Re: [tied] Re: *gwistis

----- Original Message -----
From: "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 8:50 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: *gwistis


> > [Moeller] I understand from your opinion that CIL is the
> > reflection of the language of the folks from Roman empire.
>
> The inscriptions I mentionned are up to the IVth century
a.D.

[Moeller] It was just an ideea for observing the late latin
language in inscriptions and the "evidence" the neo romanic
language must existed at the same time with these
inscriptions, but they were already neo romanic , not latin
anymore. A little paradox here, but I guess, very explanable
>
> > I should be very carefully when I will argue with this hot
> > stuff..
>
> Fundamentally right: you really should be very careful.

[Moeller]I agree.

>
> > [Moeller] ah, again sardinian? well, if not spain nor
portugal,
> > nor french nor italian,nor retoromanish, then at least
> > sardinian.....
>
> While being in the middle of some Latin-speaking regions
due
> to its' isolation, there was less place left for inovations
in
> Sardinian, as well as in Romanian for geographical reasons.
[Moeller]
but not Portugal or Spain for instance. They were not so
isolated. And it is still open where could be romanian so
isolated..


>
> > [Moeller]
> > but Angelo in italian, Giovani in italian to, originale in
> > italian, original in french, with a good preservation of
"g"..
> > well.. that is life..
>
> As for Romanian, you should make the difference between
inherited
> words and loanwords from Latin. Giovanni should not be
considered
> as a point for your allegations since it has /g/ at the
beginning,
> not between vowels.

[Moeller]
I seen it as Richard attentioned me. I excuse me by you too
for this inconvenience.