The history of the Romanian language started in Roman provinces north of the Jireček Line in Classical antiquity. There are three main hypotheses around its exact territory: the autochthony thesis (it developed in left-Danube Dacia only), the discontinuation thesis (it developed in right-Danube provinces only), and the "as-well-as" thesis that supports the language development on both sides of the Danube. Between the 6th and 8th centuries AD, following the accumulated tendencies inherited from the vernacular Latin and, to a much smaller degree, the influences from an unidentified substratum, and in the context of a lessened power of the Roman central authority, the language evolved into Common Romanian. This proto-language then came into close contact with the Slavic languages and subsequently divided into Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian, Istro-Romanian, and Daco-Romanian. Because of limited attestations between the 6th and 16th centuries, entire stages from its history are reconstructed by researchers, often with proposed relative chronologies and loose limits.Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela, The Grammar of Romanian, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013, ISBN 978-0-19-964492-6, pages 3 and 4
Background
A number of Romance languages were once spoken in Southeastern Europe for centuries, but the Dalmatian branch disappeared centuries ago. Although the surviving Eastern group of Eastern Romance has in the meantime split into four major languages, their common features show that all of them originated from the same proto-language. Romanian, the largest among these languages, is spoken by more than 20 million people, primarily in Romania and Moldova. Aromanian has about 350,000 speakers who mainly live in the mountainous zones of Albania, Greece, and Macedonia. Some thousand people from the wider region of Thessaloniki speak the third language, which is known as Megleno-Romanian. The smallest Eastern Romance language, Istro-Romanian, is used by fewer than 1,500 speakers in Istria.
External history
Substratum
Little is known of the substratum language but it is generally assumed to be an Indo-European language related to Albanian. Some linguists like Kim Schulte and Grigore Brâncuș use the phrase "Thraco-Dacian" for the substratum of Romanian, while others like Herbert J. Izzo and Vékony argue that the Eastern Romance languages developed on an Illyrian substrate. However, the small number of known Dacian, Illyrian or Thracian words excludes the systematic comparison of these idioms either with each other or with other languages. Dacian is represented by about a hundred plant names, 43 names of towns in Dacia as recorded by Ptolemy and around 1150 Dacian anthroponyms and 900 toponyms that have been preserved in ancient sources. The number of known Thracian or Illyrian wordsmainly glosses, place names and personal namesis even smaller.
Estimates of the number of Romanian words of substratum origin range between about 90 and 140. At least 70 of these wordsFor instance, Romanian abur and Albanian avull ("steam, vapor") , (Orel 1998, p. 12.), Romanian grumaz ("neck") and Albanian gurmaz ("gullet") (Orel 1998, pp. 127-128.), Romanian ceafă and Albanian qafë ("neck") (Orel 1998, p. 353.), and Romanian vatră and Albanian vatër or votër ("hearth, fireplace") (Orel 1998, pp. 495-496.). have Albanian cognates, which may indicate that the Romanian's substrate language is closely related to Albanian or perhaps even Albanian's direct ancestor. However, borrowings from Albanian to Romanian cannot be excluded either. The linguists Gottfried Schramm, and István Schütz even propose that they were borrowed in several phases. In contrast, the linguist Grigore Brâncuș says that these are in fact substratum words in Romanian from Thraco-Dacian as evident in the rhotacism of intervocalic -l- in the pair Alb. vjedhullë - Rom. viezure for example, or the evolution of "dz" in words like bardzu typical of Latin to Romanian development. In general the argument that these are loanwords, based on the reason they are derivative forms in Albanian and only show as isolates in Romanian, is disproved by similarity of the Romanian word to Proto-Albanian, the language spoken before the 6th or 7th century. For example, the Albanian word sorrë (crow) shows the change from ⟨t͡ʃ⟩ to s in Late Proto-Albanian, while Romanian has retained the old form cioară pronounced /ˈt͡ʃo̯a.rə/.
The largest semantic field (46 out the 89 considered certain to be of substratum) is formed by words describing nature: terrain, flora and fauna, and about 30% of these words with Albanian cognateIncluding, Romanian bască and Albanian bashkë ("fleece") (Orel 1998, p. 19.), Romanian țap and Albanian cjap ("he-goat") (Orel 1998, p. 47.), Romanian daș and Albanian dash ("ram") (Orel 1998, p. 57.), Romanian zară and Albanian dhallë or dhalltë ("buttermilk") (Orel 1998, p. 80.), Romanian gălbează and Albanian gëlbazë ("Fasciolosis") (Orel 1998, pp. 112-113.), and Romanian țark and Albanian thark ("enclosure for milking") (Orel 1998, p. 472.). are connected to pastoral life. The proportion of words with Albanian cognates are found in the semantic fields of the physical worldIncluding, Romanian mal ("bank, shore") and Albanian mal ("mountain") (Orel 1998, p. 243.; Schulte 2009, p. 252.), and Romanian pârâu and Albanian përrua or përrue ("brook, river-bed") (Orel 1998, p. 323.; Schulte 2009, p. 252.). (4.8%), kinshipFor instance, Romanian copil ("child") and Albanian kopil ("lad, chap, bastard") (Orel 1998, p. 190.; Schulte 2009, p. 252.), and Romanian moș ("grandfather, old man") and Albanian moshë ("age") (Orel 1998, p. 274.; Schulte 2009, p. 252.). (3.2%), agriculture and vegetationFor instance, Romanian brad and Albanian bredh ("Fir tree") (Orel 1998, p. 34.; Schulte 2009, p. 252.). (2.8%), and animalsIncluding, Romanian căpușă and Albanian këpushë ("Tick") (Orel 1998, p. 179.; Schulte 2009, p. 252.), and Romanian mânz and Albanian mëz or mâz ("foal") (Orel 1998, p. 265.; Schulte 2009, p. 252.). (2.7%).
Schütz argues that a number of Romanian words which are traditionally supposed to have been derived from hypothetical Vulgar Latin termsFor instance, Schütz suggests that the Romanian word a spăla ("to rinse") was borrowed from Albanian shpëlaj ("to rinse") instead of originating from a hypotethical Vulgar Latin *expellavare (<*ex+per+lavare) (Schütz 2002, pp. 16-17.). are in fact Albanian loanwords. Even Romanian words of LatinFor instance, Romanian sat ("village") < Albanian fshat("village") < Latin fossātum ("ditch") (Schramm 1997, p. 312; Orel 1998, p. 104.). or SlavicFor instance, Romanian gata ("ready") < Albanian gatuaj or gatuej ("make ready") < Common Slavic *gotovati or *gotoviti ("make ready") (Schramm 1997, p. 320; Orel 1998, p. 111.). origin seem to have been borrowed through Albanian mediation. Parallel changes in the meaning of a number of Latin words in the Albanian and the Romanian languagesFor instance, Romanian pădure and Albanian pyll ("forest") < Vulgar Latin *padūlem("forest") < Latin palūdem ("swamp") (Schramm 1997, p. 312; Orel 1998, p. 353.; Schütz 2002, p. 13.); Romanian drac and Albanian dreq ("devil") < dracō ("dragon") (Schramm 1997, p. 312; Orel 1998, p. 353.); Romanian femeie ("women, wife") and Albanian fëmijë ("child, family, spouse") < Latin famīlia ("family") (Orel 1998, p. 95.; Schütz 2002, pp. 12-13.). can also be illustrated. A number of Albanian–Romanian calquesFor instance, both the Albanian and Romanian terms for "first" derived from words with a meaning "before": Albanian parë from Albanian para,(Orel 1998, p. 311.) and Romanian întii from Latin āntāneus (Schramm 1997, p. 313.). exist.
The common morphological and syntactic features of Romanian with Albanian, Bulgarian, and other languages spoken in Southeastern EuropeFor instance, the merger of dative and genitive cases, and the use of auxiliary verbs with a meaning "will, want" to form the future tense are listed among the features shared by these languages (Mišeska Tomić 2006, pp. 26-27.). can be attributed to a common substratum. However, this hypothesis cannot be proven, because of modern scholars' limited knowledge of the native idioms spoken in the region. Accordingly, it is also possible that these common features are to be attributed to parallel developments in all languages. According to the linguist Rebecca Posner, it is not impossible that the existence of the close central unrounded vowel of Romanianwhich is marked by the letters "î" or "â"can also be traced back to the pre-Latin substratum, but she adds that "there is little evidence to support this hypothesis".
Romanization and Vulgar Latin
The integration of Southeastern European territories into the Roman Empire began with the establishment of the province of Illyricum on the Adriatic coast around 60 BC. The Dalmatian language which occupied an intermediary position between Romanian and Italian started to develop in these coastal regions. The Roman expansion towards the Danube continued in the 1st century AD. New provinces were established, including Pannonia in 9 AD, Moesia under Emperor Claudius (r. 41–54), and Roman Dacia in 106. The presence of legions and auxiliary troops ensured the Romans' control over the natives. The establishment of colonies also contributed to the consolidation of Roman rule. Accordingly, a relatively peaceful period which lasted till the end of the 2nd century followed everywhere the conquest. This Pax Romana was instrumental in the "standardization of language, customs, architecture, housing and technology". Even so, St Jerome and later authors evidence that Illyrian and other native tongues survived at least up until the late 4th century.
Latin's literary register and its spoken vernacular, now known as "Classical Latin" and "Vulgar Latin" respectively, started to diverge by the time of the Roman conquest of Southeastern Europe. Accordingly, the Roman colonists introduced these popular forms when they settled in the newly conquered provinces. Inscriptions from the Roman period evidence that the Latin tongue of Southeastern Europe developed in line with the evolution of the language in the empire's other parts at least until the end of the 3rd century. Likewise, a number of inherited Romanian words testify to the fact that the Latin variety from which they emerged underwent the changes affecting the phonemes, lexicon, and other features of the Latin in the same period. For instance, the merger of the close e and open i vowels into a close "e" can be demonstratedFor instance, Romanian măiestru < Vulgar Latin maester < Classical Latin magister 'master' (Vékony 2000, p. 180.) through inherited Romanian words, and many items of Romanian vocabulary had its origin in popular termsFor instance, the Romanian word for horse, cal, stems from caballus 'nag' instead of the Classical Latin equus 'horse' (Alkire & Rosen 2010, pp=287-288.). instead of literary forms.