Re: [tied] Re: cardinal points

>>"Romanian lacks all the archaisms which it is easy to discover in the
>>languages of the West, including languages which have undergone as
>>far-reaching transformations as French....; [_SNIP_] it is neither older

nor

>>younger than that date, which is the date of the colonization of Dacia."

>I'd ask myself though: why should those people have left out those
>archaisms?

The argument is that Romanian is based on the actual spoken Latin of the 2nd
century AD. The logic is that other Romance languages are developments out
of spoken Latin from a time both before and after that period, since they
show reflexes of characteristics of Latin not found in the 2nd century, but
found earlier or later.

So nobody "left out" an archaism in Romania. They never had it.

Peter