>> alex wrote:The vocalism is not o the side of this scenario. There has been no
>> But this stage is a
>> preroman stage and it will point more to a relationship deep in the
>> prehistory. Your statment about "receptor language" makes me wonder.
>> The Carpathian-Balkan language which is considered to have been
>> latinised is considered now "receptor language"? Or we have to
>> consider what Bari� meant that here we don't have to deal with
>> "loans" but with "rests" ?
> That would have been the case if Romanian had gradually evolved from
> something like Albanian to something like Vulgar Latin, retaining a
> residue of its original vocabulary. That, however, is not a realistic
> We have to assume that one part of the "Balkan" population
> was affected by a language shift: Latin _replaced_ their older
> language, borrowing some of its vocabulary in the process. Another
> part remained Proto-Albanian-speaking, but because of their close
> contacts with Latin-speakers, widespread bilingualism etc. there was
> a massive influx of Latin loans into their language. This means that
> both Latin and Proto-Albanian played the role of donors and receptors.