Re: [tied] a help for Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] a help for Piotr

I find it funny that Mr. Vinereanu criticizes Mr. Duridanov
for making
"intelligent guesses", while the only thing I see here are
unintelligent ones.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal


[Moeller] hmmm.. looooooool.. I could not help but I laugh
now. Mr. Vinereanu say that The Form of certainly romanian
words are MORE closely to sanscrit forms as to latin forms. He
does not say the rumanian words derived from sanscrit. Just a
simple face to face of the words and nothing more. He did not
speak there about ethymology of them.He just compare them. Do
not change the line making from white black and from black
white.
BTW you like to speak about " romanians sound laws". Where are
they from? Are they the same as in latin?
Are there the same as in other neoromanic languages?
No. They arent.(Please do not take an example to compare from
romanian with 6 langauges and if you dont find it in italian,
portugal, spanish, frnech , sardinian but you find it in
retoromanish to tell me "Voila! In one of 6 languages I found
a similarity like in Romanian langauge.This is a malformed
explanation for yourself. And this is what Mayer-Lübke did,
but this is an another topic.) So where from ?Well, the usual
explanation is " a own evolution". Well, I have too my own
evolution but the genes of my parents are here strong enough
to make me to look out as I look out. So, if romanians sound
laws doesnt are like in latin where from? I should have an
answer but you will do not like it.
Pavimentum. It is a wonderfull example. The romanized
population, as the salvs camme, they ran away in the
mountains, they forgot averything , even the word for "earth"
but they said. "OK once in our lifes we have seen a pavage=
pavimentum" so we do not forget it never ever. This will be
from now our word for "earth".
That is grotesque, sorry:-(( And about terra I should like to
tell you about the composed word Tara-bostes, and I find a
problem with terra... but is not the case now, now I just
speak in generally.
You like to use composed words and bad translations. You say
thracian "Zalmos"= helmet. Have you seen the Armis or Inka
series of coins from Sarmizegetusa? Do you know what there
is?Have you thought that Zal is not a helmet but, it means
"God"? Do you ever tought about Zal + mos=zalmos could be in
romanian = Zãul Mosh= The Old God?? But sure, it MUST be that
trhacian zalmos= helmet and not Old God
The linguists studies thracian from "inscription" in greek and
latin and they are sure for death the people who live there ,
in the thracian region , they do not have anything from the
old language. And they put the conclusions how they like.
The question here is only one: A person , person "X" see some
rules which applied to PIE radicals give the actual romanian
words from substrate. OK, it is maybe a question of luck . But
these rules, unchanged gives too the same words from the
normal worsd who are considered to be latin AND the dacian
and thracian words . How that?What does it means?That cannot
be, that is a lay.. Is it? I am not a linguist, but if I see
that 1+1=2 you cannot comme to tell me that 1+1=4. With all my
respect I will tell you that something you got problems if you
afirme 1+1=4, even if I do not have the speciality you have.
And one more question at all. Why did not the slaves became
romanized in Moesia? Why only the thracian? In the VI
centuries we still have in our records that the bessi used
their one language. The rumanians linguists argue here with
the "big culture and prestige" for learning latin. This is why
the thracian romanized. Which is indeed false and they do not
take the historical events in their ecuation here.
Look at this please: there are two folks in Balcans. Albanian
and Rumanians. Albanians say about themselfs, they are
illirian , Rumanians say about themself , they are dacians.
They are indeed geographicaly, in the place where once
illirians and dacian. lived And what does the lingvists here
do?
Well,they assume albanians are dacians and rumanians illirians
who migrated , changeing the places . Why changing? Why
migrating? These are thesis ad absurdum for passing in a
linguistic schema.
But, it is better to talk on objects. Every example with the
rules and there will be an end of the question. It is not
enough to learn something about thracian, to read something
about them and to think you know about their language. You
must go there and hear, and study the language of the folks
are livinig there. Even in bulgarian are still thracian roots
and you assume there are not in romanian anymore. I am really
baffff.. These are indeed clear points of seeing the things..


with best regards

a. moelller