tolgs001 wrote:
>
> By the way: what's your opinion on the Romanization
> in Gaul?
there are big differences but I keep in mind , teh old toponyms and
hydronims and the tribal names are having their trace from Dacia until
Iberia. And this is in my opinion a very big proof for something common
to these folks before Roman Empire.
>
> This is as wrong and false as the opposite extreme,
> namely that everything we hear/read is not Romance,
> but the ancient (Thracian?) idiom, just a li'l bit
> changed here and there. ;-)
No. It is assumed that only what is in Albanian and Romanian can be
substrate. The other words ( which are not affected by centum/satem
idea) they must somehow bee more differently as the Latin and Greek.
Someone ever asked, maybe this so-called substrate in Alb/Rom is not IE
but something more older. Otherways it should have found somw IE
cognates until now, don't you find?
> OTOH, referring to "simple terms of life", what do
> you expect from people constrained to a semi-agricultural
> semi-pastoral life for centuries? Of course, such a
> populace won't have much leisure time dedicated to
> Horace, Seneca, Ovid, Virgil & al. or...
This is not what I mean.I showed for "vita" the bundle of derivatives in
Latin. This is what I meant with. As for your question, you used the
usual explanation. The poor Romans ( civus romanus), they have had to
leave the cities of Roman Empire and they have had a simple life in the
mountains. Of course, just in the East. The Germanic invasion in France
and Italia , Iberia , the Arabian invasion in Iberia was very
civilisated compared with the invasion of Germanic and Avars and Slavs
in the Eastern Roman Empire. This is why ( is this?:-)) the other civus
romanus from west did not left its place there as the another civus form
East. You have to agree this way to explain is just a big laugh number.
( BTW which is the etmym. of the Name "Chivu ?").