Re: Loans, Slavs, Church

> As far as I can see there are two alternatives: either Aromanian
> continues an entirely different early Romance dialect than North
> Romanian, or part of the substratum vocabulary entered NR (e.g.

owing

> to specific Albanian-NR contact) during the break-up of Common
> Romanian.
>
>
> The former alternative has consequences for our view of Common
> Romanian that don't strike me as pleasant, to wit that the Common
> Romanian never existed as a homogeneous language. The latter is OK

by

> me in principle, but off-hand I strongly doubt if it can be
> harmonized with the factual evidence.
>

Those Danes and Swedes that are convinced they can't understand each
other's language will use English, occasionally throwing in a word of
their mother tongue when they are outside of their English vocabulary
(which with those people is usually not large) in the hope the other
party might understand it anyway.
I was wondering if there might have been a similar strategy used in a
refugee situation if the original Dacian or Thracian was divided into
strongly divergent dialects? The Romans were no longer around to be
used as dictionaries, so there was no one to weed out unwanted
localisms.


Torsten