[tied] Re: Celts & Cimmerians

From: m_iacomi
Message: 27107
Date: 2003-11-13

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

> Glen Gordon wrote:
>
> > Alex:
>
>>> And today? Today, JohnNormalPerson speaks exactly as in the
>>> letter of Neacsu if not in even in the same way as he spoke
>>> 2000 years ago.
>>
>> Somebody get Alex a reality pill. The above is outright falsifiable
>> but let's stop trying to burst Alex' little bubble world and move
>> on. This shows that it's pretty hopeless to sway him from his
>> opinionative thinking.
>
> You are partly right. I cannot bring any proove for what was spooken
> 2000 year ago. But the proof for the year 1521 is there.

It is, but you fail to interpret it correctly. The language of
Neacsu's letter is not identical with modern Romanian, it's just
not too far from it, and one can understand it without pain. But
were a modern Romanian due to write the same informative letter,
he'd never use exactly the same 1. words, 2. formulas, 3. grammar
(morphology) and 4. phrase turns. Of course, the differences aren't
tremendous (nor they are between Dante's and modern Italian, for
example) so one can say the language is _almost_ the same. Still,
one cannot make a generalization over the time (as well as over
space) of the assertion; that is: if language A1 is almost the
same with language A2 which is at its' turn almost identical with
a language A3 not too far from the language A4 and so on, then
language A1 is practically the same also with A3, A4, ... This
is simply false and contradicted diachronically by objective
facts as language evolution, and diatopically by existence of
smooth transitions between various modern Romance (and not only)
areas.

> And is high debatable if the year 1312 is correct for the
> documents of Iehud.

It is "Ieud" and I already pointed out its' language is specific
for 16th century and Northern Daco-Romanian (see r-hist). I don't
know any valid reason to debate on a.D. 1312 with respect to this
document.

> P.S. I have a *.wav file which is supposed to be the pray
> "Our father" in OE. It sounds not as English but as a strange
> scandinavian dialect. I guess it is eassy to find it on the net
> but I can post it on the group too if requested.

The native English speakers on cybalist will be more than pleased
to find out what your proven perfect musical ear makes you think
about modern lecture of some OE text.
Anyway, if you think it's worthy, you should _not_ post it, nor
put it in the Files as wav, but in some decent 80-bitrate mono
mp3 format.

Marius Iacomi