Alexmoeller, you said,
<<it is more as clear that all the south
of europe from west to east , the places in Little Assia ,
everywhere where the traco-phirigians came , they have had all
almost the same language.
The so called latinisation is not the result of empire and not
of the curch, tough I guess it have had both their smaller
role there. Specialy the curch in the west of Europa.
The so called latinisation is just romanism and romanism
doesnt mean "Rome" & Latium . Rome and Latium has been the
best and strongest exponent of this romanism. But the rest,
there are all paralel evolutions within the same romanic
family and not "neo latin" languages.>>
I agree that latinization/romanization (whether empire or church)
played only a partial role for the similarity of components in Latin
and the "latinized" peoples. It is a well known fact that various
languages (Greek, Oscan, etc. etc.) existed before the advent of
Latin in the places where they spoke them -- that there are many
sister or cousin languages of Latin to begin with. Sometimes Latin
was enriched from the other languages. For instance, the
Latin "market" (and related words) was adopted from the Oscan; much
Greek entered Latin from south Italy and Greece. (I don't know either
whether anybody has made a serious study of the extent of
Latinization and the extent of Latin enrichment from the family-
languages.)For example, many words and expressions still used in
south Italy reflect the Oscan/Hittite language: patrita; fratita;
fratima;... for "your father; your brother; my brother"... Probably
there we [in non-Graecian towns] use more Greek words (from Magna
Graecia times) than Latin, words which sometimes are not immediately
recognizable: pitigni; catuiyu; amendolara; maddamma [an epithet of
the Amendolas on my mother's side], which I have satisfactorily
analyzed.
One thing to remember is that the population in Europe -- say, 2300
years ago was relatively small.... the Oscans, the Latins, etc. ,
were immigrants at some earlier un-established date. It may be true
that the earlier subtratum involved Peslagians, with linguistic
kinships to the Etruscans -- as some toponyms suggest. (All this has
to be explored.)Non-Aryan speaking peoples apparently formed a
language family. Their "Caucasian" languages included
Etruscan,Sardinian, Peslagian, the Albanian Substratum, Lydian or
substratum thereof, etc. The cultural kinship of the Etruscans and
the Urartians leads one to explore their languages, as to whether
they have any kinship.
So, south of the northern part of the Caspian Sea (about 46
latitude), there were at least two broad families of languages,
the "Caucasians" and the "Wine semi-Aryan" ones, with their own
evolutions. North of this parallel there were "Beer semi-Aryan" ones
and other families. Don't laugh yet!!! The fact is that I don't
believe in a proto-Indo-European language, for methodological reasons
I have explained elsewhere:
http://groups.yahoo.com/amygdale
=======================
--In cybalist@..., alexmoeller@... wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Amedeo Amendola" <amedeo_a_2002@...>
> To: <cybalist@...>
> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 9:52 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: a story about Galia
>
>
> Why do you say you are researching wrong information??? I'd
> like you
> to research this information: Bands of Indo-Europeans [Aryans
> or
> whatever you want to call them]marching all over Eurasia and
> leaving
> their language there. Would there be something wrong if 10
> authors
> spoke of them as being in 20 or 30 different "countries"? At
> least
> the authors you post passed on legends which may or may not be
> true,
> but there were such people as they spoke of. (I take their
> accounts
> with a grain of salt. Legends and myths usually contain a
> grain of
> salt.)
>
> [Moeller] I say I like to see if the informations are wrong
> because personally I could not research all the references. If
> I should have had the posibility to do it, I should have said
> "I read it and i am sure"But in this case in some places I
> quote just another autorhs and it simply can be that a
> refernece used by them to be erronated.
> Anyway, I dont know what the IE people think but from all
> these myths and stories it is more as clear that all the south
> of europe from west to east , the places in Little Assia ,
> everywhere where the traco-phirigians came , they have had all
> almost the same language.
> The so called latinisation is not the result of empire and not
> of the curch, tough I guess it have had both their smaller
> role there. Specialy the curch in the west of Europa.
> The so called latinisation is just romanism and romanism
> doesnt mean "Rome" & Latium . Rome and Latium has been the
> best and strongest exponent of this romanism. But the rest,
> there are all paralel evolutions within the same romanic
> family and not "neo latin" languages.
> The indices are more clear ar for slavic families, we have a
> lot of references, but somewhere the point 0 is supposed to be
> the Roman Empire.
> The point 0 is somewhere before the Roman Empire. And I guess,
> here is a lot and interesting work to do.