From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 15296
Date: 2002-09-08
----- Original Message -----From: alexmoeller@...Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 7:13 PMSubject: [tied] Rome after III century> The romanians from south of Danube have not been isolated from Empire. They have had a long dry-border with Dalmatia , they was in the vicinity of Illiricum, in fact in the mddle of all theritories supposed to be for long time and strong romanised.The region was Romanised quite thoroughly (though not thoroughly enough to prevent the survival of Albanian). This is why Romanian is a Romance language and why its closest known cousins (apart from Arumanian and Istro-Romanian) are Dalmatian and the Latin (or rather Proto-Balkan-Romance) layer in Albanian, hardly distinguishable from Proto-Romanian.
> Admiting the Roseler & Co theory that the romanians are formed somewhere in the Balcans, we reduce the distance between them and Roma again. So , normaly, the rumanians should have been the first , in the same position as the galo-romans for getting inovation from Rome, and not at all "lost at the enge of empire".And the rumanian language should have had the new lingvistic influence from Rome. But the langauge, does not have the new words. In this case something is wrong in the last 2 suppositions and I am afraid dear Piotr, you will lost your money if you put south of Danube as romanian cradle.During its formative period Proto-Romanian was not exposed to direct influences from Italy. After the 4th c. Illyria came under Byzantine rule, and from the 6th c. onwards Dalmatia slipped from under Roman control; both provinces were regularly devastated and colonised by various invaders. Romance innovations did not radiate from Rome; they originated in various places and diffused into neighbouring dialects. Romanian's contacts with the rest of the Romance dialectal network were limited to Dalmatian, hence its isolation.Piotr