> Well.... there are several scholars which admit the structure of
> Romanian is not the Latin one. For the phonology there are rules and
> rules.
No Romance language has a structure which is "the Latin one". But all,
including Romanian, have structures clearly derived from Latin. Even the
reasons for the changes are clear to us. The only differences in the case
of Rumanian are:
(a) its almost total isolation from the rest of the Romance-speaking
world from as early as the 3rd century. This means it did not share some of
the innovations common to French-Spanish-Italian.
(b) the Balkan sprachbund, which means it does now share structures with
other languages in that area (such as a future from "to wish" as well as one
from "to have").
You cannot go on asserting, Alex, that Rumanian is anything other than a
daughter language of Latin.
Peter