Re: [tied] Re: Albanian origins and much more

--- alexandru_mg3 <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:

>
> >(GK)The problem here is that you can't
> >say with certainty that it is constituted
> "Albanians"
> >who contacted in this way, rather than some
> substrate
> >component later adopted by Albanians.
>
> What you said here is something like this:
>
> "Some Albanian wordloans (I supposed:showing
> a:>o?) were loaned
> Only by the Albanian Substratum (when this later one
> was independent:
> so it was a distinct Language) other Loans were
> loaned (I supposed:
> showing Lat a:>Alb.a?) by the Albanian Main Layer
> ..."
>
> But with this explanation you ignore the FACT
> that we have BOTH
> Pre-Romanian a:>Alb.o

*****GK: What is "Pre-Romanian" in your view? A
language that existed prior to the Latin
arrival/implantation in the Balkans, i.e. prior to 165
BC? It's ridiculous to speak of this as
"pre-Romanian". Totally anachronistic. There was no
"pre-Romanian" before the Latins came. Romanian is an
eastern Romance language. Elementary.******

and Doric Grk. a:> Alb.o and

> Pre-Romanians
> wasn't placed nearby Greeks (based on the number of
> Old Greek Loans
> in Romanian)

*****GK: Again what are you talking about? By the time
Romanian began to develop as a distinct language there
were no "Old Greeks" around to borrow from.*****

>
> So your assertion is false ... and my

argumentation is true...

*****GK: Continue the mantra for what good it'll do
you.******

> P.S. I understood that you "don't like" my
> conclusion, but you need
> to add arguments to sustain your opposite idea
> otherwise these kind
> of assertions remain only : a "wishfull thinking"...

*****GK: Anyone who sees "pre-Romanians" in the
Balkans before the Romans is in some sort of
trance...And talk about "wishful thinking" Your theory
about Thermidava is an excellent example thereof.*****





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo