Re: [tied] substratum ( it was Re: Creole Romance?)

Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

>
>> 2)one example here: the word, "mare"= great is considered to belong
>> to substratum. In Albanian the word is "madh", in OF was "mare"
>
> I'm not aware of any OF word <mare> "big".

Chanson of Roland:
vers 1604
dient Franceis: barun, tqnt mare fus
vers 2195 Aprés a dit: Mare fustes seigneurs

vers 2221 Dist l'arcevesque : Tant mare fustes ber!

The evidence for "mare"= great is even in OE in Glosarum saxonicum.


Paranthesis. I am not sure if "ber" here is a short form of "baron". It
looks similar with balcanic expresion "bre" which is considered to be of
turkish origin in all Balkan.

> Maréchal is a borrowing from Frankish (superstrate), cf. OHG
> marahscalc, Du. maarschalk, from Germanic *marh- "horse" and *skalk-
> "servant". There is no connection whatsoever to either VL caballus
> or Rom. mare.

and the expresion "cal mare" found in Histoir de la langue française des
origines a 1900, Tome I , Paris, 1924, page 110, whatr should mean in
French?

>
>>> The only candidate could be Celtic, dialects of which were spoken in
>>> Northern France, and in Iberia, and (marginally) in the Balkans.
>>
>> Thus you will see the common words in substr. of French and Rom. as
>> Celtic relicts I guess.
>
> Which common substrate words?

You are not aware of common words in both languages coming from the
substratum? The question is not subversive, I just wonder, that is all.

>
>>> Other than the Celtic expansions (which were relatively recent as
>>> well), the Mediterranean before the Roman Empire was culturally,
>>> ethnically and linguistically scattered (as were indeed most parts
>>> of the [world] until recently).
>>
>> Tthat is a suspposition.
>
> No, it's a fact. As I made clear, in Italy alone, a dozen or more
> independent language families were spoken before the rise of the Roman
> Empire. There were hundreds of language families spoken in the
> Americas before European colonization. The same goes for Africa, New
> Guinea.

which languages have not been related at all should be your opinion.

>
>>> In Iberia there were Iberians,
>>> Tartessians, Lusitanians, Celts, Phoenicians and Greeks.
>>
>> You forget to meantion for Iberia the followings:
>
> <snip>
>
> I wasn't giving a catalog of tribal names, but of larger linguistic
> groups.
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
>

Acording to whom? If this is so, can you tell me please to which
linguistic group is to put the Decienes, the Albocenses and the
Cocosates? I ask it because as you say, these are all wellknown and
shared already in linguistic groups.

alex