Re: Albanian: length of time in the Balkans

>I think I was quite clear, but I'll try some more.

Sorry to say but these types of regressions with a change of
timeframes at each sentence doesn't serve at all.

What are the information that you give in your below message?
That each beginning has another one? Of course, is true, but what
for, to say this?

Follow up your regression finally you will say "that first of all
there were some monkeys in the Balkans and we don't know for sure how
their ancestral genes survive in all of us"...

I think that saying what you said (see also your below sentence)
reveal more closer the "ideology" that you sustained that
some "information" that you wanted to post here:

> In this connection it is often difficult for outsiders
> to follow the type of discourse that identifies Romanian both with
> the substratum and with the glories of the Roman empire.
>

In my opinion, your affirmation above reveal an "ideology".

But despite this, I want to repeat for you some Conclusions based
on the Linguistic Facts:

1. The existence of Romanian Substratum is a Fact even you like
this or not.
85% of this Substratum were already present in Proto-Romanian at
least before 600 AC. 30% of it was present al least before 200AC.
I counted word by word (82 words -> you can see this in my
message) to establish this.
Even the timeframes could be 300-400AC in place of 200AC or 700-
800AC in place of 600AC this will not change this fact in its main
features.
(but I don't think that I need to review my timeframes, and I can
put here my arguments related to this (together with Rosetti's
timeframes regarding Balkan Latin transformations that I correlated
with Proto-Albanian ones).

2. Also the Romanian Substratum (at least parts of it), is Older
than the Latin Layer in Romanian based on a Fact : PAlb a: > Rom a -
Alb o and Lat a: > Alb a).
So Romanian Substratum is older than the Roman Arrival in Balkans
even you like this or not.

3. This Substratum is closer related to the Proto-Albanian,
indicating as primary source a "local [Balkan] native language"
(Hamp) ("local native" of course is related to the discussed
timeframe 500BC - 500AC)

So even you like or not these Conclusions they are based on some
Linguistic Facts.

If you have doubts regarding these facts please argue against them
BUT please use LINGUISTIC arguments for this.

With your "ideological" arguments that the "first one" is
a "relative" notion...you don't say much more. You only add your
personal motivations in the discussion.

Saying that "the first arrived shouldn't be proud for this"
(first of all this indicate that you are among "those that arrived
later")

is the same thing if not worst that the opossite alternative to
say :
"that you are proud that you have arrived first" :


Both positions don't help at all in any linguistic discussion.


Finally, "I think I was quite clear," too.

Best Regards,
Marius Alexandru

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "pielewe" <wrvermeer@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3"
<alexandru_mg3@...>
> wrote:
> > Willem wrote:
> > "No Balkan language is autochthonous in any absolute sense. "
> >
> > Willem,
> > You mixed again here ethnic and political reasons with the
> > linguistic facts playing also with different timeframes. Doing
this
> > you completely ignore the linguistic situation around 0 - 500 AC
in
> > Balkans:
> >
>
>
> I think I was quite clear, but I'll try some more.
>
>
> No Indo-European language is autochthonous, simply because the
> Balkans were not part of the Indo-European Urheimat. Every Indo-
> European language now spoken on the Balkans arrived at some point
in
> time which could be specified if sufficient information were
> available. Autochthony is always a relative notion, particularly in
> Europe, where nearly all languages now spoken are obviously
> intrusive.
>
>
> When I say that autochthony is a relative notion I mean something
> like the following. Albanian, which was present in the area in late
> Roman times at the latest (but in all likelihood significantly
> earlier) is clearly autochthonous with respect to Slavic, which
> arrived in the mid sixth century at the very earliest. On the other
> hand Slavic is autochthonous with respect to Hungarian, etcetera.
>
>
> As soon as one narrows down the area one studies, things tend to
> become very complicated and contradictory. Greek, for example, is
> clearly autochthonous with respect to most other Balkan languages,
> but most of the Greek now spoken in northern Greece has arrived in
> the area within living memory. Or: along the Croatian coast Latin
was
> autochthonous with respect to Slavic, but the Italian dialects that
> were spoken in many of the towns in the nineteenth century were
quite
> recent and no continuation of local Latin so that Croatian was
> autochthonous with respect to them. Many similar examples could be
> added.
>
>
>
> It goes without saying that the substrata that live on in Greek,
> Albanian and Romanian were autochthonous with respect to the Indo-
> European languages that absorbed them, but chances are that they
> continue that language of the early agriculturalists that was
> intrusive too. In this connection it is often difficult for
outsiders
> to follow the type of discourse that identifies Romanian both with
> the substratum and with the glories of the Roman empire.
>
>
> I hope I have made myself clear enough now.
>
>
> Willem