From: Torsten
Message: 67628
Date: 2011-05-26
>You ignored the conjunction 'and'. This first part of the conjunction I use myself too, as you point out.
> >This is based on the assumption that closely related languages must
> >have spread from a common region
>
> This would be much the more your own assumption (based on your
> slavery hypothesis: a Romanization without Romans for a long
> time period :)).
> >and since Istro-Romanian is the smaller community of the twoIstro-Romanian developing as a creole in Slovenia as the first 'Romanian' language, as in my proposal, would also take place in a non-coast setting.
> >claiming they were the emigrants makes the fact that there is
> >no physical evidence for that becomes easier to ignore.
>
> Nope. Because these languages, incl. Albanian, don't have their
> own coastal, maritime vocabulary.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istro-Romanian_language#OriginThat obviously follows from the text.
> >'Some loanwords suggest that before coming to Istria, Istro-
> >Romanians lived for a period of time on the Dalmatian coast at the
> >Cetina river, where names ending in "-ul" are observed from
> >medieval times.
>
> It should be made clear there was no overlapping with a further
> Romanian group (extinct in the 20th century), the Maurovlachs
> (Morlacs).
>
> >In any case, it is linguistically evident[citation needed] that
> >Istro-Romanian split from the widely spoken (Daco-)Romanian later
> >than did the other Romanian (=Eastern Romance) languages, Aromanian
> >language and Megleno-Romanian.'
>
> That's right. And it seems even closer to Daco-Romanian than
> Aromanian and Meglenite.
> >In other words, Istro-Romanian belong with the Daco-Romanian partNo, it follows from the previous.
> >of the family.
>
> Hm, this one is rather an exaggeration.
> >>And theOkay, you have no evidence other than the fact that other proposals are being taught at universities.
> >>timeframe must have been towards the middle of the 2nd
> >>millennium, and not prior to the 1st millennium, CE.
> >
> > You provide no evidence for that claim, so I'll ignore it.
>
> I give you a ... hint, so that you, the doctor in linguistix might
> look things up in the library of scholar analyses and theories
> that have been created for over 150 years on these subjects (esp.
> in Romanistics). If you wanna deal scientifically with this stuff.
> The timeframe of the evolution of neo-Romance languages and the
> main peculiarities are taught to the students in the 1st and 2nd
> semesters whenever studying the history of Romance languages
> (incl. French, Italian etc.)
> >>To speak of the inception of that vernacular at the beginning ofThat is a restatement of your belief. Ignored.
> >>the 1st century BCE isn't warranted.
> >
> >Explain what you mean by that.
>
> In the 1st century prior to the incarnationem of our Lord there
> were Latin and some other Italian dialects as Romance languages,
> otherwise nothing, zilch, nada. There was no "Pidgin" and no
> "creole" Mundart based on Latin or Oscan or else. That what became
> Italian, French, Spanish, Rumansch, Romanian etc. had to wait for
> further 5-6-7-8 centuries in order to gradually develop (or for
> Latin to be transformed).
> You repeat the same thing with Romance languages as you do withOf course they do. Those theories and laws are a description of fact, but they may equally well be understood as a description of a regular slow development of a single language as as a description of the development from a language into a creole based on that language.
> Hochdeutsch, which you postulate it existed already in 100 BCE.
> Then to what avail all the theories and "laws" concerning the
> sound shifts and the tremendous vocabulary transformations? To
> you, they mean virtually nothing. :)
> >>It is too early for the entire area.Circular. Ignored.
> >
> >Because...?
>
> Because the preconditions for the Romanization (that lasted for
> a long time) weren't still there (no Roman state extension there,
> no... coercion, nothing whatsoever more than the knowledge of
> some... translators and interpretes).
> >If you had backed that claim with evidence I would discuss it,Restating your belief. Ignored. It is not my problem that you can't extract the line of reasoning behind the standard theories from standard textbooks, it's yours.
> >but you haven't.
>
> What do you expect? To gather for you hundreds of pages containing
> the history of the Romance languages? THere is no need of your
> discussing it, there is a need *for your* personally to learn
> how neo-Romance languages came into existence (how and when).
> There was no Romanian language in the 1st century BCE as there
> was no Hochdeutsch in the same epoch.
> > > Because of the lack of documents, you cannot state anything ofAgain you break up a paragraph, distorting its meaning. Here is the original:
> > > any "Pidgin" Latin.
> >
> > Because of lack of documentation all that can be stated about the
> > situation are linguistic generalities which hold in such
> > situation, and which are that when a native population adopts
> > foreign language as a trade language or
>
> Again you ignore the whole lotta stuff concerning the long periods
> of transformations, described by the so-called sound shift laws,
> the big vocabulary transformations (in the Romance world esp.
> after the collapse of the Western Roman state, and after the
> Eastern one lost most of the territories where the Romance
> population lived).
>Here is the whole passage, which you broke up as usual:
> >To any Roman, Proto-Romanian would be very bad Latin.
>
> So was and is the neo-Romance language that replaced Latin in
> its very Mamma land: Italian. Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese
> are as "bad Latin" too. Why is Romanian "casa noastra are multe
> ferestre si o curte cu iarba verde si arbori inaltzi" more
> "creolized" than its equivalent in any western Romance language,
> as compared with classical Latin?
>
> >So would Proto-Spanish, Proto-French etc.
>
> So would Italian as well.
>Oh, so now you got what I'm saying which you didn't two sentences back. Don't you read what have written before you post it?
> >The relationship between those two languages would have been
> >similar to the relationship between English and eg.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tok_Pisin
>
> Still, I don't think that the neo-Romance languages can be deemed
> as Pidgin Latin dialects,
> despite the enormous grammar simplifications and tremendous changeWell, we disagree there.
> in vocabularies (and "intake" of Germanic and Slavic loanword
> groups).
>This is obviously not true, since I proposed that in another thread a long time ago.
> >Here George, because of the limited number of sockpuppets in his
> >head available for the Punch and Judy show he runs there, has,
> >after giving up on the Fischkopp-puppet, identified me as a
> >Dacian-continuity-Romanian-nationalist and therefore, wasting
> >everybody's time in the process, argues against the belief that
> >the Romanians are a continuation of the Dacian people, a belief
> >I have never expressed nor entertain.
>
> Nobody identified you as a "Dacian-whatsoever": I was a bit
> sarcastic after you showed me you take seriously the old Danish-
> Dacian confusion (based on Iordanes's own mixing up things);
> which you then enhanced by advancing a hypothetic mass migration
> "out of Dacia" to Denmark.
> I don't argue against the Dacian biological continuity in theAnd your righteous sockpuppet continues pummeling the Dacian-is-Romanian nationalist sockpuppet in the continued belief that he is Torsten
> Romanian nation (as a component/substratum of it); I'm merely
> not going to accept theses based on assumptions outside science
> (and linguistics) uttered by (fanatical) "dacomaniacs". One
> of the nonsense disseminated by dacomaniax is the assertion
> Dacian's (unknown) language was a... proto-Latin language
> (and Dacians were the ancestors of Romans/Latins; i.e.
> Zalmoxis was der Uropa von Romulus and Remus :)).
> As for "wasting everybody's time", look who's talking! (Be gladYou're not threatening me, George, are you?
> that I ain't no moderator of this group; if I were, i'd show
> you some "drill"! ;))
> If you accept only reactions posted by 1-2-3 subscribers toExactly what are you trying to say here?
> this group, then rather switch to private correspondence with
> them. AFAIK, this is a mailing-list, and its topix aren't limited
> to Odin, Bastarnae, Ariovist, Mithridates, Boerebist, Peuke and
> slaves for precious metal coins. Host mi? ;o)
> >What linguistic realities are you accusing me of neglecting?Which ones?
>
> Tons of them.
> To go through the main aspects, one would need toRestating your belief. Ignored.
> write a book of at least 500 pages. But even in absence of
> an analysis, it suffices to realize that you talk of Proto-
> Romanian (or Proto-Italian, French etc.) for an epoch from
> around 110-60 BCE, when even Latin hadn't gotten so far with
> its simplifications and changes on the path to all these
> neo-Romance languages. (By neglecting 500-1,000 years of
> later evolution, you repeat the "Bastarnian"-Hochdeutsch story.)
> >For the same reasons that the natives of New Guinea gave up theirAs you noted yourself, and what is standard theory, is that Albanian is a continuation (although strongly influenced) of the language which appears as a substrate in Romanian. Obviously the Romanians were more eager to speak the local Latin creole at home than the Albanians were. Therefore, you can't use general statements about the tendency to switch languages here. Obviously two populations here reacted very differently, so they must have been in different circumstances. We should find out what they were.
> >"barbarian" tongues in order to speak colloquial English in times
> >when they didn't live within the British Empire. Read the article.
>
> But none of those ancient nations gave up their languages and
> cultures voluntarily! They did it only gradually when they
> were subdued by the Romans, and after their territories were
> included in the Roman empire and their structures were destroyed,
> and significant segments of those populations were dislocated
> and moved from their places, and other populations were colonized
> amongst them, etc. Thracians and Moesians resisted linguistically
> for a long period of time; historians say there are attestations
> for the use of their vernacular at least until the 6th-7th c.,
> which means: after at least 5-6 centuries of Romanization! On
> top of that, there is one language, Albanian, that hasn't been
> replaced by a neo-Romance language; the idiom of which Albanian
> is the continuator shows that Latinization stopped somewhere in
> its inception. If all those populations had been so eager to
> speak Latin "at home", then the Romanization would have been
> much thorougher, and the substrate elements even scarcer or
> lacking altogether in Romanian and Dalmatian.
> >Your knowledge of sociolinguistics is apparently deficient.I'm not a doctor and I never claimed I was. I'm a bachelor of linguistics.
>
> Yeah, sure.
>
> >Here George is again soliloquizing to his Romanian nationalist
> >sockpuppet on the evils of Romanian nationalism.
>
> Not at all. You completely misunderstand what I'm talking about
> and *why* I mention these things. You are not able to establish
> the appropriate links in your mind, despite your being (allegedly)
> a linguist and a doctor at that.
> You can't understand. And becauseAnother vacuous assertion.
> of the same causes pertaining to logic and putting features in
> the appropriate time frames, you repeat the whole speculation
> you've made on High German.
> >Another irrelevant digression.They moved out due to harassment. Ethnic cleansing, as it is happening in Germany too.
>
> It is highly relevant. But if you don't see why you don't see &
> basta.
>
> >There are already areas in Copenhagen which are solidly
> >Arab-speaking.
>
> But how many of the genuine Danes switched languages, speaking
> now Danish only on official occasions and in the rest of all
> situations speaking Arab?
> Thousand years ago, in the vicinityTrue, since we have (had) an organized society.
> of al-Andalus, it could have been imaginable for learned
> Vikings to be fond of learning good Arab and Hebrew for obvious
> reasons, but modern Denmark will start speaking Arab only under
> the menace by the curb sword of the Prophet. :)
> >Of course, Denmark would not switch from being Danish-speaking asHehe, said the German.
> >long as there is a functioning admistration promoting it by daily
> >use.
>
> Aha! Hehe. :)
> >UnderHohoho, funny.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck
> >the Danes of Schleswig were forced to speak German in public
> >and to serve in the German army.
>
> In order to understand orders and "links zwo-drei-vier, links!",
> it was a pragmatic thing to learn some German, ne? :)
> >Thousands of them perished on the Western front. DanishYes, I know our neighbors.
> associations were harassed administratively.
>
> Well, you know the Proto-Romanian saying: "vae victis!".
> >>(As happened in the Eastern Frankish empire,I'm afraid I did.
> >>where a certain German dialects group evolved as the standard
> >>German called "Hochdeutsch", and which you assume is based on
> >>the dialects spoken by them ol' Bastarnians.)
> >
> >Yes.
>
> Hehe, you liked it, didn't you.
> >Many Germans think they can get by here, like they can in 'LowAnd if the Kanonen talk back you'll go BAWWW, poor me!
> >Germany' by hammering a fist on the table and scream: HABEN SIE
> >VERSTANDEN!! That is a mistake which I suspect you are making too.
>
> Well, if you don't have verstanden, da werden die Kanonen sprechen. :)
>
> >Exactly. You are arguing with yourself that Torsten may be rightCould you rephrase this? If you can't express it in English, you could do it in German. I'll try to make sense of it.
> >while attempting to ascribe his opinions to yourself.
>
> >And again you quoted an entire long paragraph, instead of choosing
> >one sentence containing the gist, and putting in the following
> >line your "Exactly."
>
> >Obviously I did not claim any causal connection between the
> >putative Mithridates campaign in the northwestern Black Sea litoral
> >and the putative genesis of the Romanian language in the present
> >Slovenia, such as you claim.
>
> You still do. Why? Because you extremely deal with Mithridates
> actions related to actions by Burebista and then with the ensuing
> slave-coins thing. And this one, in your own words and vision,
> must have been the inception of Proto-Romanian (way before Dacians,
> Moesians and Thracians were hit by the Latin/Roman impact!). These
> are your links!
> But even if you were right, and the history of the RomanianWell the whole started about ten years ago with me trying to make sense of Snorri's and Saxo's story that Odin came from somewhere around the Black Sea to Scandinavia, and it developed from there. As for transformation of the Roman population in the North of the Balkan Peninsula after the withdrawal of the Roman administration, state, army I don't have much to say, since I haven't studied it.
> language would have to be rewritten in all books dealing with
> it: what's the reason mentioning switching languages or
> creolization or whatever in the context of the Verdrängung of
> Bastarnae out of Bessarabia and Peuce? In the frame of discussing
> those Germanic movements from SE to NW as well as to South
> Germany (South of the Danube) during Sulla's, Marius's, Pompei's,
> Caesar's time, you brought into discussion the importance of the
> foreign slaves in Italy (incl. Spartacus's revolt and battles).
> But what have all these to do with the transformation of the
> Roman population in the North of the Balkan Peninsula after the
> withdrawal of the Roman administration, state, army? Where's the
> beef?
> >Any Romanist who thinks the Romance languages, apart from thoseWhy? Because white folks don't speak creole?
> >(probably non-existent) cases where they originated in a purely
> >Roman milieu (eg colonists), did not go through a pidgin and a
> >creole phase, is incompetent.
>
> No one denies this. Only that "creole" might not be one of the
> best terms for the phenomenon.
> >Not true, cfThat's what I'm doing.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creole_language
>
> You can't compare them. Or you can, but only as far as
> "technicality" (in linguistic aspects) is concerned.
> SourcesThe creation of creole languages is independent on whether the 'learning' population adopts the new language voluntarily or under duress.
> and istoriographic presentations don't tell us of voluntary
> Romanization. It occurred in a status of subjugated peoples
> over there. (And Roman citizens they could become en masse
> only in the 3rd century CE, since Caracalla!!) So, the
> history of that territory and those ancient peoples there
> confirm my assertion that referred to the preconditions.
> Your hypothesis is based only on a theoretical possibility,
> not on what really happened.
> >Jews gave up Aramaic pretty quickly, and kept Hebrew for onlyI know.
> >liturgical and literary use; in general they are probably the
> >group which has changed language most often.
>
> Yes. But from Jesus's time (when Jewish everyday vernacular
> was Aramaic) up to day Talmud studying Jews must also deal
> with Aramaic (i.e. learn it to some extent), because
> considerable parts of the Talmud are written in Aramaic (AFAIK).
> "Liturgical", yes, but it is learnt at least as class. Latin
> is learnt in schools (and Christian theology students, esp.
> Catholic ones, must also learn some Hebrew, along with old
> Greek).
> >The fact that some peoples did not switch language under otherIn theory, yes, but they are drifting apart. And Norse (and Icelandic and Faroese) definitely not, we can't understand a single word of them. Usually it takes a few weeks to months of immersion for Danes and Swedes to be comfortable in the linguistic milieu on the other side. It also depends on attitude, of course. In the trans-Ãresund trains, personel is mixed and getting used to each other's language, announcements are done slowly and meticulously and usually understood by the public.
> >people's overlordship does not change the fact that some
> >people, like the Danes, did. As they did in the Danish regions
> >east of the Ãresund after it was conquered by the Swedes in 1658.
>
> I speak neither Danish, nor Swedish, but aren't these languages
> so closely akin that one could deem them one and the same
> language (incl. Norse)?
> Even if Danes would have been underThe advance of German from the south in Schleswig slowed down when that language switched from Low German to High German.
> Austrian yoke and constrained to learn South German: the linguistic
> relationship wouldn't have been and is not as, say, between
> Danish and Turkish or Arab or Kartvelian!
> >I never mentioned Sarmizegetusa. Those hoards are found all overOf course not, that's like saying the port of Berlin is the most important for import and export in Germany, not that of Hamburg.
> >Dacia.
>
> *I* mention Sarmizegetusa, since, if those significant slave
> exports were made under such powerful leaders as Burebista,
> Diurpaneus, Decebal, the most significant places must have been
> those in the most significant centers of power within the
> Dacianry.
> And Sarmizegetusa was to them what København is to the Danes today.Nothing important is produced in Copenhagen, that's done in Jutland.
> >>Not even in 108 CE (when Decibalus had been dead for two years)I will be taken seriously if I accept your statements on faith? No, thank you very much.
> >>was there a Romanization of Northern Dacia, nor of Southern Dacia,
> >>Thracia and much of what's today FYROM, Serbia, Croatia.
> >
> >Because? Evidence?
>
> You wanna be taken seriously?
> >>OnlyI will be taken seriously if I accept your statements on faith? No, thank you very much.
> >>western parts of the latter along with what's today Albania and
> >>Northern Greece (and along the Via Egnantia) got gradually
> >>Romanized.
> >
> >Because? Evidence?
>
> You wanna be taken seriously?
> >>the new Romance idiom being spoken after the 6thYou disappoint me George. I thought you knew!
> >>c. virtually only by the later on so-called "Vlachos", a very low
> >>social stratum, that during several centuries turned from a
> >>chiefly urban population to a rural and pastoral mountain
> >>population, living in regions that weren't attractive for the
> >>Turkic, Slavic and "Byzantine" upper classes).
> >
> >Evidence?
>
> "Byzantine" chronicles et al. hist. sources.
>
> >That's blasphemy. God created the world out of nothing. ;-)
>
> Hehe, no theologian and no physicist know out of what God
> created this universe.
> >>then how can youAs I already said, the creation of a creole is not dependent on whether the adopting people switches voluntarily or under duress.
> >>imagine that Thracian was still attested as spoken by
> >>some people even in the 6th-7th century?
> >
> >I don't understand your reasoning.
>
> Obviously you don't understand, because you *mechanically*
> impose a model you saw in "creole" cultures upon realities
> in the Balkan Peninsula. And you ignore what history
> teaches you, namely that those ancient populations there
> were conquered by Rome and Rome imposed her language,
> culture, structures and will by... force, and there was
> resistance. There wasn't much enthusiasm for Romanization
> in the free areas; I don't say there wasn't at all, since
> I don't know exactly what ancient chronicles reported on
> this issue; but historians haven't taught us that those
> peoples not conquered by Rome were as fond of Latin as
> upper classes in many European nations were fond of French
> in the latest 2-4 centuries (it is said that king Friedrich
> II "the Great" von Hohenzollern, Voltaire's host, used to
> speak French; he spoke German only with some servants, how
> cared for his horses etc.)
> >You said yourself that some languages survive in spite ofSo what?
> >their populations being subjugated. Why wouldn't part of
> >Dacian/Thracian survive as Albanian?
>
> Of course. But we can't say for sure *which* language, since
> we don't know how Dacian or Thracian were, so we don't know
> what and how got through transformations until it popped up
> as modern Albanian vocabulary and structures. And we all see
> that Albanians themselves represent another theory, namely
> that their idiom is a continuation of ... Illyrian. So...
> >>How can you imagine that a compactOkay, so you think Albanians are stupid. What else do you want to teach me?
> >>population called Albanians could have preserved a separate idiom
> >>that shows myriads of elements illustrating the "freezing" of
> >>the Romanization process in an early phase (as compared with
> >>its neighbor, Romanian)?
> >
> >??? That is exactly what I am imagining. What makes think I'm not?
>
> Now then, if this illustrate a certain resistance or stubbornness
> or, perhaps, a lesser talent when learning Latin, then this (and
> other "markers" in the Balkans) ought show you that the populations
> there were not eager to Latinize, and that their Romanization had
> its appropriate conditions only under the "whip" wielded by the
> Roman occupant.
> >>If your assumption had something in it,I can't follow your reasoning here. Please explain.
> >>then Albanian must have sounded today almost as Romance as
> >>Sicilianu as well as the Veneto and Furlan dialects!
> >
> >Why??
>
> If their ancestors were eager to be Latinized, and started the
> process at a such an early stage (the 1st century BCE). By AD 400
> (when St. Hieronymus wrote his "Vulgata"), the ancestors of the
> Albanians would have been employable as Latin teachers in high-
> schools! :) And the issuing Albanian language would have been
> even more Latin than Romanian. This is why.
> >>But of thoseSo??
> >>Arberësh Albanians who've been present in Southern Italy since
> >>the 15th c. (Puglia, Calabria etc.) many are even *today*
> >>bilingual, i.e. they haven't assimilated completely linguistically
> >>in 5-6 centuries.
> >
> >And therefore what??
>
> This shows us some kind of outstanding linguistic conservatism.
> The fact that Albanian is a surviving substrate language -
> practically the only one along with Greek. And the fact that more
> recent Albanians, namely the Albanian minority in Italy, were able
> to upkeep their own idiom for such a long period of time. Not the
> kind of population that today speaks A, tomorrow B, and the
> day after tomorrow language C.
> >And if it hadn't been for a few resourceful individuals in theNo, we're not. I know you Germans don't get it, no matter how often the Danes tell you. It's like telling someone who has a crush on you that you're not interested, you always come back with new reinterpretations.
> >early 14th century (and some help from the German emperor),
> >Denmark would have spoken at first Low German, then High
> >German, then become part of Germany with no more power to
> >object that Capt. Thomsen had.
>
> Would it been bad? After all, the same "Stamm".
> > And BTW the Germans and the Swedes should not get too smug aboutWhat has?
> >their present good fortune for their industry. Most of its
> >expansion takes place on the Chinese market, eg. in train
> >technology
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China
> >but the deals are conditioned on technology transfer agreements,
> >meaning the services of the Europeans will no longer be needed in a
> >few decades, if that long, cf the fortune of the British locomotive
> >factories after the German ones learned how to build their own.
>
> That's right. And has depended for several decades now on some
> kind of a... fad (and ideas and ideologies that are rather
> "Anglo-Saxon").