Glen Gordon wrote:
>
> Um, Alex, you're the one asleep. Romance languages are languages
> derived from Latin. I'm not
> talking about "love and romance" so don't flatter yourself :P You
> keep on boring us, erh, I mean
> to say, "informing us" with your mixed up views on Romanian, do you
> not? Well, Romanian is
> a "Romance language", one that is derived from Latin... so you're
> speaking about Romance
> languages, something found plethorically a la bibliotheque
>
> But then again, you would have discovered what "Romance language"
> meant at your local library
> if you had bothered to go. Obviously you haven't. I urge you to take
> a trip for the sake of every
> one's mailbox
>
>
> - gLeN
Glen Gordon wrote:
> From the questions you've asked so
> far, it appears that most of
> the questions you have are answerable at a library on your own. If
> you were doing that you
> wouldn't be wasting your time on "theories" nor clogging up my
> mailbox daily with Romanian-
> centric fantasies. Believe me, I have a deep interest in uncluttering
> my mailbox
.......................
> But then again, you would have discovered what "Romance language"
> meant at your local library
> if you had bothered to go. Obviously you haven't. I urge you to take
> a trip for the sake of every
> one's mailbox
>
>
> - gLeN
About Romance
The Pan-Romanic Stock comprises 488 words.
About Romanian:
Rumanian is picturesquely described either as a barbarized Latin or as a
Latinized barbarian tongue. Undoubtedly, such extremely diverging
definitions reflect the complicated problem to find out a consistent
explanation of its emergence and evolution. The official thesis
supported in contemporary Rumania states that Rumanian developed from
the Vulgar Latin of the Roman colonists who settled Dacia (modern
Transylvania) after its conquest by emperor Trajan in 106 AD. Though the
Roman legions abandoned the area in 271 under the pressure of the
barbarians, a portion of the Romanized population could survive, as
shepherds and primitive farmers, in the Carpathian mountains. In the 9th
century, when conditions settled, these Romance-speaking people
gradually reoccupied Transylvania. In the late 13th century they moved
eastward and established the principalities of Wallachia (1290) and
Moldova (1349).
A total of 214 Pan-Romanic words do not exist in Rumanian. This is a
very high number,higher than the number of those absent in any other
Romance language, including the Iberian languages, in the extreme west
of the Romance territory.
Also the number of inherited Latin terms pertaining to art and science,
administration and religion, as well as some complex activities, such as
iron manufacture and wooden handicraft is very low. The Latin words
concerning urban life are entirely absent in the Rumanian language.Of
course, the Latin spoken by the Roman inhabitants of the numerous towns
in the Balkan peninsula must have contained these and many other lexical
elements which do not exist in Rumanian. Their absence in the language
of the Vlachs is in accordance with information from other sources
indicating that they were not town-dwellers.
Besides changes of meaning which occur in all languages in the course of
time, there is in Rumanian a group of Latin words which changed their
meaning in such a way that they now belong to the shepherd terminology
Consonant clusters occur at the beginning of syllables, which is unusual
among Romance languages
etc.etc. etc. etc.
Such stuff is wellknown and easy accepted and indeed this are to find in
a library. How I said several times, I care about that part of Romanian
which is not Slavic or Latin. Implicitely I touch Latin and Slavic Greek
and Albanian as well since a lot of the words IMHO are wrongly
considered to belong to Slavic or Latin.
If you have any idea how I have to find out it without
seeing/speaking/asking on a forumum which deals with all IE & non ie
langaugeas, tell me and I will try it. Just now, I see just this
possibility and this is why I bother people here.
Thracian "trei" ( three), "douo" (two for feminine)"zaece/zece" (ten)
are words which I never found in ANY linguistic work I have read about
Thracians or about Romanian. Where I have to take a look about these? In
which library ? For making clear all of this, I cannot get any help from
any librarian . If you allow me, I will qoute you Glen, allowing myself
to change just a few things.
Glen's original text:
"I'm personally an amateur in the field of comparative linguistics but
have a vested interest in Nostratic and the illusive Dene-Caucasian (or
Sino-Caucasian or Sino-Dene or...). I tend to be conservative in my
approach and I never trust what people say at face value until I've
logically picked at it and reassembled it again."
alex's credo:
I'm personally an amateur in the field of comparative linguistics but I
have a vast interest in Thracian and the illusory latinisation of these.
I tend to be conservative in my approach and I never trust what people
say at face value until I've logically picked at it and reassembled it
again.
The most illogical thing here is the very short time of Roman ocupation
North of Danube versus " romanian did not innovated due missing conntact
with the Roman World begining with the 3 century AC-> this imply
Romanians NORTH OF DANUBE) and the semantic shift of words in an
degenerative way which sometimes happen to be the original meaning of
the pre-latin word ( see for instance Latin "turma" versus Rom. "turma")
Hoping you understand me better now , I wish you all the best Glen.