--- In email@example.com
"alex" <alxmoeller@...> had written:
> > > on this scenario, would you please be so kind and explain us
> > > a such population
> > > living far away from Danube will have a native word for that
> > > fluvium?
> > >
Then I reacted as follows:
> > I feel that that is a very minor problem compared with all the
> > problems the scenario solves, or at least addresses properly.
> > that it is not really true that Romanian has a native name, it
> > native variety or extention of a name that is present in all
> > surrounding Slavic languages.
Then "alex" <alxmoeller@...> continued as follows:
> if you will to explain the change "an" > "un" via Slavic, be my
> guest. And if you consider that someone borrows the name of a river
> but it "suffixes" it in an ununderstable way, be my guest too.
> In how far this argument (which is a fact) is minor comparative
> your scenario ( which is a suposition) , we will see.
Let me remind you that any coherent diachronic account of any non-
trivial body of facts always leaves certain individual lexical items
unexplained. That is regrettible, but it could hardly be different.
It is in the very nature of individual lexical items that not every
detail of their history can always be ascertained. Individual lexical
items have individual histories. That is a fact of life.
And I find it quite remarkable that of all things it is the name of
the Danube that is called upon to play the role of crown witnees
against my scenario, given the fact that so much is unclear and
controversial about that name to begin with.
I must say I'm beginning to tire of your attitude. Discussing with
you is like trying to hold a jellyfish. A few days ago you accused me
of letting myself be influenced in my thinking by what you
called "ideology". That is a serious accusation and I asked you to
specify your it, so that I could defend myself. I'm still waiting. I
resent that. In the nineteenth century people duelled for less.
Respectfully as ever,