From: alexmoeller@...
Message: 15017
Date: 2002-09-03
----- Original Message -----
From: "George S t a n a" <gs001ns@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 7:08 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: a help for Piotr
>We don't _need_ substratal or adstratal influence to explain
Latin
>qu,gu > Romanain p,b.
>As to the specific case of <patru>, I don't agree that kW- >
p- is
>irregular in
>this form, as is stated in Romanistic handbooks
Thank you very much. (I hope Alex will read the explanation
carefully.)
[Moeller] I dont need the latin too to explain this. Because I
have p and b in words from substratum in _the same_ language .
And here latin has nothing to look for. We have just two
posibilities. The rumanians developed it by itself or these
changes were made long time before latin. And if thracian "z"
shows a paralel with latin "d" how cann I say there is
nothing, but I cann accept a "developement of its own" , a
developement which indeed, very strange , got the old thracian
form with "z". Accident? Or a wishfull thinking but from an
latin point of view?
>I don't think sandhi is an adequate explanation (there *is* a
close tie
>between
>numeral and counted word, but the counted word follows: patru
cânii is the
>normal order, not cânii patru).
>
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Without a definite article: "patru câni" (since 1954 the
standardized
spelling: "câini"; betw. 1954-1992, "cîini"; I myself do not
accept the
diphtongation, since it is subdialectally limited only to a
few counties
in Southern Romania). The other way around the definite
article is
necessary, as well as a verb, e.g. "cânii sunt/erau patru".
[Moeller] cânii sânt , and not "sunt" . The normal romanian
speak with "sânt" and not with "sunt. " The literare language
was made to be more latin as it is. And this is a reality too.
And if you speak about regionals let se:
Literary: sunt, eshti, este, suntem, suntetzi, sunt
Regional: mis, iashti, ie, stem, stetzi, s
You will explain logicaly trough trhe well known rulles which
I agree with. But we do not must forget that the people speak
thata way. Not the way we want.
They speak so how they want.
"Io mis din deal d'aciela. Si voi stetzi adushi acushi. Cine-i
ãia ? ( cine sunt aceia) Ce stetzi? ( ce suntetzi )
The way tha folk speak is not determined by linguistic rule.
But the "educated people " consider rude this way to speak,
and to speak in a such way, shows you have no scholar
education and of course, "no prestige" wo win:-))) That must
be indeed a latin dilema:-))