Re: [tied] Derivation Rules from Old Slavic to Romanian

Hello Alex,
Sorry, but I cannot agree with you on the following item:

<< Simply trough the factor "time".>>

Is not a sufficient condition.

ONLY the factor time couldn't explain why the Slavic loans in
albanian folows the same rules as the latin loans in albanian , but
romanian case didn't follow this rule.

In Albanian case, simple the factor time seems "not applicable
for albanians" (I suppose here that the albanians latins loans
weren't taken in the same time with albanian slavic loans (other
opinion here?))

Also I see the romanian case as an exception and not as the
rule...
See :
cane -> c^ane
pane -> p^ane
but
rana -> rana
hrana -> hrana
or

clave -> cheie
but
clopot -> clopot

For me it can me only 2 explanations:

1. the loaner "genetic" structure have changed meanwhile...
(see also the First Law of Newton : "a body keep his status if no
change appears...")

2. the modality in which these 2 types of loans appear is quite
different:
My opinion is that the slavic loans arrived in Romanian MAINLY
via the Church Institution...so this can explain why these loans
didn't suffer similar alterations as latin loans...

Best regards,
marius a.

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
> alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> > Hello Alex,
> > I want to thank you for these list...
> > At a first glance, seems that the :
> > latin -> romanian rules are not at all "similar" with
> > slavic -> romanian rules.
> >
> > On the other hand, if we take a look on :
> > latin -> albanian and
> > latin -> romanian rules (of course the rules are not the
same)
> > but we can found a lot of similarities.
> > Mr. Iacomi will protest saying us to use r-lang list...(it's
only a
> > joke)
>
> I am afraid he won't do protest. Or he will propose an another list
as
> r-lang.
>
> For your questions I consider it is safer to tell you the accepted
view
> of the scholars. There is the condition sine qua non at the begin
and
> this is: Rom. Lang. _is_ the Latin Lang. spoken in a certain part
of the
> world.
>
> 1)From this condition one was/is obliged to find the rules of
deriving
> the Rom. words from Latin if these words are present in a certain
> form/sense in Latin.Thus from this level we have a bounch of
phonetical
> transformations.
> 2)The paralels which Rom. has with Albanian are not very clear for
> establishing rules. I mean, there are just constatation about
lexical
> similiaritis and gramatical "habbits" of both languages; most of
them
> are considered to belong to the Balkansprachbund and not to have
> something with the so-called substrate. There are no rules ( so far
I
> know) showing how Rom. words will derive from Albanian since most
of the
> lexical data shows in fact that Rom. words are in a form more
archaic as
> Albanian. Thus , this is considered these words belong in both
languages
> to a certain language spoken once in Balkan. The rules of deriving
from
> PIE-roots to actual Albanian _AND_ Romanian forms are just in
> "Kinderschuhe" .
>
> From these two we cannot make too much comparations between words
> borrowed/inherited from Latin and these which are common with
Albanian
> because of missing a certain set of rules which will allow us to
make
> this comparation.
>
> Slavic: Albanian -so far I am informed, and I hope not wrong
informed-
> does nto make any difference in the treatment of the Slavic words
> comparative with Latin words. On the contrary, Romanian has - as
> observed - other rules in treating the Slavic words. Not only that
they
> are treated other way as the Latin words, but even the Slavic words
are
> treated in different manner.
> There are of course explainations why this is this way. Several
scholars
> used several explanations and there shouldn't be anything unclear:-
))
>
> Time is motion in space. This is how the different phonological
> transformations from several languages are explained here. Simply
trough
> the factor "time".
>
>
> Alex