From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 30754
Date: 2004-02-06
> Hello Piotr,I didn't intend to kill the thread by applying moderation!
> First of all, please don't stop my thread. Will be not correct.
> Of course, what I said is only an assumption. I have to check it
> further.
> Maybe is a wrong assumption (like 1000 others, that we read each
> day). If so, this assumption will fail in a contradiction earlier or
> later.
> In any case I don't like at all pseudo-science. In computer field
> a single bug is sufficient for a program of 100000 lines in order not
> to work correctly. But I know also that any model is good until the
> first contradiction will appear.
>
> So please don't stop my thread at this moment because the
> contradiction of this assumption is not obvious at all, so your
> action will not be a correct one...
> Now regarding my assumption:But since I have demonstrated that Albanian must have taken its Latin
> I said only that based on my assumption the Romanization of
> Albanians (in fact more exactly ONLY /di/ reflexes) took place after
> 3->D and 3^->3, and the Romanization of Romanian, more exactly ONLY
> regarding the reflexes of the same /di/ took place earlier when 3 was
> still 3. This is all I said and nothing more.
>
> Now regarding the timeframes, I well understand you doubts
> regarding the periodization of C,D,E and the periodization of Slavic
> Loans regarding the Latin Loans. Of course you have right. I have the
> same doubts as you, but I only indicate "C and D periods" in my
> previous message only to point out the ideea of t-moment for
> Romanization of Romanians and t+1-moment for Romanization of
> Albanians.
> But maybe D is not quite D and maybe C is not quite C or maybe
> ONLY some transformations of these periods have to be shift earlier
> or later. But is earlier to say something about the whole
> periodization until other transformation rules will not be analyzed
> based on my assumption.
>
> So saying :
> "I'd better nip your idea in the bud before this thread develops
> into a whole school of red herring" is NOT correct from your side.
> My ideea for instance stand up very well (of course in its limits
> that I described above: we have analyzed only /di/ reflexes and thats
> all)...
> Also, it could be very well possible that we will find sooner thatBut we are. A true premise would not lead to a logical contradiction.
> my assumption is wrong (as already happens in other cases when you
> have explained me why di cannot passed to 3i). So at that moment I
> will say that my assumption is wrong, and I will end it.
>
> But really we are not there at that moment. And you know this too.
> Thanks and Best Regards,
> marius alexandru
>
>
> P.S. " Just for the record: _you_ claim that there are "great
> similarities",
> but some of your critics (including Yours Truly) fail to see any
> remarkable similarities beyond such as can be expected in languages
> belonging to the same regional sprachbund."
>
> You are not right here, basically regarding /3/. I followed a t-
> moment and a t+1 moment on the SAME axes INSIDE the SAME System.
> (Regarding the other axes 3^ -> 3, I found also the reflex of 3,
> another 3 regarding its origin, but the same regarding its physical
> manifestation).
> ...also c->T (I could take only a look this evening, I just
> arrived from my office) seems to respect the same rule.
> This ORDER in time that folows the axes of the PIE basic
> sounds...is not a "regional sprachbund" ...but of course we cannot
> conclude anything based on only one transformation.
>
> (now regarding raza, spuza etc.. is hard to say that we don't
> have similarities : they are quite the SAME WORDS HAVING THE SAME
> FORMS, but this is a colateral argument that could be very well ONLY
> the same regional sprachbund if we take it isolated).