Re: [tied] Re: cardinal points

george knysh wrote:

> *****GK: The river in question is the Molda (in the
> Carpathians), supposedly a Germanic hydronym.****

There is no Molda but Moldova.

>
> *****GK: I'll leave this to the linguists. I don't
> know what you're getting at. Your terminology is
> confusing. Proto-Bulgarian?******

No. A north bulgarian dialect. More as this vague therminology I could
not find out. This Slavic dialect should have been menwhile died now.

>
>> The Aromanians have the same Old Slavic loans but
>> they do not have any
>> Hungarian word into their dialect. What does it
>> mean? They have been not
>> in conntact with Hungarians.Puting together the fact
>> that the valahs
>> appear coincidentaly in the history once with the
>> arise of the hungarian
>> state,
>
> *****GK: Where do you get this? The first clearcut
> mention of the Vlachs is in 976, south of the Danube,
> and has nothing whatever to do with the establishment
> of the Hungarian state.******

>
> I keep my theory that there was an
>> admigration of Romanians from
>> North to South of Danube from West of actual
>> Transilvania due the
>> Hungarian power
>
> *****GK: I don't know what you're talking about.*****

The Hungarian arrived in 898 and they concentrated first on the west.
After the big war against Germans where they have been knocked out by
Otto the Big, they reorientated and gone east. Coincidentaly the war of
Lechfelde (Augsburg) took place in 955 and in the next 20 years the
Hungarians reorganised their State and made the alliance with the German
house.After this they begunn the incursion in the east. It matches from
time here exactly with the first appearance of the Valahs within the
Byzantine Empire.

>
> If we count on the fact that the
>> first Bulgarian Empire
>> was alone "bulgarian" that will mean the valahs have
>> been not very
>> numerous south of Danube
>
> *****GK: You've been on the list for nearly two years
> Alex. Isn't it time you learned to express yourself
> intelligibly? What in blazes are you talking
> about??!!*****

I speak here about the role of the valahians within the Bulgarian
Empire. In the first Bulgarian Empire the valahs have played no role,
they are not mentioned as existing. In
the second Empire,they became important thus the name of the second
Bulgarian Empire which was The Vlaho-Bulgarian Empire. In my opinion,
the valahs could play a role in the second Bulgar Empire because they
have been numerous enough this time. This number is to explain trough
the
admigration from the old dwelling place they left because the Hungarian
conquest after 970. The facts fits together.

>>
>> (Alex)I don't see either something degrading here
> It is
>> just the problem that
>> it doesn't matter where they have lived, the
>> germanic tribes have
>> vagabunded almost on all european therithory
>
> *****GK: There was obviously a difference as to their
> geographical impacts.******

It was. Jordanes speaking about Carpodacians, does not mention them as
mixing with Germans or living together, he mentioned them just as
allieds
against Romans. I don't see any "must" in borrowing anything from
someone just because we are fighting together agains an enemy.

>
> The
>> missing of the
>> germanic loans ( I am reluctant in saying there is
>> no one, but this work
>> must be done first). Now with the South location of
>> the Romanians, here
>> is hard to belive that they lived so long within the
>> Byzantine Empire
>> and there are so few Greek or Byzantine loans
>
> ******GK: Are there more in some dialects than in
> others? At any rate there are some?*****

There are some old words considered to be brrowed via Latin where the
Greek "ph" is still a "p" in Romanian, meaning a loan prior to the
christian times.See Moser, WJb. (Jahresbericht des Instituts für
rumänische Sprache) X, 427. Other are considered to be after the X
century see rom. " a jura " which is considered not to be from latin
"iurare" but from Greek "giuros".For the period of II century to X
century I need by myelf
sources which shows Loans from Greek, sources which I should like to
read. There is a list of entire Greek words into Romanian which was
presented by Siadbei in the SCL (Studii si cercetari Lingvistice)
somewhere in 1958 I guess (am not sure about the year)

>
>> A short flash: begining with Justinian Latin langage
>> is not used anymore
>> in the Byzantine Empire
>
> ******GK: Justinian, the Codifier of Roman Law?
> (:=))****

Yes

>
> Heraklion make the Greek
>> language the language
>> od the state. From Heraklion ( VII AC)
>
> *****GK: I guess you mean Heraclius (610-641)****

This is the one I mean.

>
> untill the
>> supposed migration of
>> the valahians from South to nord between X -XII AC
>> are between 300-500
>> years. And without Greek influence? Imposible
>
> *****GK: What about Greek loans in Romanian? In any
> case, there were a great many more Slavs in contiguity
> than Greeks.******

And I guess it is normal so specialy after the Slavs became
christianised. You will laugh maybe but even today when someone want to
marry the family ask "what a religion has the future member?" It is
pretty curious but even in the XXI century it seems the religion is a
criterium for acceptance of a person within a new family or
notaccpetance of it.Of course it became more and more obsolet, though,
in the rural area it is still a big criterium.A part of Greek words
entered Rom. Lang in the time of the so called "Pahanariote time" but
these words died out.

>
>> I don't take too much into consideration the way the
>> late Byzantine
>> chronicars kept the valahians for dacian, let it be
>> their opinion. But
>> the logic of all these facts , all of them point out
>> a life outside of
>> the Byzantine area
>
> *****GK: I have no problem with this. After the
> definitive breach of the Roman frontier by the Slavs
> (at the time of Phocas) the primary contact people
> with the proto-Romanians were undoubtedly the latter
> (and of course the proto-Albanians).

It won't explain why there is a hole in the Slavic continuum. It is very
hard to affirm the Slavs made place for the Rom. coming from South so
that they get a place to dwell north of Danube. In fact why should they
have done it? Let see about Phocas and the slavs comming. first there
have been invited the serbo croatian and some time later are comming the
bulgarians. There is no invasion but they have been called as well as
the petchenges and avars and cummans and hungarians have been called in
thier time. Even the turks have been called too, for helping as usual
some party which was in war with another in that times.( wherefrom did
you got the thoughts there has been a Slavic invasion?).
For me the sotry of my childness are very important. If there is no link
between Dacian and Romanians I cannot explain the stories of Greuceanu
( Dacian Greucenes), the stories with Ileana Cosânzeana ( Dacian
Cosinges and the pristess Cosinzes) and the Stories with PipãruS Impãrat
( Dacian Piperus), the story of "Baba Dochia" and the sister of Decebal
which coincidentaly was called too Dochia. They cannot come trough a
Slavic link and they are unknown in the Slavic stories. There _is_ the
dirket link between Romanians and Dacians and I am not fantasing
about.What I don't know, I don't know if these stories are to find by
Aromanians. In Albanian they are unknown I guess, but maybe Abudllah
will can correct me.

> Byzantine control
> of the old Roman territories was not re-established
> for a long time, even in Greece proper. And in the
> meantime, the Proto-Bulgars arrived. In reality some
> measure of Byzantine influence (as you imagine it)
> would have existed only after the conquest of
> Bulgaria, and even then not for very long, since all
> of Bulgaria north of the Haemus mountains was lost to
> the Pechenegs in the mid-11th c.******

We are already too late. The story is to end just here. Between IV
century and X century. In teh century there are mentionated the valahs
and here the circle is closed. It doesn't matter anymore what is after
this time for the origin of valahians. It matters just until X century.

>> comming from Italy not from west
>
> *****GK: That's not exactly how I remember their
> statements. In the discussion of Proto-Romance it was
> noted that a lot of material was simply unavailable
> since it was the Western daughter languages that were
> being used for reconstructing it. The fact that
> Romanian was out of the loop here after the 3rd c. (if
> it was) implied nothing at all about its isolation
> from the Roman world, just from that of the parent
> dialects of vulgar latin which evolved into Italian,
> Castilian, Catalan, French etc..*****

The weird thing here is that Romanian fonologicaly is very close to
Italian, thus the parent of the vulgar Latin which evolved into Italian
must play in Romanian a role too. Better said the way how Italian and
Romanian evoluated fits more inteligibly together as Dalmatian developed
for example. The Dalamtian diphtongation make the language to look alien
to an uneducated person. As George mentioned, even the Aromanin with
their palatal "k'l" and with the habbit of methatesising the article
make the language hard to understand. The Italian way of speaking fits
the best with the Dacoromanian way of speaking. The plural in "i" and
"e" as well as the "ki" group make them very alike.
In fact i see the Latin influence in the sintactic " how are you
called"->italian "commo te chiammo" and Rom. "cum te chiamã", but the
substrate sintactic "cum iTi spune" or "cum iTi zice". The first one
make Romanians look indeed as a Romance (commo ti chiammo= cum te
cheamã) , the second one is not looking anymore as Romance ( "cum iTi
zic^e" or "cum iTi spune").