Daco-Romanian theory

From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 37674
Date: 2005-05-06

Piotr wrote:
1. "Even massive borrowing doesn't make the receptor language
extraordinary in any way."

Of course you are right. Why to be extraordinary? Is like this.

I wanted only to say that based on this: "The Daco-Romanian theory"
has sense from a Linguistic point of you, if (I repeat: only if) the
Albanoid Subtrate of Romanian is a Daco-Moesian one (the supposition
that: Proto-Albanian was a Daco-Moesian dialect is today 'at least'

So the following assertion of the Daco-Romanian theory :
"The Daco-Moesian population were Romanized and shifted their
language from Dacian to Latin, forming a Latin dialect that became
next Proto-Romanian" is very probable true.

So from a linguistic point of view this theory is not at all "a Myth"
(as a lot of people in this forum, and not only they, suggested: in
fact they assert that "The Daco-Romanian theory is a Myth". And this
is quite a comon thinking mode outside Romania)

Of course the Original Place of Daco-Romanian still remain to be
fixed...but if it was with 200-300-400 Km more to the North or more
to the South (a longer distance is not possible based on the Jiricek
line)...or if more or less romanized Dacian pockets remains or not in
the Apuseni Mountains or in the other Regions of Dacia Traiana, of
course has its importance too, but is Less Important that the
Assertion above.

II. "I have my doubts, but since you don't specify any details, I
can't argue"
You are right.
I'm still need to review and to complete it. Without right PIE
roots, cognates, dialectal forms for sure this list will be difficult
to be 'a good one'.

But at least, I tried to respect the timeframes of any phonetic rule
when I made this list.

I would be glad at the end to share this list with you (and not only
with you but to everybody in this forum).

I already posted a list of 82 words (mainly Rosetti's list) saying
that 85% of these words were in Proto-Romanian and Pro-Albanian at
least before 600AC.
If you have any doubts regarding my timeframes in that message
please post them here. Will be helpful.

So (if my list is correct) around 600 AC there was an extraordinary
situation in Balkans :
Albanian - Romanian Common Proto-Albanian Words are more than 300
Albanian - Romanian Common Latin words are more than 350

The Latin Layer in Romanian represents about 1100-1200 words

I supposed that Proto-Albanian inherited lexicon (I didn't counted
it yet but I will do it) has at that time about the same number of
words as the latin layer in Romanian.

As result the Proto-Romanian and Proto-Albanian shared in Common
about 50% of their vocabulary: this is not a "little interaction" is
a "huge one":
This strongly suggest that 50% of the Proto-Romanians talked
Proto-Albanian too and 50% of Proto-Albanians talked Latin too.
(of course this 50% is only a possible percent here...not a computed

III. "historical perspective, syntactic patterns are among the least
stable parts of any language."

I don't agree with you here. Please see my poor English as an
example. Despite 2-3 tricks that I know regarding the English
syntax "my English" follows mainly the Romanian syntax.
So after a Language Shift the Syntactic Patterns (together with some
special Phonetic Pattern) could survive in the new adopted Language.

IV. "Do you know anything about the substratal syntax?"
I don't know if somebody can present today a schetch of the Proto-
Albanian Syntax.
But I will post some interesting syntactic examples in a next

V. I want to add here some Proto-Albanian - Proto-Romanian Common
Phonetic Rules indicating a genetic linked between Romanian-
Substratum and Proto-Albanian one:

1. kt not available in both languages (Lat. kt > pt > ft, jt)
2. e > je - je
3. dy > dz - dz (later di > dz became general in Romanian)
4. ty > ts - ts (later s in Albanian)
5. sj > sh - sh (later s>sh became general in Albanian)
6. an > ãn - ën (and also non-stressed vowels mainly a-> ã)
7. cl > cl' - cl' (later che - q )
8. gl > gl' - gl' (later ghe - gj )
9. ns > s - s
10. gn not available in both languages
11. common presence of sound like c^, g^, 3, c , &
12. ky > c^ - q (even the assybilation has different degrees)
13. gy > g^ - gj (even the assybilation has different degrees)
Note: as an argument: Aromanian has only c, 3 for ky, gy)
14. dl, tl not available (reduced) in Both Languages.

for sure there are others too be added in thsi list but is what I
have now in mind.

Best Regards,