Re: rom. hameS - or Romanian /h/ theories

Hello M. Iacomi,

I understood, for awhile, that you have understood not to use
injectives in your argumentation. We have changed even a private e-
mail, generated by you not by me, in which both agreed on this. But,
you agreed, you forget...like a gentleman...

Now, a short list of 'arguments' apud Marius Iacomi:

1. "Reasons are indeed obvious" (good argument...everybody
understand it...)

2. "This is a dead horse." (another good
argument...everybody understand why: because it's a dead horse)

3. "Obviously, you're _not_ a linguist"
(as you are , isn't it?)

4. "The word "hameS" is no substratum" followed by
..."its origin is still to be clarified"
(so, still to be clarified, but of course, you are
already very sure of it...)

5. "The schwa /&/ is a natural developement everywhere in
Romance" (really? you speak like a linguist here...)

6. "Phonetical evolution of /dj/ has nothing to do with
substratum."
(of course, Dacian /dz/ is a pure Latin evolution,
like 'everywhere in Romance')

7. "Obviously you haven't understood what a phoneme is"
(No. I'm not. But you do, isn't it?)

8. "No, it isn't." (of course, not)

It was more simple just to say that you sustain the "pro-slavic
theory...

If I understand Piotr position for 'obvious reasons', regarding
your person the next simple question is: why?

(but seems that we re-open an old subject here)


Best Regards,
marius

P.S. : Regarding Ion Iliescu...I remember very well when he said
what....if it wasn't obvious: I presented his FINAL results...after
he asks for permission.

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" wrote:
>
> > " There must have been such loans (I also think <hame$> is not
> > exactly of Balkan Latin age, or it wouldn't have kept its
<h> /x/).
> "
> >
> > Regarding the romanian h /x/ there are 2 theories in Romanian
> > linguistic (and not only inside inside Romania - see above Piotr
> > position on this forum)
>
> In _Romanian_ linguistics?! You've to be kidding. Give us the name
> of any distiguished Romanian linguist sustaining nowdays your #2.
>
> > 1. the 'pro-slavic' theory
> [...]
> > For obvious reasons Piotr sustained this theory.
>
> Reasons are indeed obvious for any linguist, as Piotr is.
>
> > 2. the 'pro-dacian' theory (or the /h/ - substratual theory) :
> > argue that the Romanian h /x/ appears in Romanian as inherited
> > from the substratum of Romanian language: The Ancient Dacian
> > Language.
>
> This is a dead horse.
>
> > For the obvious reasons, I sustained the second theory.
>
> Obviously, you're _not_ a linguist, that's why you feel free to
> err on the field on the above-mentioned dead horse.
>
> > Despite the 'obvious reasons' there are also some arguments too:
> >
> > As discussed here the presence of h in Dacian glosses is very
> > probable (++) ( Hydata - toponym, hormia - dacian plant at
> > Dioskurides etc..),
>
> If Dacian phonetical realization of the phoneme reproduced in
> Greek script as "X" was really what one would call /x/, that
> would prove only that the phoneme existed in Dacian. Not in
> Balkan Romance, which is the ancestor of Romanian dialects.
>
> > But for the 'pro-dacian' adepts, this cannot be an argument to
> > the assumption : that no other word in Romanian couldn't keep an
> > inherited /h/ (like we have in (substratual romanian words):
> > hameS, hoT, etc...), as 'pro-slavic' adepts say.
>
> There is no "etc.". The word "hameS" is no substratum, its origin
> is still to be clarified, I pointed out only that it has an Albanian
> _correspondent_. The word "hoT" is no substrate. Nobody out of way
> too enthusiastic Reichenkron thinks of this word as substratal.
>
> > Why 'pro-dacian' adepts sustained an 'inherited' h?
> > First, because the fact that the substratual layer introduced
> > new sounds in Romanian is fully proved:
> > a) the existance of Romanian ~a : cas~a 'house'; mas~a 'table'
> > etc.. (a kind of non-stressed a : like in english 'under' )
>
> BS. The schwa /&/ is a natural developement everywhere in Romance
> world (Occitan dialectal, Catalan, Italian dialectal), there is no
> reason to link it with substratum since it commonly appears in
> unstressed vocalism.
>
> > b) the existance of Romanian dz /3/ (later passed to /z/) like
> > in dies -> dzi (but also in substratual words :viezure , mazare,
> > brad)
>
> Phonetical evolution of /dj/ has nothing to do with substratum.
>
> > c) the existance of sh /s^/ (geusial->guS~a) (already discussed
> > here, even it appears in a late period, but before Slavic loans )
>
> Phonetical evolution of /sj/ has nothing to do with substratum.
> Generally, a phonetical transformation occuring only in certain
> phonetical conditions (as presence of a yodh) is to be linked not
> with substratal influence but with normal variation within the
> language. In fact, influence of the yodh /j/ on consonants is
> plainly attested already in late Latin, in all Romance area, there
> is nothing to point out towards specifical sound creation on the
> basis of substratal phonemes.
>
> > and 'with your permission' (as Ion Iliescu said when he killed
> > Ceausescu)
>
> You're short of memory. That was when he added himself "last but
> not least" on the list for CPUN.
>
> > d) romanian /h/ (hameS , hoT)
>
> You're also in trouble with logic. You are inserting the hypothesis
> to be supported as its own (4th) argument.
>
> > As result, the real fight is all around the 'hameS' word.
>
> There is no fight.
>
> > The 'hameS' has all the phonetics necessary to be fully placed
> > before Romans occupied the Dacia, it has an Albanian counter
part,
> > etc...
> > But for the 'pro-slavic' scholars their circular reason is the
> > following :
> >
> > "we have no substratual words with /h/ in Romanian because the
> > Balkan Romance didn't have any /h/"
> >
> > but as regarding the subtratual words , that keep the /h/ ?
>
> Assumed that Dacian had this phoneme, Balkan Romance still didn't.
> Obviously you haven't understood what a phoneme is, otherwise you
> could not possibly argue that a substratum word could have preserved
> a phoneme non-existing in the list.
>
> > Now, how old this 'hameS' coud be? Well if we take a look on the
> > Toponimy of the Romanian Main Rivers , we found rivers with a
> > phonetism like :
> > 'Arges^' , 'Mures^' , 'Somes^' , 'Cris^' , 'Aries^' ...
> > (....please repeat again this list and ...add 'hames^' at the
> > end. Sound ok, isn't it).
>
> No, it isn't. That's how "linguistics" was made more than 200 years
> ago, but some people still prefer to dream on at that level.
>
> Cheers,
> Marius Iacomi