, and the dialects I am familiar with lie across that divide btw.
I am somewhat basing on experience, but my experience includes extensive travel across Italy, France, and some parts of Iberia, study of French, Spanish, some Catalan and Portuguese, and of course native Italian and some Italian dialects. I gather you are French, and I sense that the French way to see this kind of matters is really alien to me, but I also see that your knowledge of medieval Romance dialects is way better than mine.
So well, maybe I should give up discussing with you about this kind of things after all.
 
Aromanian Nationalism was fairly Pan-Romance (often linked up at a close level with Romanian Nationalism and was propped up by the Italians during the invasion of Greece), but it was also highly unsuccessful.

Well, there's hardly enough Aromanians to accomplish anything of note in the direction of the OP, unless they manage to somehow pull a Draka or something similar.
 
I think I am missing your point here.

You said "Occitans aren't a nation" as a point about "differences among the romances cultures aren't due only to languages".

But you're confusing "nation" and "nation/state".

A nation is defined as a human group having common common cultural and institutional references. By this definition, occitans can be considered as a nation.

What they are not, is a nation/state, aka the formation of a nation into a distinct institutions from their neighbours.

Another exempl would be Ireland of XIX century that is easily considered as a nation, while not a nation/state.
Still you had a fracture.
 
You said "Occitans aren't a nation" as a point about "differences among the romances cultures aren't due only to languages".

But you're confusing "nation" and "nation/state".

A nation is defined as a human group having common common cultural and institutional references. By this definition, occitans can be considered as a nation.

What they are not, is a nation/state, aka the formation of a nation into a distinct institutions from their neighbours.

Another exempl would be Ireland of XIX century that is easily considered as a nation, while not a nation/state.
Still you had a fracture.

Ok, I think I got it. I still disagree. Most Occitans who mattered after early 1500s would have felt part of the French nation, and, from I gather, consistently stuck to such belief and still do. Occitans who did not matter had basically a local identity to which such a thing as "occitania" would mean little. This second point probably holds true for most Europeans before the Indistrial Revolution.
Probably I have some problem with your definition of "nation" because I tend to see a voluntaristic streak into such a concept, while your definition, if I understand you correctly, is based on mostly objective elements.
In the case of occitans, it is true in the middle ages, but only marginally true later.
Ireland is a different beast on subjective terms, because most Irish who mattered felt basically Irish.
I think there is a basic difference between us on what a "nation" is, or better said, your emphasis seems to on the objective elements, mine on the subjective ones.
 
Sorry. Sicilian and Lombard, for example, do not share basic morphology, vocabulary and grammar, any more than standard Tuscan and Castilian do, or maybe only barely so. There is a quite important linguistic divide between peninsular and "padan" Italy, and the dialects I am familiar with lie across that divide btw.
Ok, so how do not they share basic morphology, vocabulary and grammar?

I'm not at all saying there's no difference, but unlike Sardinian, using my own experience, that I'm unable to read (let alone listen), I can read Luumbart or Sicilian (having really issues with that, as Italian isn't my native language).

By using the Occitan exemple, when you have really distinct dialects (maybe more than between French ones, or spanish ones), I'm able to understand them more or less well (some are easy, some are just...) and to say (roughly) when someone talk to me where is coming from.

Admittedly, Italians dialects are really distinct, because of historic context, but once you get rid of the most "institutional changes" (aka use of specific graphy) that helps.

To re-use occitan exemple, I'm unable to read document written in bearnes because they used specific graphy. But once re-written in bearnes using normative graphy (not "translated" in standard language, I precise but using common graphical references) that is already simpler.

Admittedly, North Italian can be considered as its own linguistic group and you have indeed a divide. Maybe this divided is so important that it could be a linguistical one, I'm not expert to judge this.

Still, listening it and reading it as well than Italian is doable, it needs a time of adaptation but it's doable. And Sicilian, again only from my personal experience, is even more.

It's not about knowing more or less romance language, I'm personally unable to read long and complex texts in standard portuguese, let alone its dialect.

but I also see that your knowledge of medieval Romance dialects is way better than mine.
My knowledge about it is really limited about old Occitan, and (somewhat) limited part of Old French and Old Spanish when it comes to MA.

So I would be glad to be showed being in the error.
 
Now, this is a bit OT, but how did Romania/Moldavia come to speak Romance languages? I never quite figured that out. . .

From memory.
Roman settlers and romanized population of Danube's basin (aka Danube plus a good part of Dacia), at first.
Northern Danube's basin ( when at the south of Danube, romance population were pushed into isolated regions by invasion) being sort of the typical buffer-zone what nobody south was interested on, and that nobody in Today's Ukraine had the ressources to take over completly.

So the romance speaking population had a better time to devellop themselves there rather than in Balkans or in Pannonia, or Dalmatia (even if they managed to have more known pockets there).
 
Ok, so how do not they share basic morphology, vocabulary and grammar?

I'm not at all saying there's no difference, but unlike Sardinian, using my own experience, that I'm unable to read (let alone listen), I can read Luumbart or Sicilian (having really issues with that, as Italian isn't my native language).

By using the Occitan exemple, when you have really distinct dialects (maybe more than between French ones, or spanish ones), I'm able to understand them more or less well (some are easy, some are just...) and to say (roughly) when someone talk to me where is coming from.

Admittedly, Italians dialects are really distinct, because of historic context, but once you get rid of the most "institutional changes" (aka use of specific graphy) that helps.

To re-use occitan exemple, I'm unable to read document written in bearnes because they used specific graphy. But once re-written in bearnes using normative graphy (not "translated" in standard language, I precise but using common graphical references) that is already simpler.

Admittedly, North Italian can be considered as its own linguistic group and you have indeed a divide. Maybe this divided is so important that it could be a linguistical one, I'm not expert to judge this.

Still, listening it and reading it as well than Italian is doable, it needs a time of adaptation but it's doable. And Sicilian, again only from my personal experience, is even more.

It's not about knowing more or less romance language, I'm personally unable to read long and complex texts in standard portuguese, let alone its dialect.


My knowledge about it is really limited about old Occitan, and (somewhat) limited part of Old French and Old Spanish when it comes to MA.

So I would be glad to be showed being in the error.
There is an Occitan influence in Sicilian, the Sicilian word for child is Piciottu and Occitan words for child is Petit, Pichon and Pichot.

A late POD for uniting the Romance speaking nations is for Charles VIII to marry Joanna of Castile.
 
There is an Occitan influence in Sicilian, the Sicilian word for child is Piciottu and Occitan words for child is Petit, Pichon and Pichot.
Possible. That said it's not the occitan word for child stritcly speaking that is be dròlle.
It's more for "little", as in un pichon dròlle.

EDIT : After verification, dròlle would be a later add in Modern Occitan, and pichon indeed could be one of the words of Old Occitan used for child.

Re-EDIT : The "Occitanien" gives "enfant" for child. So "pichon" would be as todays a familiar way to call a youngling, as in french.

A late POD for uniting the Romance speaking nations is for Charles VIII to marry Joanna of Castile.[/QUOTE]
Admitting it's made (and this marriage have really good reason to never happen), I'm not sure at all it would lead to a pan-romance movement, it could even make the particularism rise even more due to reject of one crown.
 
Last edited:
If Latin was to be the official language. It would need to be Church latin which is what people would know. I think that what you might end up with Latin as the official language with most people being trilingual, speaking Latin at work,and both their local language and dialects most of the time.
 
You really think the common people uderstood what was said in mass ? I'm not sure they were well versed in latin, evev, Church Latin. Hell, even some priest had a hard time to read the Bible at certain times.
 

Esopo

Banned
Sorry. Sicilian and Lombard, for example, do not share basic morphology, vocabulary and grammar, any more than standard Tuscan and Castilian do, or maybe only barely so. There is a quite important linguistic divide between peninsular and "padan" Italy, and the dialects I am familiar with lie across that divide btw.
I am somewhat basing on experience, but my experience includes extensive travel across Italy, France, and some parts of Iberia, study of French, Spanish, some Catalan and Portuguese, and of course native Italian and some Italian dialects. I gather you are French, and I sense that the French way to see this kind of matters is really alien to me, but I also see that your knowledge of medieval Romance dialects is way better than mine.
So well, maybe I should give up discussing with you about this kind of things after all.

Padan italy doesnt exist. You will find as much difference among the dialects of peninsular umbria or toscana with the ones of puglia and calabria. Also venetian dialects are extremely different from the rest of the norther regions.
 
You really think the common people uderstood what was said in mass ? I'm not sure they were well versed in latin, evev, Church Latin. Hell, even some priest had a hard time to read the Bible at certain times.

Actually, yes they understood. Since the council of Tours, preaching was made in the vulgar language not in Latin that, often, the priest didn't understood well but that monks tended to understand quite more.

That plus the painting churches with scenes of Bible, the non-mass preaching by monks or non-priest preachers, the existance since the X of litterar works from the Bible (often life of Saints, Apostles, etc.), the comments on the Bible, the theater based on Biblical scenes, etc.

The main points of the Bible were known, in the same way than today the average citizen know about passages of the Bibles the most important (Adam and Eve, Jesus nailed on the cross, resurrection, etc.)

I suggest you to read "Montaillou, un village occitan" that is a record from the Inquisition about the inhabitants and their eventual relation to cathar heresy. Peasants had regularly discussion about their spiritual becoming, or what was sin or not.
 
Padan italy doesnt exist. You will find as much difference among the dialects of peninsular umbria or toscana with the ones of puglia and calabria. Also venetian dialects are extremely different from the rest of the norther regions.

Actually, didn't Venetian dialects are more close to Umbrian ones than Lumbart?
 
Top