Re: [tied] Eastern Romance (Re: RO eccles. term.)

--- m_iacomi <m_iacomi@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh wrote:
>
> >>(GS) The issue is their recent ancestors'
> Christianization. But when
> >> this Christianization occurred, them Protos still
> dwelled all over
> >> the Balcanic Peninsula as the top-notch
> population.
> >
> > GK: This is where I have a problem. The area
> of
> > "Western" Romance eventually produced more than 1
> > Western Romance population. There seems little
> doubt
> > that something similar might well have happened
> (or
> > was already happening) in the East prior to the
> > Avar-Slavic invasion.
>
> (MI) Why that?!

*****GK: From that comment one might infer that you
strongly disagree with what I stated. But further
reading doesn't substantiate this impression. I have
no problem in considering the language of the eastern
Roman Empire "Proto-Eastern Romance". And 2 is
certainly "more than 1" (:=))).

(MI) The split-up

> of Eastern
> Romance into two diasystems is usually dated a
> couple of centuries
> afterwards.

*****GK: What is the argument against these two
systems undergoing further differentiation and giving
us eventually a situation similar to, say, that of the
Iberian peninsula multiplied by two?*****

>
> >(GK) So I can't quite see the whole of the

territory of

> "Eastern"
> > Romance such as it was ca. 300AD being considered
> "Proto-Romanian".
>
> (MI) The territory was not "Proto-Romanian", but the
> language was with
> good certainty "Proto-Eastern-Romance" which
> eventually gave birth
> to "Proto-Balkan-Romance" > "Proto-Romanian" AND
> "Proto-Dalmatian" >
> "Dalmatian".

*****GK: Fine and good. No problem.*****


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com