Re: [tied] Re: Romanian Verb Endings and Substratum influence (repo

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 21:40:15 +0000, alexandru_mg3
<alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:

>I. "-nt became -n in Italian and Romanian, and final -n was lost
>in Romanian (cf. aeramen > aramã)."
> The Romanian timeframes and evolutions that you described above
>that are completely wrong. Final -nt dissapeared without any trace
>in Romanian.

Indeed.

>There isn't any intermediary "Ei cântan" in Romanian.
>No intermediate stage with -n is attested....

No, but it follows necessarily from a comparison with
Italian:

canto
canti
canta
cantamo
cantate
cantan

>II. "The absurd notion that they should be compared instead to
>the wrong set of Lithuanian-in-lieu-of-Dacian endings, is,
>I'm afraid, completely laughable to anybody who has any idea
>about the Italian, Romanian and Lithuanian languages."
>
> I will not insist here Miguel about what you named here "wrong
>set of Lithuanian endings" I have explained you in detail in another
>message that your logic is "wrong", and not the endings that "are
>good" because these endings were phonetically the closest one to the
>Latin Endings....so I will not insist more here...if you want please
>re-read my previous posting otherwise ...let's forget.

Let's.

> I will explain you now what "this absurd notion" and "completely
>laughable" explanation is a serious and organic one:
>
> Every serious linguist agreed (Rosetti, Densusianu to talk here
>about the top Romanian Linguists) that in Balkan Romance (mainly
>what is today Romanian) the endings -t at III-sg and -nt at III-
>pl. "was lost very early" in comparison with the Western Romance (->
>where they still survive until today or at least we saw important
>traces of them....)
>
> Everybody agrees on this but nobody have explained why...
>
> My explanation is very simple: when the Romans arrived in
>Balkans, there was in the Eastern Europe (from Baltic to Dalmatian
>Coast) an almost continuu areal of Balto-Slavic-Daco-Thraco group of
>languages that at 0AC shared (and they still share today) an
>important number of common features. One of this common feature (to
>be honest I didn't check for the Slavic)

Apparently not.

>was an EARLY lost of the
>final Indo-European endings -t at III-sg -nt at IIIpl. in this areal
>if we compare with the 'Western' Indo-European Group ...
>When the Romans arrived this processed was finished or almost
>finished.
>
> This is the case of Lithuanian where IIIsg merge with IIIpl

There is no (phonological) merger of 3rd. person sg. and
plural in Baltic, like there is in the Romanian a:-verbs.
In Baltic, there is simply loss of the dual (*-e-te) and
plural (*-o-nt[i]) forms, not by phonological, but by
syntactic processes.

This only affects Baltic. Not Slavic, not Albanian, not
Romance.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...