Phonology Old Romanian had a phonemic inventory of seven vowel and twenty-nine consonants, yet differences existed from one subperiod to another.
Vowels Stressed from
Common Romanian developed into the vowel in the pre-literary stage of the language. The Old Romanian vowel system is preserved in the
current phonology. The asyllabic final sound 's devoicing was not complete in Old Romanian.
Consonants Old Romanian retained the consonants and from Common Romanian, but with a limited distribution, mainly in the
Banat-
Hunedoara-
Oltenia area. In addition, it also had two consonants, and , characterised as
intense, after which the front vowels and underwent velarization. According to Kim Schulte the Old Romanian had a tapped and trill .
Allomorphy Like in Modern Romanian, there were complex patterns of allomorphy, in particular affecting the lexical root. Voiced dental alveolar affricate > is found in Muntenia, Oltenia, and central Transylvanian varieties (as well as in the
Istro-Romanian and the
Megleno-Romanian dialects) but not overall in Moldova, Maramureș, Banat, and in the
Aromanian dialects. Particular sound changes took place in Old Romanian such as merger of and as a glide and reclosure of the diphthong before an unstressed (for example became ), and as such in
Modern Romanian the alternant no longer appears when followed by . Vowel centralisation where , , acquired centralised articulations in the form , , also occasionally took particular forms in Old Romanian either as sporadically triggered by sibilants and by the affricates and (
*țeri > ) or affecting mid front vowels triggered by immediately preceding labial consonants but not when the immediately following vowel is a front one (
*vesku > ‘mistletoe’ but
*veneri > ‘Friday’). Unlike in
Megleno-Romanian and the northern and western varieties of
Aromanian, in Old Romanian preceding yod or central vowels acted on following central vowels which become fronted (for example - ).
Morphology The complex morphology of Romanian was already developed in Old Romanian period, with its vestigial inflexional case system comprising two case forms and determiners and desinences that mark the vocative, both in the singular and in the plural. Overall, derivational morphology in Romanian tends to be of a more agglutinative character than inflexional morphology. Compared to the modern language, Old Romanian had a higher degree of unpredictability of plural endings with feminine nouns taking either -e or -i (–, but –) and neuter nouns either -e or -uri ( - /). Verbal forms showed differences compared to the standard language. The simple perfect presented two variants in the first century of the period: the one preserved, with stress on the inflectional ending ( - I did, - I went), and one with stress on the root ( - I did, - I went). Synthetic and analytic forms were used for pluperfect, imperfect, and conditional for example vs could both express the conditional "she/he/they would go".
Syntax and grammar Old Romanian presented aspects that were similar to other old
Romance languages but have disappeared in the transition to Modern Romanian. The preposition was used frequently for partitive constructions, similar to its use in
French and
Italian (for example in French: ) before gradually being replaced by ( + ). Likewise, and like in other Romance languages, marked the prepositional genitive (ex: ) along with the inflectional genitive that is used more frequently in Modern Romanian. It employed the determiner (from Latin: ) as a proclitic definite article. Rarely and in particular conditions, an expletive pronominal subject in the form of was used together with - "to be": - "It was then time for the Trojans to die".
Modern Romanian constructions lack the equivalent of French and English
it in such cases: . Among the segments that experienced the most changes during this period is the nominal domain. From the 16th century new determiners developed with idiosyncratic morphemic and distributional features. The determiner appeared frequently preceding a
bare noun or a prenominal adjective and its grammaticalisation in structures of the type - "the good man" is an innovation of
Romanian among
Eastern Romance languages. Grammar of functional elements such as stabilised to their current form together with other form-distribution specialisation such as of demonstratives ,. In the verbal domain, the subjunctive, defined by the already fixed marker with history traceable to Common Romanian (i.e. the same marker is used in the other Eastern Romance languages) and similar in evolution to the Greek particle , tends to extend its use by replacing the infinitive in several contexts. The old language also showed the proliferation of numerous tense and aspect periphrases with a decreasing frequency towards the end of the period. Notable are also the competition between analytic and synthetic forms. One example in the case of the
preterite which continues the Latin perfect indicative and the compound past. The more numerous forms at the beginning of the Old Romanian period were the simple past () but gradually a distinction between "impersonal narration" and "discourse" develops with the two forms used in the same context to express the two different interpretations: . Another example comes from the use of pluperfect and double compound perfect, between the synthetic form inherited from Latin of the type and the analytic form of the type which is likely correspondent to Slavonic pluperfect and which disappeared from the language early on. In the case of the conditional there were numerous periphrases with the auxiliary - "to want" - in combination with the imperfect or the compound past and which will give way to the conditional formed with auxiliary (also in Old Romanian). The type conditional is still frequent in Banat. As in the other examples there was a synthetic conditional, similar to the future subjunctive in the
Ibero-Romance languages and formed by the perfect root followed by the suffix -re introduced by the particle which could produce unique periphrases: - "If he has committed sin". The synthetic conditional is found in
Aromanian and the root+re form also in
Istro-Romanian.
Vocabulary The main difference between Old Romanian and
Modern Romanian in terms of vocabulary is the number of loanwords from
Romance languages (mainly
French) and from
Latin, the end of the Old Romanian period coinciding with the activity of the
Transylvanian School culminating with the publishing of
Elementa linguae daco-romanae sive valachicae, subscribed to the process of
modernisation of Romanian language. Prior to this, counting from the fifteenth century, about 1,100 words of Latin or Romance origin entered the language either directly, some with forms that were revisited during the modern period ( versus modern ), or from contact languages such as
German,
Hungarian,
Polish,
Russian, and
Ukrainian, or even Turkish. However, not all remained in the language, being often just an ephemeric apparition in the language use by an author or another. Others, as mentioned, were reinterpreted during the following period. The effects of the standardisation of the language did not only bring it closer to other Romance languages but also, haphazardly, strengthened some Slavic features, for example the particle of Slavic origin (most likely
Bulgarian and corresponding to English yes, French and so on) used mostly in the
Wallachian dialect and which appears in Romanian language texts from the early nineteenth century, replaced Old Romanian methods of indicating agreement or acceptance through non-specialised words such as , , or the repetition of the verb in the question (for example "" ""). This generalisation happened as a consequence of modeling of the Romanian syntax after the French one, mainly through translations of French language books, towards the end of the period. == Notes ==