Re: [tied] Dacian - /H/ -> seems not possible

Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:51:48 +0000, alexandru_mg3
> <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
>
>> b) Could we imagine that the Dacian had /H/ ?...I don't think so.
>> Despite some plant names at Dioskurides (in fact I found only
>> one : Hormia ) there is no other dacian toponym that contains /H/.
>> Also romanian loans [sic] from latin don't have /H/ either
>
> Latin had no /h/ (it lost it very early on). Therefore, no native
> Romanian words have /h/, and no substrate /h/'s would have survived
> among a Romanized population.
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...

which is the logic here Miguel? I see here 2 steps:

1)Latin lost "h" very early thus every Latin word could not have any "h"
because the "romanised" population _could not know_ where once in Latin
was an "h".

2) there are substratual words which have had "h" and the "h" was
preserved.

I gues they are compatible at all. The proof is in the fact that today
Rom. has "h" and that they _keept_ the Slavic "h" as well, not drooping
it just because "they are romanised population".

So, why should 1 incompatible with 2?

Alex