Re: [tied] Thracian , summing up

----- Original Message -----
From: "P&G" <petegray@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 9:14 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Thracian , summing up


> > >From Latin as Muttersprache to Protoromanian should be some 200-300
> > years.
> ...> 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 ?
>
> Alex, why not look at what happened in French, Spanish, Italian etc.
If you
> date your "proto-Romanian" to about 600 AD, what is going on with the
> western Romance languages at that time?

> Peter


1)In comparation with French , Spanish and Italian, for Romanians there
are Aromanians as comparating point. And if the point of splitting up
was the VI century, it is still the same language. It does not fit in
any acceptance that these languages are so alike but diferent from Latin
and in so long time they did not changed, but they developed separately
" in the same manner".

2) I compare the ideas which are guided the scholars which study the IE
and I compare the paths of Romanistic. I observes as follow. There was a
root in PIE, a short one , let us say, xxxx. From this root , generaly
the languages made a complexer words. It does not look like xxx but
usualy like x11xx11xx. The word appears developed and it ca be reduced
to this PIE root xxxx.
In Romanistic, at least regarding just the Latin-Romanian relation, we
observe an another phenomenon. From the Latin word which have had the
form xxxxxxxxx as general rule, the Romanian develope as "reverse
enginering" to a word like xxxx. It shortened it. Ther should not be a
very big issue here. Things can happen. But the way the language
shortened brought the actually word more to PIE form of the root as to
Latin. Allways was made the comparation with French, Italian, Spanish
for showing how acceptable is the derivation from Latin and it seems
very plausible.
As I showed the continuum of toponyms and of the tribal names from Dacia
until Iberia before Latin times there was no comment about. In this case
why is not acceptable to see it as an older layer as Latin itself? I am
not just the only one who claim that. There are several scholars who do
it but they found an another formula. They call it "Mediteranean
Influence". How ever it is called, this mediteraneean stuff is from
Atlantic until Thrace. And thus it is the same thing.

alex