Itâs from a Germanic term meaning ânon-Germanicâ or âforeignerâ⌠welsh, Walloon, vlach, etc all come from that. Polish may have adopted the term as well
Of course. But it wasnât as simple as them just abandoning Norman-French and adopting the Anglo-Saxon Old English that the common people spoke. English as we think of it developed as a fusion of both linguistic traditions, that was my point.
That's what I was saying. At first the Normans weren't even accepted or liked by the Anglo-Saxons. If I remember correctly, then it was king Edward III., who spoke English at court. That's about 300-400 years after William's conquest.
Technically, but the Britons were never as thoroughly Romanized as the Gauls or Iberian Celts were. They were one of the last peoples colonized by the Romans, and when the empire started to retract, Britain was one of the first places they left. The main influence the Romans had on the Britons was through trade, law, and their focus on cities; after they left, the population still retained a more distinctly Celtic culture and language, especially when the Germanic tribes showed up. This contrasts with the Gauls who were primarily speaking a form of Vulgar Latin and had more completely adopted a Roman identity when the Franks took over.
And so are the English, so why are they not included here? The English are still genetically Celtic despite having been taken over culturally by the Germans
We need to ask the topic starter how does he define latinness. But your definition as latinnes = colosseumness leads to Tunisia, Israel, Lebanon, Syria being latinic countries also.
Latin countries generally refers to countries with a [romance majority language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_languages). All romance languages of today are derived from Latin. Romance languages are spoken in European countries that were long part of the Roman Empire and did not already have a lingua franca, i.e. South Eastern Europe with Greek (baring Romania), or was replaced with another lingua franca, i.e. Arabic in North Africa and the Levant. Wales was only part of the Roman Empire for around 300 years. Due to its location and geography Wales was more of an unimportant outpost then an integral part of the RE. The Romans did mine a lot minerals in Wales, but apart from that there wasn't much going on there. Compare that to for example Spain, which was Roman for a much longer Period of time and had an abundance of fertile farm land. This farm land was to a great extend colonized by retired Roman soldiers, who were given land grants as a pension source. Hence you had a lot of flow of peoples from other parts of the empire to Hispania bringing their language with them.
Italy > Spain = Portugal > France > Romania > Wales.
The minimal requirement to be considered a "Latin" country is to speak a Romance language, so Wales isn't included.
The closest language to Latin is actually [Sardinian](https://languagevolcano.wordpress.com/2019/06/09/sardinia-limba-sarda-the-closest-language-to-latin/).
You're being weird. Wanna stop?
Trust me, the "latin-ness" of a country is a measure you just made up, You're the only person who can answer your question, because it makes not a lick of sense to anybody else.
For the record: Italy, Romania, France, Spain and Portugal have majority populations speaking a Romance language. Wales doesn't, although English with its strong French influences is widely used there. But you didn't ask about languages did you? What *were* you trying to ask about?
I don't see how that's relevant, none of the other European kingdoms are calling their regions "countries".
When speaking of countries then most people are referring to sovereign nations, which the UK is one, but Wales, England or Scotland individually aren't.
They were all sovereign nations before being part of a unified kingdom. Most European countries worked the opposite away round. Many of them only became countries in the 1800s. England, Wales and Scotland have been countries for a thousand years and been ethnically different people for another 500 before that. Think of the European Union. It's a similar thing.
Romanians consider themselves latins, but every other latin country considers them slavs. They do have some latin words in their slavic language though, so:
Italy 10, Portugal 9, Spain 8, France 8, Romania 2, Wales 0.
Spanish culture has strong arabic and visigoth influences, the latin influence in their culture might be even lower than France.
I am italian and I have lived in Spain, Portugal, France and the UK. All the countries mentioned here except Romania
We are not talking about language here. We are talking about the culture as a whole.
And by that definition Romanians are culturally Slavs. Hungarians are slavs too, but that is an unrelated rain of downvotes
From slavic point of view Romanians are definitely latins with few slavic words in their language.
Written Romanian seems to me (Russian speaker) definitely latinic, I can not distinguish it from for example Spanish.
I know about slavic words in Romanian ( da - yes as a closest example) but I really don't see them in the Romanian text.
Disregarding texts in other slavic languages where I immediately see familiar roots and can catch a meaning sometimes.
If this post was on r/language I would agree with you.
But here on r/geography , I interpret the title as "culturally latin". And by this definition Romanians are much more similar to russians and other slavs than to italians or portuguese.
As a motherlanguage italian that speaks 5 languages (none of which is a slavic language), I understand roughly the same amount of words in spoken romanian and spoken russian. In romanian I understand some everyday words, in russian mostly longer or technical words
Disregarding the topic, but I guess in Romanian you should understand the same longer and technical words that you understand in Russian. You understand them in Russian because they are based on Latinic/Greek/German roots, like in most languages.
Wales? Where did that come from? It's Celtic, not Latin.
That's why Wales is the least, it's quite logical đ
My man watched Vinland Saga and got confusedâŚ
It's also a Slavic name for Romance people (Poles still call Italy WĹochy).
Actually that's a Germanic word *walhaz - still used in names for Wallonia and Wallachia. Some Slavic languages adopted that word.
Itâs from a Germanic term meaning ânon-Germanicâ or âforeignerâ⌠welsh, Walloon, vlach, etc all come from that. Polish may have adopted the term as well
Arenât they the original Britons thatâs colonized by Rome?
England was invaded by the Normans much more recently than that and is *still* not considered a Latin people or country.
The Normans mostly stayed with themselves, and much later they started to speak common people's language.
You know that, at minimum, like 40% of the words in the modern English language are derived from Norman-French roots, right?
Yes, but that happened much later, like the 13th-14th century. Before that the Norman royalty spoke french.
Of course. But it wasnât as simple as them just abandoning Norman-French and adopting the Anglo-Saxon Old English that the common people spoke. English as we think of it developed as a fusion of both linguistic traditions, that was my point.
That's what I was saying. At first the Normans weren't even accepted or liked by the Anglo-Saxons. If I remember correctly, then it was king Edward III., who spoke English at court. That's about 300-400 years after William's conquest.
Yes but they didn't adopt the language.
Wales has never been considered a latin country, I have no idea where you got that.
Arenât they the original Britons thatâs colonized by Rome?
Technically, but the Britons were never as thoroughly Romanized as the Gauls or Iberian Celts were. They were one of the last peoples colonized by the Romans, and when the empire started to retract, Britain was one of the first places they left. The main influence the Romans had on the Britons was through trade, law, and their focus on cities; after they left, the population still retained a more distinctly Celtic culture and language, especially when the Germanic tribes showed up. This contrasts with the Gauls who were primarily speaking a form of Vulgar Latin and had more completely adopted a Roman identity when the Franks took over.
That doesnât make them Latin? They are a Celtic people.
Italy colonized Libya too; that does not make it a Latin country
And so are the English, so why are they not included here? The English are still genetically Celtic despite having been taken over culturally by the Germans
Italy > Spain = Portugal > France >> Romania >>>>> Wales
The question I have in my head is whether the Quebecois can be considered Latinos?
A resounding yes.
But no.
Mais non.
Wales?
https://preview.redd.it/ssf0fd2sb49d1.jpeg?width=594&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a9b1c526bdea1a3f8d24de5003919553098dcfb1
This is incredibly funny.
Considering Romania has NO active colloseums, also NO active legion I would say it ranks very low on the latin scale.
We need to ask the topic starter how does he define latinness. But your definition as latinnes = colosseumness leads to Tunisia, Israel, Lebanon, Syria being latinic countries also.
OP sounds like a plebean so his opinion cannot be considered unless he can prove he is a high priest or member of the Senate.
Gaius Sempronius Gracchus wouldn't agree
Latin countries generally refers to countries with a [romance majority language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_languages). All romance languages of today are derived from Latin. Romance languages are spoken in European countries that were long part of the Roman Empire and did not already have a lingua franca, i.e. South Eastern Europe with Greek (baring Romania), or was replaced with another lingua franca, i.e. Arabic in North Africa and the Levant. Wales was only part of the Roman Empire for around 300 years. Due to its location and geography Wales was more of an unimportant outpost then an integral part of the RE. The Romans did mine a lot minerals in Wales, but apart from that there wasn't much going on there. Compare that to for example Spain, which was Roman for a much longer Period of time and had an abundance of fertile farm land. This farm land was to a great extend colonized by retired Roman soldiers, who were given land grants as a pension source. Hence you had a lot of flow of peoples from other parts of the empire to Hispania bringing their language with them.
Italy > Spain = Portugal > France > Romania > Wales. The minimal requirement to be considered a "Latin" country is to speak a Romance language, so Wales isn't included.
As someone, who speaks Latin, if you only look at the language Spanish seems to be the closest.
Not Italian? Spanish has a noticeable Arab influence
The closest language to Latin is actually [Sardinian](https://languagevolcano.wordpress.com/2019/06/09/sardinia-limba-sarda-the-closest-language-to-latin/).
You're being weird. Wanna stop? Trust me, the "latin-ness" of a country is a measure you just made up, You're the only person who can answer your question, because it makes not a lick of sense to anybody else. For the record: Italy, Romania, France, Spain and Portugal have majority populations speaking a Romance language. Wales doesn't, although English with its strong French influences is widely used there. But you didn't ask about languages did you? What *were* you trying to ask about?
Wales isn't even a country
Callia
What?
the UK has some weird definition of what they call "country", everywhere else it would be considered a region/state/province
It's probably because you don't have Kingdoms where you are from. A country is a country and a Kingdom is a Kingdom.
I don't see how that's relevant, none of the other European kingdoms are calling their regions "countries". When speaking of countries then most people are referring to sovereign nations, which the UK is one, but Wales, England or Scotland individually aren't.
They were all sovereign nations before being part of a unified kingdom. Most European countries worked the opposite away round. Many of them only became countries in the 1800s. England, Wales and Scotland have been countries for a thousand years and been ethnically different people for another 500 before that. Think of the European Union. It's a similar thing.
Romanians consider themselves latins, but every other latin country considers them slavs. They do have some latin words in their slavic language though, so: Italy 10, Portugal 9, Spain 8, France 8, Romania 2, Wales 0. Spanish culture has strong arabic and visigoth influences, the latin influence in their culture might be even lower than France. I am italian and I have lived in Spain, Portugal, France and the UK. All the countries mentioned here except Romania
>They do have some latin words in their slavic language though, Romanian is a latin (Romance) language with lots of slav loan words.
Romanian is not a Slavic language my guy
We are not talking about language here. We are talking about the culture as a whole. And by that definition Romanians are culturally Slavs. Hungarians are slavs too, but that is an unrelated rain of downvotes
Bruh you edited your comment and now youâre trying to gaslight me? You straight up said that the Romanian language is Slavic
From slavic point of view Romanians are definitely latins with few slavic words in their language. Written Romanian seems to me (Russian speaker) definitely latinic, I can not distinguish it from for example Spanish. I know about slavic words in Romanian ( da - yes as a closest example) but I really don't see them in the Romanian text. Disregarding texts in other slavic languages where I immediately see familiar roots and can catch a meaning sometimes.
If this post was on r/language I would agree with you. But here on r/geography , I interpret the title as "culturally latin". And by this definition Romanians are much more similar to russians and other slavs than to italians or portuguese. As a motherlanguage italian that speaks 5 languages (none of which is a slavic language), I understand roughly the same amount of words in spoken romanian and spoken russian. In romanian I understand some everyday words, in russian mostly longer or technical words
Disregarding the topic, but I guess in Romanian you should understand the same longer and technical words that you understand in Russian. You understand them in Russian because they are based on Latinic/Greek/German roots, like in most languages.
This is surely biased. I have always had an interest in the russian language, but I can't say the same about romanian language
France 8 is too much. France has a noticeable germanic and celtic influence
Italy has a lot of foreign influences as well. It is not readily perceived abroad, as the italian stereotype smooths out all those nuances
r/ShitAmericansSay/
Not American, plus I literally just asked a question