From: richardwordingham
Message: 15097
Date: 2002-09-04
--- In cybalist@..., alexmoeller@... wrote:
[Moeller]
These way to say like: " the ancients, the parents of proto-
romanian " that means nothing. Tell me their name.The ancestor of
romanians did not lived on the Mars.They must have been somehow on
Earth and more , in Europe from a point upon the timeline . No one
like to do it. The romanian linguists use here and there the
word "thracian" but they run as before the devil and they will never
use "dacian": Be my guests. They are not the dacians, they are not
the thracians. But who are they? Tell me who? Tell me that the small
tribe of trogloditen, tell me that a semitic, tell me something. Does
someone this? No. They dont. Why?
I dont know. Are they not prepared ?Are they not good profesionist?
Are they uniteresed?Does a such explanation change something in the
general linguistic? No.
Richard:
There may be a big problem identifying the immediately pre-Latin
ancestors of the linguistic ancestors of the Romanians by linguistic
means. We English have a significant Celtic portion to our ancestry,
or so genetic studies now tell us. But there is almost no trace of
the original Celtic in our language. Linguistically, only place
names, mostly names of small rivers, indicate that the invading Anglo-
Saxons did not simply expel the Britons en masse. In school, we
learn that the Welsh so hated the Anglo-Saxons that they made no
attempt to convert them to Christianity.
I have learnt a similar story for France, i.e. that the Gaulish
substrate vocabulary in French is miniscule.
If these are exceptional cases, or what I have read is wrong, I hope
someone will tell us. But I fear you will be panning for gold, and
will encounter much fool's gold. You have presented us with much of
the latter already. Tempers have come close to snapping.
Richard.