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

m_iacomi wrote:

> In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" wrote:
>
>> 3. "> Unlike Slavic, most Latin words in Romanian are _not_
>> loanwords."
>> I was very surprised by hearing this assumption. In this case
>> my question is: "Who learned the Latin in Balkans: the Latins (or
>> the "already Latin-speaker" colonists)"?
>> => No.
>> => If a non-Latin population learned Latin in Balkans...
>> => The learned words are "loanwords" or not? (even they
> learned
>> also the morphological and syntactical Latin rules, the learned
> words
>> are of course "not their own words" )
>> => So they were...loanwords...
>
> That's your very original (and used by nobody) definition of
> "loanwords". Everybody calls "loanword" a term from language A
> adopted in language B, and never call an adopted language as being
> formed of "loanwords" because its' words were never out of the own
> system.

.

>
> Cheers,
> Marius Iacomi

But it remains an interesting question as long as there is no proof that
one folk abbandon its language and adopts an another one. Even adopting
a new language, these words are loans for this folk.
Now, the question of the esence shoudl be here:
is the lexical data common with Albanian inherited or are they loans
word into the language spoken by Roman colonists breought from every
part of the world and which have been droven back in 160-180 AC?

Alex