Re: [tied] Late Proto Albanian *3 /dz/ NOT QUITE Early Proto Roman

Hello Piotr,

1. " I didn't intend to kill the thread by applying moderation! "
Viewing your answer, was a wrong assumption from my part. Sorry.

2. "But since I have demonstrated that Albanian must have taken its
Latin loans very early (during my "Stage C", and well before its end
at that), the fact that your idea might have worked for some limited
part of Albanian phonology doesn't matter. You can ignore the crucial
facts that militate against your dating."

Please ignore for instance any reference to any periodization from
my previous messages, because I have created a lot of confusions
writing yours C and D...Please consider in place ONLY 2 moments t and
t+1.
I only identified 2 moments t and t+1 regarding /3/. Next, I
viewed C and D in your list and I put them in place of t and t+1.

So, I didn't make any dating yet (with exception of the fact that
the Romanians started to be Romanized earlier than Albanians (more
exactly ONLY regarding Latin /di/)), nor any critic regarding you
periods. Sorry for this confusion.

I will check first if other transformations will work, before to
assume any periodization (of cause only if the first operation will
succeed).

3. "You can ignore the crucial facts that militate against your
dating."
I not ignore any crucial fact. I didn't arrive yet
there...because my linguistic knowledge are more limited than yours.
(...I take word by word and I tried to find if it fits or not, I
hope to can post tomorrow c->T (for instance I couldn't find any
mismatch, but I didn't finish), and I hope also with less stupidities
from my side as I have done regarding the Latin /di/ ).

4. " But we are. A true premise would not lead to a logical
contradiction."

Sorry maybe I not undestand exactly what you mean, so I take it
as a wrong spelling and I read it as:

"A wrong(false) premise could lead us either to a false or a
true conclusion". Yes, you are right. But we are not on that context
here.

Here we have an assumption that is checked against a "reality"
("a reality" that is composed by Albanian, Romanians , Latin words
etc...).
The sentence above is true only inside an isolated logical
space where we make inferences.
In our case (as in any 'natural' science) "a wrong premise"
will lead to contradictions related to the reality that we try to
modelize.

Best Regards,
marius alexandru

P.S. Also, if you remember I put a lot of questions regarding the
precedence and overlaping of each transformations (even inside the
same period), some of them (of course not all of them) without
answers.







--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

> 06-02-04 00:25, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > Hello Piotr,
> > 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...
>
> I didn't intend to kill the thread by applying moderation!
>
> > Now regarding my assumption:
> > 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)...
>
> But since I have demonstrated that Albanian must have taken its

Latin

> loans very early (during my "Stage C", and well before its end at

that),

> the fact that your idea might have worked for some limited part of
> Albanian phonology doesn't matter. You can ignore the crucial facts

that

> militate against your dating.
>
> > Also, it could be very well possible that we will find sooner

that

> > 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.

>
> But we are. A true premise would not lead to a logical

contradiction.

>
> Piotr
>
> > 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).