Re: [tied] Thracian , summing up

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:

> Glen Gordon wrote:
>
>> So if Alex can't accept that French, Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan,
>> etc is the living modernday Latin, then there may be no hope for
>> our poor misguided Romanian comrad.
>
> Glen, you are a analyst. I will put the problem very simple since i
> speak just about Romanian here. If people see in Spanish and French
> and Italian the "modern Latin" i have nothing against.

[...]

> I don't understand Latin
> An aromanian does not understand Latin.

Neither does a French, Spanish or Italian, unless they're educated
to (in Italy the study of Latin is compulsory, so average Italian
gets at least some minimal knowledge allowing him to cope with not
so difficult Latin texts). So you are off-topic from the beginning
with this comprehensibility argument. You cannot do linguistics by
looking just at one language.

> I just say, Romanian is related to them to an older layer as Latin.

And specialists say this is [censored word] since most developments
in Romanian are to be found also in other Romance languages as
practical realizations of Late Latin tendencies.

> If you need some opinons of known names, tell me and I give these
> opinons to you.

"known names"? Tell you what: put your names with corresponding
opinions in a file, then upload that file in the section "Files".
Whoever is interested might comment on that.

> a) there is Latin
> b) there is ProtoRomanian wherefrom derived DacoRomanian and
> Aromanian
>
> From Latin as Muttersprache to Protoromanian should be some
> 200-300 years.

At least 3 centuries of continuous evolution from late vernacular
to something which can be formally called Protoromanian.

> Aromanian separated by DacoRomanian . There are after some opinons
> 1500 years,

Who's the wise guy with 1500 years? It's not only "highly unlikely"
but quite impossible since Aromanian and Dacoromanian share a common
layer of Slavic loanwords.

> after some opinons 1000 years as these two dialects separated.

That's more likely.

> I understand aromanian

Well, I'm not pretty convinced of that. You can obviously get a
rough idea about the sense of some written text, but most details
remain hidden.

> The languages have the same structure, are in fact the same
> langauge with their "regionalisms".

It's more than that: some minor structures differ (otherwise we
would speak about sub-dialects).

> As analyst, do you expect to see the same language which in 2-300
> years became (supposed) an another language (Latin > ProtoRomanian)
> for not changing in the next 1000 or 1500 years ?

Your problem is a false one. Proto-Romanian was obviously different
from nowdays Daco-Romanian as well as from Aromanian. Only major
structural changes didn't happen during the last millennium.
OTOH, evolution is not linear: there are periods of rapid changes
alternating with periods of slow evolution. Dramatical changes
occured in transition from Ancient Latin to Classical Latin, over
a very "short" historical time. Similar changes occured over a
similar period in transition from Late Latin to Proto-Romance.
Nobody could have serious doubts on that, it's proven by texts.
Just the fact you aren't able to insert this fact in your mind
doesn't imply it doesn't exist.

> The theory of probability says "it could be possible" as a 6 in
> Lotto.

You should learn once for all not to misuse words. "Theory of
probability" has nothing to do in this context and should
conveniently be replaced by "Alex thinks".

Marius Iacomi