Re: [tied] Re: Loans, Slavs, Church (it was : Walachians are placed

willemvermeer wrote:

>
>> 1)-Rom. lang is made up out off autochtoneus main elements (
> thracian and
>> illyrian ), Latin and Slavic (pg. 285)
>
> No quarrel with that in principle, although I would be inclined to
> put it in a way that gets rid of the notion of mixed language (which
> I don't understand), as follows: Rumanian is a descendant of Latin
> which has incorporated a certain amount of material from
> autochthonous languages (Thracian and Illyrian) and has undergone
> strong influence from Slavic. What is problematic about this
> formulation is the fact that it is not specific enough as to the non-
> Latin compoinents. Albanian should somehow be mentioned by name and
> instead of "Slavic" it is better just to say "Bulgarian"
> (or "Bulgarian-Macedonian"), because that is what it is most of the
> time. On the other hand mention of Illyrian or Thracian should
> probably be dropped because it is impossible to tell which
> autochthonous language(s) provided the material.

I assume they are using always this notion of "traco-illiryan" from two
points of view. One since there is not sure which languages was which, thus
they make a gulash of Tracian and Illyrian fancing out Traco-Illirian as the
another construction "Celto-Italic" used somewhere else. The second point is
to make the spagat between continuity and romanization. That is how I see
the "policy" here:-)
Albanian cannot be mentioned by name since the phonetical concordances
speaks about a pre-Roman time, and there cannot be mentioned any Albanians
but just other "Folkerschaften" which have been recorded in & before that
time.

>
>
>> 2)-The Slavs have learned Romanian because this was a prestigious
>> language since it was belonging to the Roman culture and because of
>> the economic power of the Romanic population ( p. 291)
>
>
> That is anachronistic. By the time speakers of Slavic appeared, Latin
> was no longer a prestige language, not to speak of Rumanian. The
> early speakers of Slavic never experienced Roman administration,
> military service, colonization, or other factors that conferred
> societal prestige on Latin and made it a language useful to shift to.
> Nor did they read Cicero or Augustine.
>
> It is one of the strange quirks of Rumanian historical linguistics as
> (sometimes) practiced in Rumania that they believe that Rumanian
> somehow carried the sociolinguistic prestige of the Roman Empire for
> centuries after the societal factors making for that prestige were a
> thing of the past. By putting in sociolinguistic factors that cannot
> conceivably have been present on any scenario, they throw a
> smokescreen on the sociolinguistic processes that were really going
> on during the dark ages. From the point of view of the status in the
> debate of the Rumanian Urheimat this practice is comparable with two
> other quirks we have come across during earlier phases of this
> debate:

I absolutely agree. I just find funny a such naive explanation. But the
explanation is not alone there. It is a bit in a chain of suggestions which
say that "prestige of the language" is the most factor which determine
someone to learn it. The suggestion is made up continously since Latin was
adopted (even if just that circulation language) too because of the
"prestige".

>
>
> (1) The (implicit) assumption that a migration from the Ohrid area to
> Transylvania is totally impracticable whereas a migration from
> Transylvania to the Ohrid area is too trivial to even mention.

well, here I am on the same path due several reasons as they are:
-no migration from South to North except the danger came from Souts. See
migration of Serbs and Bulgarians into Romanian Principality in the time of
Osmans.
-missing of the grounds. Why should someone leave the relatively safe area
of Roman and later Bizantine Empire for chosing to live somewhere in the
Barbaricum.
-Missing of the Toponyms and Hydronims which will show a Romanian sound
change adopted by Slavs anywhere South of Danube or around Orchid.

>
>
> (2) The idea that a transdanubian presence of DR in the tenth century
> or thereabouts constitutes evidence for a transdanubian location of
> Common Rumanian.

I can and it can be demonstrated that in the X century the Valahs have been
already in North of Danube. The problem I have is the time until X century
since there we are missing any data for doing anything. I simply don't see
any data, historical or linguistical which will help out to locate the
Valahs between VI-X century North or South of Danube. I say between VI-X
century since it is the common accepted idea that the Latin became Romance
already in the VI century., Here in these 4 centuries is what one needs.
Unfortunately, comparative with the cumans where we have the Codex
Cumanicus, from the languages of the Avars I don't know to be too much left
so one could try to see if there are some linguistic connection. The missing
of the Germanic loans is not to use since if there has been a deeper contact
between Germanics and Romanians, it would say nothing due the fact these
could happen as well as North or South of Danube. I am afraid the contacts
between Germanic and Valahs was the same as more later in the time of the
Hungarians where these folks lived "paralel" in the same region, without
conntacting each other. These later aspects are known (Germans hardly
intermingling with Valahs) and the rules from the Jus Valachorum where it
was interdicted to bring men of another nationality into the families. This
"jus valahorum" was kept until the modern times and it is still alive
between Aromanians where they hardly intermingle even with DacoRomanians.

>
>
>> 3) he quotes Jokl which says "In Albanian the pastoral Albanians
>> assimilated the agricultural Slavs" ( p. 292)
>
>
> No sane person can have any doubts about that.

Agree. It remains curious that same scarce Albanians assimilated the
"numerous" Slavs. The paralel with the Romanians which assimilated the Slavs
North of Danube is not too oversee.

>
>
>> 4) the oldes loans into Romanian have Bulgarian character, but a
>> different characted as these spoken in _South_ of Bulgaria, namely
>> these phonetic charcter are to find in the _North-East_ of Bulgaria.
>> (p. 298)
>
>
> OK, but that becomes significant only after the rise of those local
> differences has received a chronology.

Well, that will mean the oldest loans are to be located too in the IX-X
century? And what did happen between VI-IX/X century? Was there no contact
between Slavs and Valahs?

>
>
>> 5) there are some Hungarian loans which can be explained
> phoneticaly just
>> via Bulgarian ( p. 299)
>
>
> If that can be substantiated it is fascinating.

Rosetti mentions here the verbs which are ending in "-ui" as alc�tui, b�nui,
b�ntui, where the "ui" is to explain just via Slavic since the Hungarians
forms will hardly be suitable for yelding the Romanian forms directly.

alc�tui < alkotni, b�nui < banni, b�ntui < bantani

>> A suplimentary aspect should be seen from the Cumanic
>> loans into Romanian since the phonetic aspect of the words do not
>> apply to these of Turkish, but to these of the Cumans. This aspect
>> force us to put the DR too more North, namely north of Danuber, and
>> East of Carpathian.
>
>
>
> I've no quarrel with this (barring one or two details that were
> mentioned above) as far as DR is concerned, but Arumanian has been
> lost from sight again and we're talking about relations that took
> place in the ninth century at the earliest but probably later, in
> other words, about relations that have no conceivable bearing on the
> problem of the Rumanian Urheimat, in the sense of the area where
> Common Rumanian arose.

No. If the Aromanians splited from DacoRomanians in the X century, then the
missing of the Hungarian and Cumanic words are understable. They simple have
not been there anymore as these folks arrived. That is for assuming the
Urheimat was North of Danube. For assuming the Urheimat was South of Danube,
one can say, they are missing these words since they did not migrated to
North of Danube as well.

> As far as the Urheimat is concerned it is a
> smokescreen comparable with the PVL evidence, though admittedly much
> more interesting and real. Sorry for repeating the point, but you
> can't prove that the Vojvodina was Serbian-speaking in the
> seventeenth century by showing that it is predominantly Serbian-
> speaking now.

Well, here we have a little bit more luck. As the Asans borther needed help,
they came with help from the Black Valahs North of Danube and with Cummans.
That is: if the migration of DR took place in the X century ( due Hungarian
and Cummanic loanwords in AR), then they became already in one hundred of
years numerous enough for assisting the Asans.

>
> Willem

Alex




--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 22.12.2004