Re: [tied] evolution

Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "altamix" <alexmoeller@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 9:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [tied] evolution

>> Diana/zânã, jacere/zãcea, deus/zãu, exbatttere/zbate,
>> *exbelare/zbiera, *exvolare/zbura, zema/zeamã, decem/zece,
>> dextrae/zestre, deus/zeu, *scaberare/zgâria, dies/zi, dicere/zice,
>> *exventare/zvânta.
>
> Why restrict your data to word-initial cases? You might easily add a
> number of non-initial palatalisations, especially in derived
> environments, like auzi < audi:re. In linguistics, vota ponderantur,
> not enumerantur. A few good examples are enough to establish a rule.
> It should not surprise you that the inherited Proto-Romance lexemes
> were outnumbrered by new Latin loans in more recent times. The same
> happened to most other European languages during the time when Latin
> was an influential international language. Nearly all your
> "counterexamples" are prefixations with <dis-> or <de:-> or their
> allomorphs. This means that you artificially clone your data by
> including many occurrences of the same morpheme. You conclusions are
> too absurd for words. Sorry, Alex, but I must ask you to discontinue
> this thread.
>
> Piotr

OK Piotr I will stop it. I do not artificialy clone my data. I took them
so how they are and not "cloned "them.
I just wonder that it seems you are trying to ignore the "z" from
thracian in *deiwo and it seems more reliable to you to think that in
the same place a new folk changed the latin "d" in what once, in the
same place an another folk have had for latin "d".And the archeology and
histroical sources speak about no romance population in East of Roman
Empire beside the dalmatians.
You tell me my conclusions are to absurd? OK, it is your opinion. but
you have to argue why the thracian "z" could not survive and it _musted_
that a "new" folk in the same geographic space did the same at the
thracians.Let me guess why. Because there is " no written data" about.
And this will be, excuse me , a very strange atitude for an IE-scholar.

Sorry, Piotr, but there is no scyentific argument for telling me to stop
this thread. It seems, somehow people dislike the ideea that it _could_
not be from latin but the old thracian word. And without giving any
reason why.