Re: [tied] Re: Proto-Albanian

tolgs001 wrote:

> In the case of the Romanian language, there is
> a certain rest of pre-Roman vocabulary that
> linguists have ascribed to some idiom once spoken
> in the region, but which was in the end lost
> for good.
>
> You're misguided into almost being convinced
> that the Romanian language is the continuation
> of that unknown ancient idiom (Dacian? Moesian?
> Thracian? Illyrian? Scythian?) which had b
> orrowed some Latin words here, some Slavic words
> there and so on. If Romanian and Albanian have
> the same substrate language, and both once
> heavily borrowed from Latin, you yourself are
> puzzled as to why you aren't able to make some
> simple conversation with Mr Konushevci in sort
> of a common simple Pidgin-like idiom (e.g.
> the way you could in a conversation with a
> Aromanian or an Italian)

They have the same substrate from PIE, but they are two separated
languages as 2000 years before Thracian and Illirian has been. We have
again a coincidence here. Illirian= gone. Thracian = gone. New
appearance on the Balkan = Albanian & Romanian. Do not put please one
Italian with an Aromanian in the same pot. An uneducatede person will
not understand the meaning of the Italian sentences, just some words.
And these "just some words" will be understood in Albanian too.
.

>
> You'll forever look for evidence on Cybalist
> and in other media, but you'll never get the
> answer you expect to the question "Where's the
> beef?" Because there ain't no beef in there. :)

There is the beef. I showed many times that the romanian words seems to
fits more better with Old Latin as with Imperial Latin. take a look at
Latin "silvaticus". In Old Latin it was "salvaticus" and in Romanian is
"sãlbatic" which is the form of the Old Latin but not of Late Latin and
has the same meaning as the Old Latin ( Rom. & Ol Latin meaning here=
wild)
There are changes from Old Latin to Latin which are assumed later for
changes from Latin to Romanian.