Re: [tied] a help for Piotr

--- In cybalist@..., alexmoeller@... wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
> To: <cybalist@...>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 12:43 AM
> Subject: Re: [tied] a help for Piotr
>
> [Moeller] hmmm.. looooooool.. I could not help but I laugh
> now. Mr. Vinereanu say that The Form of certainly romanian
> words are MORE closely to sanscrit forms as to latin forms. He
> does not say the rumanian words derived from sanscrit. Just a
> simple face to face of the words and nothing more. He did not
> speak there about ethymology of them.He just compare them. Do
> not change the line making from white black and from black
> white.

So what do you think Vinereanu means when he says, 'We have rom.
pãmânt, Sanskrit bhuman (<*gh(d)em or ghemon) but Latin terra'?
I
interpret this as:

(i) Romanian has 'pãmânt', which has the same meaning as
Latin 'terra'.
(ii) Romanian does not have a word related to 'terra' with the same
meaning.
(iii) Romanian 'pãmânt' and Sanskrit 'bhuman' have a common
ancestry.
(iv) Sanskrit 'bhuman' derives from PIE *gh(d)em or *ghemon.

Just how do you interpret it? It may be worth appending your reply
in German, in case your reply in English misses something in
translation. There is clearly a massive failure in understanding
somewhere in this discussion.

> BTW you like to speak about " romanians sound laws". Where are
> they from? Are they the same as in latin?

The discussion has not been addressing phonological systems. It has
been discussing the 'sound laws' that summarise how sounds have
changed. A better term might be 'sound change'; the term 'law'
merely emphasises its regularity.

> Are there the same as in other neoromanic languages?
> No. They arent.(Please do not take an example to compare from
> romanian with 6 langauges and if you dont find it in italian,
> portugal, spanish, frnech , sardinian but you find it in
> retoromanish to tell me "Voila! In one of 6 languages I found
> a similarity like in Romanian langauge.This is a malformed
> explanation for yourself. And this is what Mayer-Lübke did,
> but this is an another topic.)

You should now understand that if they were all the same,
corresponding words would remain the same in all the languages.
However some of the early changes are indeed similar.

1. Western Romance languages change short stressed <e> in an open
syllable to <ie>.
Romanian changed short stressed <e> to <iea>
2. Gutturals are softened before <e> and <i> everywhere except for
*some* Sardinian dialects. However the details vary greatly.

There are differences betwen large groups of Romance dialects. The
back vowels of Latin merged differently in the West and the East. I
recall that in some parts of Southern Italy they merged in the same
way as in Romanian.

Italian and Romanian share the rule -s > -i in monosyllables. The
Western Romance languages long retained this -s, some losing it much
later and some (e.g. Spanish) are even now in the process of losing
it, at least in some regions.

You may have heard that most of the Romance languages actually from a
single dialect cluster. Isolated Romanian is not a member of this
cluster. Therefore it should not be a surprise if its sound changes
are different to the other languages.

> So where from ?Well, the usual
> explanation is " a own evolution". Well, I have too my own
> evolution but the genes of my parents are here strong enough
> to make me to look out as I look out. So, if romanians sound
> laws doesnt are like in latin where from? I should have an
> answer but you will do not like it.

If you are an intelligent human being, and not a clever artificial
intelligence program, you should understand that your question no
longer makes sense. If you are thinking of phonological constraints,
then I could point out that different Romance languages have their
individual phonological systems, as you have a different genotype
from your parents. This is, however, not a very useful analogy.
Languages _do_ inherit acquired characteristics.

> The question here is only one: A person , person "X" see some
> rules which applied to PIE radicals give the actual romanian
> words from substrate. OK, it is maybe a question of luck . But
> these rules, unchanged gives too the same words from the
> normal worsd who are considered to be latin AND the dacian
> and thracian words . How that?What does it means?

If this is true - I have not checked your claim - it simply means
that in many cases the Latin word is still very close to the IE form,
like <equa> /ekwa:/ 'mare'.

> That cannot
> be, that is a lay.. Is it? I am not a linguist, but if I see
> that 1+1=2 you cannot comme to tell me that 1+1=4.

If 2+3=5, I can still tell you that 3+2=5.

> With all my
> respect I will tell you that something you got problems if you
> afirme 1+1=4, even if I do not have the speciality you have.

And if I am working modulo 2, I can tell you that 2 = 4 = 0 :)

> Look at this please: there are two folks in Balcans. Albanian
> and Rumanians. Albanians say about themselfs, they are
> illirian , Rumanians say about themself , they are dacians.

'You can fool all of the people some of the time.'

> They are indeed geographicaly, in the place where once
> illirians and dacian. lived And what does the lingvists here
> do?
> Well,they assume albanians are dacians and rumanians illirians
> who migrated , changeing the places . Why changing? Why
> migrating? These are thesis ad absurdum for passing in a
> linguistic schema.

I have read that the Rumanian dialect isoglosses show evidence that
Rumania was settled recently. Normally isoglosses are very tangled
lines without a clear pattern. But when people settle an area,
isoglosses appear parallel to the direction of settlement.

The Albanians have not even got half of Illyria.

Richard.