Re: [tied] Re: for Alvin

----- Original Message -----

From: alexmoeller@...

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 9:30 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] Re: for Alvin

> [Moeller] the point is like in a paternity process . So says the court: "I understand that the child has a black skin and you white, but the child must have a father, and because you and the woman here are still married, i cannot help you, so you are the father of the child...".

 

I fail to see the analogy. Romanian is evidently a Romance language (no linguist would be crazy enough to dispute that), and its core vocabulary and structure are easily derivable from Latin. The question is only if it contains a non-Romance substrate dating back to antiquity, and if so, what we should make of it. Note that all languages contain words without a satisfactory etymology, not necessarily of substratal origin.

 

> I give you just one question. We know very few about dacian but a lot about latin. Latin was a remarcable language which has a lot of texts where we can compare. Dacian language doesnt.But a little bit we know makes us to ask us what is there.

 

> So just 3 examples:

> eng. stone -----lat. petra , romanian piatra:, dacian petra(o)

> eng. see   -----lat. mare,   romanian mare  , dacian mare

> eng. water -----lat. aqua,   romanian apa:  , dacian apa

 

Whare did you take these "Dacian" words from? *ap-a: 'river, water' has been "seen" in Balkan toponymy, and someting like toponymic *mariska- may have occurred in Dacian (meaning 'marshland' rather than 'sea'), but your alleged Dacian "mare" and "petra" look like somebody's modern figments to me. Anyway, the Romanian words are _exactly_ what one would expect as the regular development of Latin <petra>, <mare> and <aqua>, and any "alternative explanation" causes extra problems without solving any.

 

> ... But because of these 3 examples I ask myself why I cannot link it together?

 

These three examples can be used to illustrate the derivation of Romanian from Latin. As for the Dacian part, please demonstrate first that your examples are authentic.

 

> ... I cannot accept the romanic explanations when some things appear as selfevident so I look for alternatives . If this is true or not, I will see it somewhere in the future. If I accept the romanic explanation and I dont study the romanian and albanian languges, not troguh latin and greek perspective, but trough IE evolutions there where it is possible , we will know tomorrow as few as today about thracian / dacian / illirians languages. What is wrong in what i try?

 

The explanation of "obscurum per obscurius" is futile to begin with, and you make things even worse by trying to explain "clarum per obscurum", e.g. by insisting on alternatives to perfectly sound Latin etymologies (or obvious loans from Slavic, or anything of the kind). I dare say those who have criticised those "alternatives" on the list (including myself) know a thing or two about the IE background and would give a lot to learn anything of substance about Dacian, Thracian and Illyrian. But you also have to realise the limitations of the available evidence (frustrating as they are) and to understand that inventing your own "Dacian" will not enlarge our knowledge in any way.

Piotr