Re: [tied] a help for Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: "richardwordingham" <richard.wordingham@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 7:35 PM
Subject: 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.

[Moeller] I interpret this as fallow: there are 3 languages
with 3 words with the same sense: latin=terra, romanian =
pãmânt , sanscrit= bhuman.
For every child now which form appears to be more related to
each other? pãmânt= terra=bhuman. What does look more similar
to each other? pãmânt to terra or pãmânt to bhuman or terra to
bhuman? This is question for children here.
From semantic I said all 3 words have the same sense.
but the pavimentum in latin does not mean terra and means
pavage in this toguht, a place where the mand made it
artificialy with help of some another material, an another as
"earth" too:-)))

> 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.

[Moeller] I agree with your correction. It sounds more better.
And this change is determined by something. If the factors are
not there , a language does not change. It will develope maybe
new words, but the olds will remain the same. So, which are
the factors for making the romance language to be so distant
today from each other that if you do not learn french for
instance you will not understand it. So there must be some
factors who make that such changes appears. And they are?
Which are they? Here is the nice question, and this is
learned by every linguist in the first year at universitiy. So
is not hard to answer. I am not a linguist, i do not have a
such diplom, but it happens I know one of these factors is
even the folk who speaks a new language. The folk will adapte
a new language to its own way to pronounce the words . Am I so
wrong here?So the "sound changes" are determinated by the
folk. And is not a later evolution of it. Even in latin, equa
appea _after_ the latins mingled with umbrians and all the
lingvists agree how much the umbrian impact on latin itself
was. And umbrian was too a P-Dialect. But equa remained equa
and 500 years after the umbrian "disspiered" from history,
becoming romans, thevulgar latin bring in Balcans the latin
"equa"?( ths assuming that the romanization schould be true,
of course). What did determined the latin language to remain
500 years unchanged in "qu " but from nothing to become
imediately "p" in sardian and romanian. Accidents?I doubt:-)


> 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.

[Moeller] you are partialy correct in what you say .But
italian has "qu" and the "v" between wovels did not dies. It
is still today there. Adn Miguel gives examples od "v" and "b"
sincoping in romanian laike in caballus>cal but he "forget" to
give the mst important verb "habere" which is in romanian " a
avea". There is no sincope anymore. The rules for rumanian >
latin have so much exceptions that you can say, is a rule in
romanian to have for every rule a lot of exceptions. And this
means?This means the rules are artificialy, after a
selbstgedachte model, and not the normal evolution of the
language.


> 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'.

[Moeller] you are invited to check. It is my pleasure to do
it.

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.

[Moeller] to settle somewhere means to have a place where from
you begin to settle. But somewhere else must be the point
where from you begin .None could find until now the point in
Balkans where from romanians could settle. And I doubt it will
be found ever. Because there is nothing to find, but this is
just my personal opinion:-)