Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 18:33:07 +0100, alexmoeller@... wrote:
>
>> sorry Miguel, I just got today the book of John Fisher " The lexical
>> affiliation of vegliote".
>> In the examples with d>z you spoked about Eastern Romance and you
>> included albanian and vegliote among them.
>
> Yes, Dalmatian and the Romance adstrate in Albanian are Eastern
> Romance. But I never said di, die > zi, ze was Vegliote. That's a
> Romanian development.
>
I prefer to guess I missunderstood you. And it is OK as it is. The
palatalisation in this way is just in romanian language. And the whole
discusion begun from the thracian glosses "zalmos", romanian "zãul"
versus latin "deus".
It seems to me that this unique singular development of rumanian
languages is not because of a late latin evolution but the normaly way -
for the loans from latin- to accomodate them in the local language (
which ever this local language has been)
The aspect is seen even today in neologisms which due their construction
"doenst fit" for the rom. ears
discusion= discutsie
action= actsiune
resistence= rezistentsã
fiction= fictsiune
option= optsiune
What makes me to be so stubborn here are the fallowing points ( just to
say a few of them):
-- please see note too --
a) presence in the getic glosses of "z" and "ts"
b) their idetity with actual romanian words
c) name of the getae men which are *today* very actuale in the
nicknames by inhabitans of romanian villages
(Dolea, Doclea, Babu(s), Baliu(s), Bîtu(s), Duda, Dula, Suru(s),
Tzintã,
etc.)
d) specialy, name of females which due the fact they are few and so
very rare the chanse to be attested in the glosses is small
and tough, they are a few and we find them today too:
(Zina, Zoia, Dada, Nana, Putina, Sira, Geta, etc)
e) the acceptance of existence in romanian of old iranian (
agatyrsian) therms by romanian linguists which doesnt fit
with the explanation of " nothing from dacian language". It is
impossible to keep alive words from iranians but
nothing from the dacians, that cannot accept anyone.
f) historical informations
g) archeological sources.
h) geographical position from XIII centuries of romanians as they
became "known" in the history again.
By myself I guess a such look without "taboos" regarding romanian
language from my side will have one of two results:
- there is no latinisation of rom. lang. more as in other languages
- the romanians have indeed a very latin language.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
for dacian name Bitu I used actuall "î" in the romanian names
and for dacian name Tzinta I used actual "ã" i
--------------------------------------------------------------------
regards
Alex