a help for Piotr

How I said, I have a big respect for Piotr and I guess, he was
wrong informed. I took the text from the site Piotr wrotte
about and I will give you the both forms, romanian and
english, for comparing. I will try my very best of the
translation, and I am sure, if I make failures there will be
many romanians here on the list who understand romanian and
english in a more better way as I do and they will help us to
get the right meaning in english.
So:
Rumanian version:

Nu este o exagerare sa spunem ca cel putin in anumite privinte
Romana se apropie de Sanscrita la fel de mult ca si de Latina.
Avem rom. pamant, sansc. bhuman ( < *gh(d)em or ghemon), dar
lat. terra, ori rom. boier, lit. bajoras, alb.bujar, precum si
sansc. bharu. Altele au corespondent atat in Latina, dar si in
Sanscrita, dar cel Sanscrit esta mai apropiat sau aproape
identic cu cel romanesc. De exemplu rom. apa, sansc. ved. apa,
av. ap, hit. uappe, dar lat. aqua, ori rom. soare, sansc.
surya , lit. saule, lat. sol-is. De altfel stim datorita unor
hidronime ca in Traco-Daca la apa se spunea tot apa (ex.
Salapia, care ar insemna apa sarata. si alte exemple
similare). Trebuie precizat ca aceste asememanari se datoreaza
fondului comun Indo-European si nu este vorba aici de nici un
fel de imprumuturi, asa cum de multe ori s'a crezut. Daca
aceste limbi au anumite elemnete lexicale, morfologice ori
sintactice in comun nu inseamna ca avem de a face in mod
necesar cu imprumuturi. Cum am mentionat mai sus natura
imprumuturilor se poate stabili in baza unor legi fonologice

My english translation of the text. For the eventualy failure,
I appologise in advance, and I beg the rumanins who can better
give the meaning of the sentences to make the better
translation for me and for Piotr in this case.

It is not an exageration to say that in at least _some points_
, Romanian Language is close related to sanskrit _as much as_
related to latin. We have rom. pãmânt, sanscrit bhuman
(<*gh(d)em or ghemon) but latin terra, or we have rom. boier,
lituanian bajoras, albanian bujar, sanscrit bharu.Other words
have corespondents in latin , but too in sanscrit where the
form from sanscrit is closely or identical with the rumanian
form of the word. For instance rom apa, sansc. vedic apa,
avestan ap, hitite uappe, but latin aqua, or we have romanian
soare, sanscr. surya, lituanian saule, lat sol-is. Because of
some hidronimy we know that in Thraco-Dacian water means apa
( ex. Salapia, which will mean salty water , and other similar
examples). It must be pointed out that this similiarity of the
words is there because of the Indoeuropean basis of these
languages and there is no loans , how in many times it was
belived to be. If these languages have some common lexical,
morphologic and synthactic elements, that does not mean that
we have here a sure proofs of loans. How I mentionated before,
the nature of these loans can be fixed on the basis of
phonologic laws...."

I do not see a ignorance here. I see an introduction where ,
with examples , Vinereanu shows that certain words aer similar
to sanscrit but different from latin so in "some" points
rumanian words aer moer related to sanscrit as too latin. Just
because of these "some words" the romanian language does not
appear to be a sanscrit one:-))

best regards

a. moeller