Keeping up, barely :-)

From a few recent digests:

Miguel suggests that the Pecheneg and Cuman ... umm ....left.

They are still here and identifiable, in communities and mixed in with
others regionally, while they are no longer self identifying. The
Shecklers are also identifiable, and some elements are self identifying.
All three groups (IMO) speak the language they found when they arrived.

The "magic" intrusion of the south bank Romance eclipsing all present
had to be before the Shecklers, if it happened, which is not likely.

The Shecklers are probably Turkic but not called so. Conversely the
Pechenegs and Cuman < are > called Turk ... and popularly but
erroneously associated with Ottoman influence (IE popularly seen as
intrusive from the SE rather than the NE) or even the Mongol
sweep..Tatar or Tartar by others..as far as they are concerned..they
are Romanian..and at least casually also aware of Dacian history.

For Alex:
Romanians do not identify as Dacian, they include the history as
part of their heritage, quite justifiably, and claim some descent. Not
the same thing.

Piotr claims:

O-: The identification has become part of their romantic
O-:national mythology, often reinforced by a history of territorial
claims and
O-:political disputes about "historical rights".

History is not romantic mythology. The politics drive as many of the
opposing arguments as any continuity claim here. Slovenian net loons do
not disprove the claims.

Richard adds:
O-:Languages _do_ inherit acquired characteristics.

I would think that also includes Latin, unless you think it was born
sterile in one small pocket of Italy..only to export influence; with no
external inheritance prior to the advance of the legions.

O-:'You can fool all of the people some of the time.'

..and some of the people..all of the time. Which group are you in?

O-:I have read that the Rumanian dialect isoglosses show evidence that
O-:Rumania was settled recently.

Highly recommend not spending anymore money on this man's books until he
has spent some time here.

O-:The Albanians have not even got half of Illyria.

How does this even remotely relate to the origin of their language?

O-:Normally isoglosses are very tangled
O-:lines without a clear pattern. But when people settle an area,
O-:isoglosses appear parallel to the direction of settlement.

What was the direction of movement into Italy of the people who would
define Latin?

Then enters George:

O-:you've been attracted by assertions/theses saying that
O-:a certain part of the Romanian vocabulary hadn't Latin origin at all,
O-:but were "autochtonous", substratal (i.e. Dacian or Thracian & the
like).

I 've been waiting patiently for someone to make those attractive
arguments appear uglier, but all I see is impatience and assumptions
that Latin emerged linguistically omnipotent and spread, crushing all in
its path across the Balkans, never encountering sources of some elements
of itself (hidden within..take your choice.. Thracian, Daci, or
Getic..mix and match :-). The same with the identified Slavic
influences here. Still waiting.

O-:Any native speaker uses almost all rules of his/her language,
O-:without having to know what a substantive, a verb etc. is.

Is "any native speaker" magically using the rules without knowledge of
them ( as only a linguist could even think possible:-) ... or did the
rules become artificially applied to the already extant and passed on
usage... somewhat after the fact..defining what was being done ... not
determining how it would be done. (Does language emerge from rules..or
rules from language?)

(Hang in Alex..keep stirring 'em up :-)
Cu Stima;
Rex H. McTyeire
Bucharest, Romania

Smooth seas do not make skillful sailors.