>> *****GK: That's not exactly how I remember theirWanna mean "closer", not "very close".
>> statements. In the discussion of Proto-Romance it was
>> noted that a lot of material was simply unavailable
>> since it was the Western daughter languages that were
>> being used for reconstructing it. The fact that
>> Romanian was out of the loop here after the 3rd c. (if
>> it was) implied nothing at all about its isolation
>> from the Roman world, just from that of the parent
>> dialects of vulgar latin which evolved into Italian,
>> Castilian, Catalan, French etc..*****
> The weird thing here is that Romanian fonologicaly is very close
> to Italian,
> Better said the way how Italian and Romanian evoluated fits moreFrom A.M.'s point of view. Romanists largely share a different one.
> inteligibly together as Dalmatian developed for example.
> In fact i see the Latin influence in the sintactic " how are youItalian "come ti chiami", actually.
> called"->italian "commo te chiammo"
> and Rom. "cum te chiamã"While the pronunciation shouldn't be different, the recommended
> but the substrate sintactic "cum iTi spune" or "cum iTi zice".What does there look like substrate?! The form is similar, just