Re: [tied] husk

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:

>> I have nothing against proper reconstruction, when justified. Your
>> reconstructed forms are neither proper, nor justified. BTW, you
>> should think about etyma of "oaspe".
>
> Do you point here out to missing "h" in "oaspete" or you are meaning
> here the diphtongation of "o". For the diphtongation of "o" I guess
> there is nothing to add; for missing "h" there is a lot to say.

Not only that. Your "reconstructed" forms do not have any hint
about language they belong and intended timing for that matter.
Therefore they're just a bad joke up till now.
Coming to the proposed word, Latin /(h)ospe(s)/ became at some
stage [ospe] in Late Latin. Any similar substrate word "*hospe"
would have had a similar treatment, so one cannot get a final /&/.
More than that, /h/ would not have survived.

>> _I_ am speaking about Balkan Romance not having the phoneme /h/
>> and thus invalidating sharply the allegement that its' descendent
>> (Romanian) could have inherited words with /h/.
>
> I understand your point of view.

Slightly supported by most Romanian linguists, unlike yours.

> The Latin spoken everytime in that part of the world should be
> now Romanian, thus since there is no "h" in the Rom. words which
> derive from Latin, then there cannot be any inherited "h";

I was clear enough, though you still fail to get the point. Balkan
Romance did not possess the _phoneme_ /h/. Thus any aspiration could
not have a phonological value. Ergo, it necessarily has to have been
dropped out from the system for some centuries, it couldn't possibly
have survived only to perpetuate a few supposed marginal substrate
words.

> This is your way to see the things.

The way in which most specialists do see the situation.

> The problems you will have here are the Albano-Romanian cognates
> which begin with initial "h".

Supposed substrate but not substrate -- at least for Romanian.

> I don't bring here as example the word "harmãsar" (stallion)

Why do you mention it then?! just in order to prove that debating
that word some weeks ago didn't had any inpact on your RAM?

> neither I will give _now_ several examples. I will limit myself
> just to only one:
> hãmesit (hungry); Albanian "hamës".
> For Albanian the explanation is simple since the verb "to eat"
> is "ha".
> For Rom. "hãmesi" DEX shows Albanian "hamesi" here.

So?! does that make the word from substrate?! Al. Philippide
and Al. Rosetti mention this possibility, but nobody else does,
you don't wonder why?! The term is found only in Daco-Romanian,
initial /h/, only one derivative... well, facts do speak.

>>> Even if onomatopeical words are a special thing it happens I find
>>> very interesting the idea of Vinereanu about Romanian "to have".
>> [...]
>> But his "work" is merely a diversion for this thread.
>
> Well, this is an opinion about his whole presentation. I did not
> allowed myself to say something about whole thing; I just pointed
> out to a special word to a special PIE root. Not more.

Still a diversionist action.

>>>> No substrate.
>>>
>>> haide bre!
>>
>> Still no substrate.
>
> Turkish has no aspiration here.

Still no substrate.
Since interaction with Slavic, Romanian got the phoneme /h/ as new
member of its' system, with equal rights and the possibility to be
written down if instated for some expressive reason.

Marius Iacomi