Underground

In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex_lycos" wrote:

>> *****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,

Wanna mean "closer", not "very close".

> Better said the way how Italian and Romanian evoluated fits more
> inteligibly together as Dalmatian developed for example.

From A.M.'s point of view. Romanists largely share a different one.

> In fact i see the Latin influence in the sintactic " how are you
> called"->italian "commo te chiammo"

Italian "come ti chiami", actually.

> and Rom. "cum te chiamã"

While the pronunciation shouldn't be different, the recommended
form is "cum te cheamã" (the /y/ written as "e").

> but the substrate sintactic "cum iTi spune" or "cum iTi zice".

What does there look like substrate?! The form is similar, just
the verb and the case of corresponding reflexive pronoun differ.

Marius Iacomi