Re: [tied] Re: Kastamonitu

----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Kastamonitu


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: alexmoeller@...
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 8:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Kastamonitu

> Fortunately, we have access to a sizeable corpus of original
Gaulish materials and so do not have to rely on Caesar's
personal opinion, whatever it was. We actually know what
Gaulish looked like. If you want to prove that "Latin =
Gaulish", you are free to show it using Gaulish inscriptions.
Go ahead! Forget Caesar and check for yourself!

[Moeller] hei, it was just a kindly question. A person , a big
one said -a- similar to -b- and the lingvists say he was
wrong. OK. In this case just the word "similar" is making
trouble, because every one of us understand more or leass of
it. If "similar" means something like "aqua" is likely "apa"
b u t n o t "voda" I cann just agree because i find the
similarity ok. And if gauls understood latin how I do italian
or spanish, I can understand Cezar too.

> > But the only one thing which disturb us is the ancient
source who gives a name for a word considered slavic, where we
have a methathesis before the slavic methathesis took
place(the methathesis is considered to have been in the 8
centuries. That is the only bad point in all:-)
>
> What source and what word? And who is "us"? Again, I have no
idea what you're getting at.

[Moeller] the source is Kastamonitu. And "us" let me correct
it in "me".We got the word Blachernae by Kastamonitu and that
before the slavic methathesis. This is a fact and that is all.
The slavic methathesis is not attested until 8 centruies, so
there is the date of it. If this is true, then Blach is not a
slavic issue. Out of question.