From: alexmoeller@...
Message: 16233
Date: 2002-10-14
----- Original Message -----
From: "mrcaws" <MrCaws@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:46 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: Cicero , barbarian
> The Romans may have consulted "barbaric" neighbors for
divination
> because they practiced a similar religion to what the Romans
used to
> before they became more urbanized and removed from older
religious
> practices. As for consulting Etruscans, the Romans definetly
> borrowed/shared a lot of religious practices with the
Etruscans.
> Also, the Etruscans were noted for their skill at divination
long
> after the collapse of their political power in the region.
[Moeller]
I am very afraid to say out what I think. I think the so
called "barbarian languages" were the languages used by the
folks inside of roman empire, folks which was not latin. And
the actualy neo latin languages like spanish, french,
portugal, italian, romanian are in fact these "barbarian
languageas".
They change a letter, put a verb somewhere else, pronounce bad
a latin word , etc.In fact all features described in the given
texts.
And we remember the greek got a lot of their Gods from
thracians, the roman took it too. Somewhere it seems the link
is working.
If we take a look at Europa, beside the small exceptions we
know, there are 3 big families. Germanic, slavic and latin.
If folks of germanic and slavic family are to be seen as
geneticaly close the folks from latin family are to be
explained after today explanations just as language-related,
their only common point beiing the roman empire and the
borrowing of the latin language, "destroyng" of the latin
language and making of new languages from it.. Is that indeed
true?
Or we have to think ( there are many ancient indices which
speak about) these so called " neo latin" folks are trough
something else related to each other, something older as the
roman empire?And if we can find out the latin folks are
geneticaly related to each other as the folks of germanic and
the slavic families, then we have a very best explanation of
so called " latinisation" of this very big areal.And the
romanist linguists who dealed with the latinisation did not a
mistake in fallowing the path, but they did a mistake in
establishing the point zero. The common point beeing not after
roman empire, but before of this.
The pre roman world shows toponyms and hydronims which have
cognates in all this region of south Europe from east to west
and that cannot be from such different people who , later,
trough roman empire , became related to each other..And here
we can be helped by the greek documents before rise of the
roman empire and too, by the old egyptian texts.
regards