Re: [tied] Re: for Alvin

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 14363
Date: 2002-08-17

 
----- Original Message -----
From: alexmoeller@...
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: for Alvin

> [Moeller] Your way to see it so. It fits maybe from the lingvistic point of view from what is called "eastern romanity" but it doesnt fit in historicaly and arheologicaly and very important too, demograficaly way of things... [etc.]
 
But the issue in this thread is linguistics, not "other ways of things". We are talking about the origin of the Romanian _language_ -- and as regards that question I completely agree with Miguel for reasons that I won't enumerate for fear of repeating myself -- we've been through all this before. In one of your recent postings you quote several completely unenigmatic words obviously derived from Latin (via regular phonetic changes) and call them Dacian. What's the point of such an exercise apart from stirring up some unnecessary confusion?
 
Piotr