>[Moeller] not George. Mr Vinereanu does not give any sentences
>in his book.Not a single one, not even two words. Nothing.
I didn't imply the author had generated those sentences
himself. What I was saying is that those words contained in your
sentences are seen by him as stemming from one substrate
or another, but not from Latin or Slavic. You posted those
sentences to emphasize the importance of those words
for everyday's Romanian vernacular and standard language,
as well as to cast further doubts upon the classification as a
Romance language - didn't you? :)
For, you take these words, according to this author's list, but
you keep mum on the fact that the lists with this category
of vocabulary in Romanian "mainstream" linguistics books
have always been far more restricted (i.e. do not include many
of the lexical items quoted in your postings). And these have
been put together this way for sound linguistic reasons.
(A few of the reasons were reiterated by some of the subscribers
to this mailing-list these days.)
>The sentences are made by my ill brain. I was looking in the
>romanian DEX and I was surprised to see how alive these words
>are and that indeed you cann make sentences with.
Actually, you don't need to look such words up, since you're a
Romanian native speaker. So, you're supposed to know how
often such words are used and *how* (I mean style nuances).
>This is what made me to look around for explanations. And here
>begun all.
Not quite so: you started paying attention to this category only
when you got aware of the fact that these words have either
unknown origins, or uncertain or even controverted etymologies.
Next step: you've been attracted by assertions/theses saying that
a certain part of the Romanian vocabulary hadn't Latin origin at all,
but were "autochtonous", substratal (i.e. Dacian or Thracian & the like).
George