Re: [tied] the slavic influence in Balcans

On Thu, 1 Aug 2002 14:32:05 +0200, alexmoeller@... wrote:

>[moeller]
> I just doubt about this. And this is because the albanians
>have the same pattern as rumanians. And that today they
>still use this patern and the sudic slavs have a methathesis
>here ( i am not sure about the other slavs).
>it is unlikely that two folks to get a word from a thirth
>and to mentain it as in the ancient proto_slav, and then the
>proto_slavs to make the methathesis and to change it but
>these folks to keep over milenium the same form. Dont you
>mind?
>And if you got it, which are "most" slavic languages without
>the south slavic? Where do we have it and where not? "Most",
>here says almost nothing. I should like you to get please
>the languages , other as south slavic where we have these
>best examples like *bolto, *dolto and because we are here at
>the methatehesis of liquids but we talked just for "l" let
>us talk about "r" too. Let us go on:
>
>rom. gard, old slav grad, alb. garth
>rom. ta:rg,old slav tru:gu:, alb. terg
>rom. ga:rba:, old.slav gru:bu:, alb. ge:rbe:
>
>Dont you mind that it is very unlikely that both albanians
>and rumanians to get the same patern but the slavs to have
>an another one?It shows the vector of this loaning, don't
>it?

No. That Romanian and Albanian have retained the words in their
original (Proto-Slavic) shape, while they have been altered in
(South-)Slavic itself is not an argument at all for them being loans
from some Balkanic source into Slavic. That's as absurd as claiming
that "Caesar" must be a borrowing from Germanic into Latin, because
all the Romance languages have undergone the change kai- > ke- > ce-
(and Germanic hasn't).

As to the quoted forms, I will not duplicate Sergejus' extensive reply
here.

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