Re: Albanian: length of time in the Balkans

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:

[About my earlier postings]

> 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?

What I tried to argue is that "autochthony" is a relative notion and
that therefore it makes no sense to state that language X or Y "is
autochthonous" unless you specify autochthonous with respect to what
other language.

> 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"...

Please try to argue on the basis of what I wrote and not on the basis
of the absurdities you assume I might write.

> 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:

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you are talking about. If there is
an ideology hidden underneath what I wrote please make it explicit
instead of just hinting at it.


I'd written:

> > 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.
> >

To which you react as follows:

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

In that case please make my ideology explicit because as it is I
honestly don't know what you are talking about.

> 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.

My postings surely make it abundantly clear that I regard the
substratum underlying Romanian as both real and of the greatest
importance. There is no disagreement here.

> 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).

I've no quarrel with that in principle (never mind the details for
the moment) and I can't understand for the life of me why you think I
have. Please note that I've not written one syllable about your time
frames, let alone argued against them. Aren't you confusing me with
somebody else?

> 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.

I'm not sure I understand this, but I'm pretty sure I have not argued
against it or anything resembling it.

> 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.

Here again, I don't see what wrong I have done. I've not been arguing
against your time frames and as I wrote in an earlier posting, it is
my opinion that "The common substratal heritage (both
lexical and structural) carried by Albanian and Romanian is without
any doubt an extremely precious potential source of information about
earlier conditions, even if it has proved difficult to decipher so
far."

> If you have doubts regarding these facts please argue against

them

> BUT please use LINGUISTIC arguments for this.

What makes you think I have doubts?

> 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.

Do I?

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

arrived

> later")

I never said anything remotely resembling "the first arrived
shouldn't be proud for this". If you quote me, please quote
statements I really used instead of ones you assume I might use.


I'm not a little puzzled by all this.


Willem