P&G wrote:
>> 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
well Peter, I am afraid Piotr won't agree with that. Which isolation?
Where?
If we agree with the shcolars which guess the romanians emigrated late
in the X-XII centuries in the north of Danube, where should they have
been isolated so long time? And if begining with the III-centuries, by
whom?
> 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")
Future with " to have" ? you mean the compound of the "to have" +
conjunctive maybe.
The sentence " I have to do" in english shows something what I must to
do, the German "Ich habe zu tun" means " I have some work to do". The
Rom. " am sa fac" means once as in Germanic if follows the explanation
of the work "am treabã sa fac" ( i have work to do) or it is a vague
undefinetly future form " I will do".
Faci asta? ( Do you make it?), Da, am sã fac. ( Yes I do?, Yes, I will
do, Yes I wish to do? I am unsure how to translate the exact meaning.
Mot a mot is just "Yes I do2 but the conjuctival mode with " to do").
But this " am sa fac" it is very well replaced by " Da, fac."( Yes I do)
>
> You cannot go on asserting, Alex, that Rumanian is anything other
> than a daughter language of Latin
>
> Peter
well, I don't assert anything. I look around and I compare. There are
some Latin words, there are some slavic words, there are some albanian
words, there are some germanic words, there are some Greek words, there
are some Iranian words and that should be all. Of course, if we except
the neologisms and the big amount of the words with an unknown
etymology. But remember, there is no thracian word. So it is accepted
today. Even if the pristess of Artmeis have been called "Cosinze-" and
the Rom. good and nice fee is "Cosinzeana", there is the dacian tribe of
Greucenses and the Rom. Story wonderboy is called "Greuceanu". What from
the Latin stories and mitology, names, and superstitions? Nothing..
Well, these aspects have nothing to do with linguistic, excusem for
showing some of them. He, there are some guess about the language of the
thracian and because it is unknown then it remains just Latin as
basis.For these who means they know something about thracian let us
quote from Calvert Watkins:
"It is perhaps more hazardous to attempt to reconstruct meaning than to
reconstruct linguistic form, and the meaning of a root can only be
extrapolated from the meanings of its descendants."
Alex