Re: [tied] Re: Slavs, Gepids and Avars

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Stana" <gs001ns@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 8:50 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: Slavs, Gepids and Avars


>
> >Under such considerations appears as normaly to have such a
> >large "substratum" in romanian . There are thousends of
words
> >not 180
>
> Yes, only "such considerations" have given a chance to those
> who've inspired you.

[Moeller]
it seems is a problem for you the case of someone who try to
see what is wrong or right. In yuor oppinion, there must be
"someone" who inspired me.
Be it your oppinion.

> As well as the fact that the substrate
> idioms (Illyrian, Thracian, Dacian-Getic) are unknown
> (except for few antroponyms, toponyms, hydronyms and
> few other lexical remnants).

[Moeller] false . The substrate is not unknown. The substrate
is hard to catalogate, to give to it a name. The substrate is
alive, well known, is not etruscan, is a segment in the
language where the words have a meaning. And this for is well
known. We must just find its name, the roots are obviously
PIE.

> Otherwise, they would have
> seen themselves compelled to keep mum. Instead of analysing
the
> extant language, then inserting it in the appropriate
"chain"
> and only then trying to squeeze out some plausible
deduction,
> these people postulate "the romanization was impossible",
so
> the modern language must (in their opinion) have developed
> from the ancient one(s)

[Moeller] the same erronate idea. "instead of analysing
estanct language". How to analize if you have just a few
elements to analize? This is why you have to take the bay back
, from the actualy words to the PIE roots. I do not understand
your problem.

>. Then, they go on playing
> etymological revisionism by re-establishing links to PIE (in
a
> scientific way, they think, and in any case without the
> contribution of Latin), and basta. They even expect that
> the plaudit is self-understood. At the same time, they don't
> give a darn on the fact that the missing link stays missing,
> whatsoever.

[Moeller]huh? what a missing link? There is no missing link
between the substratum and the actual langauge. I am afariad I
do not really understand you...

>
> Namely, that the ancient language and/or languages in
> question keep being unknown to us. But even Albanian, that's
> supposed to be the prolongation (to a great extent) of some
of
> these ancient languages, doesn't disturb these dreamers:

[Moeller] ah.. ok, I see the way you see it.. I keep myself
out of such kind of consideration.

> since, if Romanian weren't a Romance language, but, by and
> large, the modern variant of that/those ancient languages
> itself, then how on earth come that a Romanian cannot
> understand what an Albanian is talking about (whenever the
> occasion is given)?

[Moeller]a good friend of me, a guy called George, he tells me
always to go and read. I will allow myself to tell you the
same. You will find that even in the time of Burebista the
illirians were not more comprehenible with the thracians.. but
ok, you do not know my old friends, the one called George..

>This in spite of a certain list of words
> shared by both people. For many years now, I myself have had
> the occasion to listen to this idiom in the streets of
Munich,
> but nix capito.

[Moeller] I can just agree. I was living for some monthes with
albanians from Kosovo and with albanians from Albania. And I
cann tell you , Strabo was right. We could not understand each
other. We used serbian for understandig each other..

> >Such kind of information shows us that the "billinguism" ,
> >together mingling, forgetting own language and stuff was
> >not so properly as we will like to think.
>
> Yes, you're right, billingualism wasn't the way you and your
> wanna-be thracologists think. The evidence shows that the
> Romance idiom, gradually having gotten Dalmatian and
> Romanian, overwhelmed the substrate one for good.

[Moeller] evi..what? which evidence?

> The
> relics of the the secondary "tier" (that'll forever be
unknown,
> I'm afraid) are indeed vigorous (a few dozen lexems belong
to
> the main vocabulary of Romanian being circulated by
> everyone, irrespective of one's region & education). But by
> far they aren't enough to postulate something these people
> painstakingly try to prove (actually being driven by a
single
> impulse: to show their people is autochtonous; as though, a
> Romanized populace weren't autochtonous). (But we're
> gonna see whether the IE expert community takes'em
> seriously.)
>
> George

[Moeller] I guess you will have not so pleasant things to find
then. Despite the fact I stay openly for a very weak
latinisation of the north of danume, no linguist which respect
himself will be negate a good demonstration. And here I do not
talk about the role of latin. I am on cybalist to hear, to
ask, to answer where I can, and to make my opinions about God
and world. And there must be rules from PIe to substratum of
romanian. There is no doubt. But no doubt at all. Or this is
not my foult that these rules are...