On Sat, 03 May 2003 00:08:38 +0200, alex_lycos <
altamix@...>
wrote:
>Hmm, ok I will resume myself to some examples and of course they are not
>the most relevant:
>
>Latin Albanian Romanian
>coxa cofsha coapsã
>directus drjet drept
>crucis kryc cruce
>angelus ëngjëll înger
>luctam lufta luptã
>venire vjen veni
>vitregus vitërk vitreg
>
>Most imporant changes should be some like these:
>
>x > fhsh & ps
>ct > j & pt
>ct > ft & pt
>
>So, it is not very correct to say " It's not true" since there is a
>different treatment in the consonatism and I did not gave examples with
>"Z, T, c^" for showing other differences. It is more as clear there is
>not the same threatment of the Latin words.
What is not true is that the common substrate material is treated any
differently from the Latin material.
There is a set of soundlaws (as well as semantic developments, new
suffixed formations, neologisms, etc.) to derive PIE -> pre-Albanian
(as spoken ca. 2000 years ago). This is common to Albanian and to the
"Albanoid" substrate in Romanian.
There is a set of soundlaws (etc.) to derive Latin -> Balkan Romance.
This is common to Romanian and to the Latin adstrate in Albanian (e.g.
kt > pt).
Once the Balkan community in question had split into a non-Romanized
and a Romanized part (the later Albanians and Romanians,
respectively), we have:
a set of soundlaws (etc.) from pre-Albanian to modern Albanian (in
part different ones for Gheg & Tosk), affecting both inherited and
borrowed Romance words (e.g. pt > ft).
a set of soundlaws (etc.) from pre-Romanian to modern Romanian (in
part different ones for Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian, Istro-Romanian
and Daco-Romanian), affecting both inherited Romance words and the
also inherited non-Romance ("Albanoid") words. Depending on the date
of borrowing, the relevant ones also affect borrowed Slavic and other
material (as in the case of Albanian, of course).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...