>Istro-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.
I understand your proposal, but Istroromanian doesn't fit (it is
a petty marginal and awkward Romanian dialect of a tiny population
that moved away from the main territory where the language is
spoken; a dialect that is heavily influenced by Croatian and
Slovenian). Much more interesting might be Aromanian, since it
contains whole lotta linguistic (phonetic and lexical) stuff
that is in accordance with various equivalents that once also
existed in Northern Romanian ("Dacoromanian"), and others that
are still alive and kicking in Romanian subdialects too (and
absent in the variety of standard, official Romanian).
What would fit is the Latin vernacular (and then the
Vulgata) spoken by compact Roman and Romanized populations in the
whole province of Illyricum (roughly Dalmatia) after the Roman
conquest. So that the Avar kagan Bayan could order the relocation
of a considerable Romance population from there to other provinces
(I forgot which chroniclers wrote on this).
But what about those linguists who, after analyzing the Latin
elements of Romanian, have concluded that Romanian is a derivation
of a Latin not earlier than the 1st/2nd century CE? For example
Giuliano Bonfante: re-read the citation posted by Peter Gray in
2003:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/21722
> Okay, you have no evidence other than the fact that other proposals are being taught at universities.
I don't have the time to prepare appropriate texts for you. But
it suffices to underline to you the fact that Istroromanian is
no archaic Romanian, it went through the same transformations as
did Romanian (Dacoromanian). Aromanian has some features that
really seem more archaic than Istroromanian and Dacoromanian (or
at least it is more conservative as far as some developments
are concerned).
But all Romanian dialects are late developments (7-8-9 centuries
after the era of those slave markets); they are the result of
those *centuries* of Roman state extended in the whole area.
For centuries, the language was Latin, not Proto-Romanian,
regardless of the degree of correctness. Even if Romanization
had started in those slave markets in the 1st century BCE, it
had virtually no impact (ein Tropfen auf dem heißen Stein) on
the development of the neo-Romance language called Proto-Romanian
(i.e., the decay and distortion of local Latin, the transformation
process being for a quite long while parallel, or the same, as
compared with the other neo-Romance languages, esp. with Italian
and even Old French)
>That is a restatement of your belief. Ignored.
This is not my belief: this is what's been taught and stated based
on sound judgment. Show me an author who has stated and given
evidence that prior to the 6th-8th century there were additional
Romance languages, and not only Latin and its neighboring ancient
"Italic" Romance languages. Show me the work of an author who
has stated (and is being taken seriously by the sc. community)
that at least one of the Proto-Neo-Romance languages existed
between AD 0-500 or earlier (when there was only Latin and its
dialectal kinship).
>Of 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.
Yes, but that "creole" thing was STILL Latin! If I'd learn Danish
and then communicate with you in some sort of... Pidgin-Danish,
it would be Danish, and not a new thingamagig language.
>Restating your belief. Ignored.
I have no beliefs in these matters: I only give some credit to those
who present hypotheses, models, theories that are well thought,
logical, documented (welche in sich stimmig sind). If, by doing
so, parts of history have to be rewritten, it'll be okay with me.
>It is not my problem that you can't extract the line of reasoning >behind the standard theories from standard textbooks, it's yours.
I like this sentence: it's well put, as if you've quoted my
thought. ;)
>Again you break up a paragraph, distorting its meaning.
Learn communication via email! I (and every non-bloody newb on
earth) select out of the thicket of a posted message that what's
relevant to ME in order to discuss aspects/themes/subjects that
are relevant to ME. This means that I don't discuss all points
that are riveted in your mind, but only SOME of them.
>I ignore nothing of the sort. I'm saying these transformations and
>vocabulary changes can be equally well explained by as the result of
>creolization as the result of changes within a single language,
>which is the standard proposal today.
This is not true, for God's sake. Go in your town to the Arabs,
Turks and other foreigners and see how they learn Danish: if they
grow up there and go to kindergarten and school there, any
foreigner is able to speak Danish as a native-speaker.
The "bastardization" and pidginization of Latin in order to
become French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan, Rumansh,
Romanian, Sardinian, Corsican etc. happened only because of the
decay of Latin in the aftermath of the ... implosion of "Romania"!
The vast population didn't have FOR CENTURIES any possibility
to be corrected by a school system. Only extreme few people
(clergy, monks) dealt with classical Latin. So that regional
variants of Kaputt-Latin differed so grievously that in the
8th-9th centuries some scholars complained (in vain: it was
too late) of the adulteration of regional "Latin" variants,
which by then were those Proto-French, Proto-Italian, Proto-etc.
The linguistic "archeology" of all Romanian dialects and
sub-dialects show that this language went through exactly the
same multisecular process as the other neo-Romance languages.
And the closest similarities, for Romanian, within this long
process were and are in all dialects of the Italian language
(esp. those of the middle and south, incl. Sicilianu - so
that there were some scholars who even thought of a possible
origin for the Romanian language in a hypothetical emigration
of contingents from Sicilia, Calabria and Abruzzi east of the
Adriatic sea).
Lacking schools and state institutions, any language "shrinks",
and phonological and lexical diverging tendencies grow in
significance in time; after centuries the differences are
tremendous (dialects become other languages). The Amish in
America speak South-German. Their ancestors left Germany and
Austria only 200-250 years ago, yet for a German, Austrian
or Swiss guy is difficult to communicate with them, because
Amish German is quite "shrunken", its vocabulary (naturally!)
poor and fulla Anglicisms. Much the more is the effect in
Transylvanian German spoken by Transylvanian Saxons: their
ancestors went thither many centuries ago; so that their
German dialects are even more difficult to understand than
Swiss Alemanian; therefore, those people must talk to you
in Hochdeutsch so that you'll be able to communicate with
them (although you are in command of other two Germanic
idioms, Danish and English). But Transylvanian Germans always
had their own German institutions, above all schools, where
they learnt the contemporary Hochdeutsch, as well as their
scholars were always in contact with their colleagues living
in the "Reich". Romanians ceased to partake in the Romance
continuum of "Romania" already in the 7th century. But in
spite of that, to a Romanian it is not more difficult to
learn Italian or Spanish quite quickly than to an Englishman
to learn Dutch or German (the same time period for the split
between Anglo-Saxon and Dutch+German, or "Bastarnian" if you
prefer).
This is the main and real thing of your "creolization" in
virtually all European languages. Don't hurry up comparing
creole situations in the "new world" and in Asia, coz you'll
end up in a Sackgasse.
> Here is the whole passage, which you broke up as usual:
> 'To any Roman, Proto-Romanian would be very bad Latin. So would Proto-Spanish, Proto-French etc.'
Hey, Mistah Linguist: this is a "Binsenweisheit", mah man,
really! This is taught in the 1st semester to students (at least
here in Germany). And they are also taught that Proto-neo-Romance
(any and every of them) of course were bad Latin (there are
a few written relics of complain, preserved in the Frankish
empire, from the 8th or 9th century, I don't remember exactly).
Why? Because, after reaching the phase of Proto-ness, we can
no longer talk of the Latin language, creolized or not, but of
new Romance languages - because the lexial, grammar, phonetic
differences are far too big! The differences are way beyond
those differences that had existed between classical official
Latin and various types of vernacular, dialects, that already
had shown grammar simplifications and errors (compared with
"normal" Latin).
In AD400 (the era of St. Hieronym's Vulgata Bible) there were
no proto-languages derived from Latin; only after about 400
more years, when hoc ille est gradually "shrank" to oc and oui.
>You criticized the first sentence for not putting Spanish and
>French on an equal footing with Romanian. The next sentence
>does that. In other words, you are commenting at whim on your
>first reading through the posting without even reading one
>sentence ahead.
I am commenting a stubborn and naive use of the word Proto-<xxx>
for language evolution phases 7-8-9 centuries earlier. As you
did when comparing OHG, MHG and NHG with Germanic idioms 500-600
years older than Jordanes's Gothic! That's what I was and am
doing! To a linguist, your kind of comparison and Wortwahl are
a no-go!
> Well, we disagree there.
You do not disagree with me, since it doesn't matter what I'm saying:
I'm no representative of the "guild". You disagree with the
"community". So, show me how you manage to convince the community
you are right and the community has been for many decades wrong.
>And your righteous sockpuppet continues pummeling the Dacian-
>is-Romanian nationalist sockpuppet in the continued belief that
>he is Torsten
What did you smoke? :-)
>You're not threatening me, George, are you?
What are you talking about?
>Exactly what are you trying to say here?
Ask the moderators of this group.
>>>What linguistic realities are you accusing me of neglecting?
>>
>>Tons of them.
>
>Which ones?
Do you really expect me to collect them for you? To spend weeks
or months? And then to reply "Circular. Ignored".
>Restating your belief. Ignored.
This is no belief, this is standard; and based on obvious
simple evidence. It is you who's *obliged* to prove that
those languages existed many centuries prior to their "invention".
>s 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.
Put it in these terms: both languages share a common substrate.
This conclusion is based on a certain shared vocabulary (whose
Albanian and Romanian phonologic variants quite differ or
differ very much, cf. modhullä <> mazäre) and a shared "collection"
of locutions (cf. "union linguistique balkanique").
This is all we know. Whether Albanian might be a transformed Thracian
idiom or Dacian or Moesian or even Illyrian, it remains only a
hypothesis.
>Obviously the Romanians were more eager to speak the local Latin >creole at home than the Albanians were.
This is a hypothesis too, but a much weaker one. Why Romanian
has, along with later (tremendous) Slavic & al. influences
(components), this special common heritage, nobody knows for
sure. But be asured, there are several hypotheses, not only
one. One says that the vulgar-Latin speaking population in
those "dark ages" in the 7th-8th-9th centuries lived together
or nextdoor-neighbors with the ancestors of Albanians. Others
say the Romanian variants of the shared vocabulary have
characteristics that show earlier phases of their development;
and others say just this feature might be an additional hint
that Proto-Romanians borrowed that vocabulary from the ancestors
of Albanians and did not inherit it. (And other scholars say
that there are "markers" hinting that Albanians' ancestors
must have lived in the first millennium in areas of today's
Serbia and Banate, which coincides to a great extent with one
part of the "cradle" of Romanian ethnogenesis.)
And last but not least: after centuries of "Romania" in the
northern "half" of the Peninsula (at least down to the East-
West line of former "Via Egnantia", that roughly coincides
with Skok and Jir^ec^ek linguistic lines), the Latin-speaking
population, that didn't migrate to Italy, was composed not
only of local Romanized Moesian, Dacian, Thracian, Pannonian,
but also of various different elements who were colonized
there during the centuries and whose ancestors came from all
provinces of "Romania". Your assertion that Albanians are
the continuators of Carps occurred not from "ungefähr", but
because you speculated that "free Dacian" tribes who joined
in "a bit" later on were supposed to have been exposed to
Romanization to a much lesser extent or not at all compared
with other populations that had lived under SPQR for centuries.
Who knows? Maybe. But it could also have been that some
marginal populations did not Romanize or were slow in that
process; then came the Avar + Slavic "whirlwind", "Romania"
retreated and disappeared, so that the linguistic Romanization
of some stayed in "Kinderschuhen", whereas the Latin of the
others decayed in the next 3 centuries to come, and grew more
and more distorted, and enriched with foreign vocabulary
(substrate + Slavic + Turkic + Greek), since there was no
teacher around to teach them "grammar".
>Therefore, you can't use general statements about the tendency to
>switch languages here.
Of course I can't, coz this is your privilege and monopoly, isn't
it! :>
>Obviously two populations here reacted very differently, so they
>must have been in different circumstances. We should find out
>what they were.
We don't know how many populations were there and how they
interacted and what percentage switched languages becoming
Proto-Croats, Proto-Serbs, and Slavic Bulgarians. We even don't
know how many Huns colonized there (among them some called
"Hunni fossatisi") joined the Romance population or the
Slavic population. Etc. What we know is what resisted until
modern times: the Romanian-speaking population known by an
exonym Vlach(os), the Albanian-speaking population (that was
mentioned for the first time a bit later than the first
mentioning of the Vlachs) and a small population speaking
the second Romance idiom, Dalmatian. The rest is known under
the ethnonyms Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian, Bulgarian (and
of course, the Greek). Two former "upper crust" populations
disappeared as language + culture, but has lived on within
the other nations: Avars and Bulghars (Protobulgars). We
even don't know to what extend there were Iranic (Sarmatian)
elements assimilated by those peoples (esp. by South-Slavs),
and whether some Germmanics temporarily living there (Goths,
but especially Gepids) were also assimilated; e.g. Serbian
archeologists say necropoles in Serbia (e.g. in the Gradiska
area) show that Gepids were buried in the same cemeteries as
the local Romance Christian populace).
>Could 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.
It doesn't matter, not important enough. It'll do to retain your
main message: "inception of Romanization in the Trieste area,
due to slaves An- und Verkauf"; and that you haven't yet explained
the signification of the Romanization process in the Peninsula
regions for the migrations, relocations etc. of Bastarnae & al.
>Well 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.
I know your "proposals" referring to Odin as well as to Bastarnae.
But I still don't get why dealing with how were Romanized some of
those populations living in Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania: Vlachs
and Albanians played no role in the movements concerning
Bastarnae, Elbgermanen, Langobards & al. Germanic tribes, or did
they?
>Why? Because white folks don't speak creole?
In the case of the Roman population it became "creole" because of
a... decay process. In time, they... forgot much of their language
(Latin). That's why. Esp. because those who were genuine Romans
(Latins), the Italians suffered the same thing (they even forgot
their own word for "war" and borrowed a Germanic word in order
to form guerra; they forgot albus-alba-album (with some
exceptions in the periphery) and had to replace it with the
Germanic blank > bianco).
>In 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.
So the differences aren't bigger than between Plattdeutsch and
Oberdeutsch (or betw. Romanian and Aromanian).
>Of course not, that's like saying the port of Berlin is the most
>important for import and export in Germany, not that of Hamburg.
Yes, but take into consideration where archeologists unearthed
the most significant quantities of coins, esp. of gold. I don't
know exactly how and where, since I don't care, but I remember
vaguely that Sarmizegetusa is one very important "address" (and
even today there are tens of people who mostly illegally search
the area for the much desired gold coins "cossoni". (If I don't
forget and if I have enough leisure time, I'll look up info on
this.)
>You disappoint me George. I thought you knew!
No I don't know and even Papst Ratzinger doesn't know. So,
illuminate us. :)
> As I already said, the creation of a creole is not dependent on whether the adopting people switches voluntarily or under duress.
Do not repeat "definitions" ad nauseam! Refer to the subject
and consider what really happened. Creole hypothesis might
fit some parts of populations over there (esp. those reluctant
or not able to better learn Latin), but is not applicable to
the entire Romance population living in vast areas for at least
4-5 centuries within "Romania" (and of which many were genuine
Romans or representatives of other nations that had been
Romanized for a long time, in other provinces of the empire).
The Romanized population didn't consist only of Pannonians,
Illyrians, Moesians-Dacians and Thracians.
>So what?
Instead of reacting this way, just think a bit and realize that
whole processes might have occurred in several other ways, and
not only in one way out of your own imagination; at least take
into consideration what the all those Romanists and Thracologues
have published sofar.
>Okay, so you think Albanians are stupid. What else do you want to >teach me?
Mann, biste krank oder bloß unterzuckert?
>I can't follow your reasoning here. Please explain.
No, I won't.
>No, 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.
If you stick to theories and don't like to read/hear other
opinions, then do not communicate them to other people: keep
them for yourself and for your buddies whom you might have
and who'll tell you "yessir!"
On the other hand, I don't care what Germans think of Danes
and what Danes think of Germans (geht mir völlig am Allerwertesten
vorbei).
>What has?
man "Manchester-Kapitalismus"
George