Re: [tied] RE:Re: Continuity & Cosmetic Operation

From: alex_lycos
Message: 20749
Date: 2003-04-03

----- Original Message -----
From: "S & L" <mbusines@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 9:54 AM
Subject: [tied] RE:Re: Continuity & Cosmetic Operation

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "alex_lycos" <altamix@...>
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003
> Subject: Re: [tied] RE:Re: Continuity & Britain
> In fact the normal development of 'romanus' ( in my opinion not in the
> meaning of citisien of roman empire but as "christian") , weel this
> development _is_ rumân. The oficialy change to Roman & Romania is just
> cosmetic operation
> There is still a huge difference between rumîn/român. The first one is
> the name under which the serf’s were known in Tara
> Romaneasca/Valahia/Muntenia in medieval times
> Is the same thing as using "nigger" for "afro-americans"
> S o r i n

I am afraid this is not true. The word "rumân" is the phonetical
evolution ( even if not regulary after the rules of Miguel : see pomus >
pom but roman > rumân)
The word was indeed the ethonym. What is not very clear in my eyes is by
whom have been called the serfs "rumân". Actually the expresions with
"rumân" are still alive in the speach of peasants "ma duc dupa rumânul
meu" etc.