21-06-03 18:39, alex wrote:
> ... 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.
What we call "roots" in the PIE context are bound morphemes, not words.
PIE _words_ consisted of a root plus derivational suffixes plus
inflectional endings. It was _PIE itself_ that made those complex words,
which generally got shorter and shorter in the descendant languages
(this is what ordinarily happens, since lenitions and losses have a
statistical advantage over incremental sound changes in the normal
course of things). There is no qualitative difference between the
transition from PIE to Latin and the transition from Latin to any modern
Romance language.
Of course _morphological_ processes may string morphemes together to
produce _new_ longer words (affixations and compounds). This happened in
PIE as well as in Latin, Romanian, or at any intermediate stage you
could name. For example, Romanian borrowed a number of suffixes from
Slavic, adding them also to inherited words and increasing their length.
> 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.
"Mediterranean influence" is a vague term sometimes used with reference
to any kind of hard-to-identify pre-IE substrate. As far as I'm
concerned, it's so vague as to be virtually meaningless. Anyway, those
who use it mean something else from what you do.
Alex, your idea boils down to this: Romanian derives not from Latin but
from something older than Latin and yet so similar to Latin that
everyone except a handful of enthusiasts has been fooled into confusing
it with Latin. You have repeated it so often on this list that no
further repetitions are necessary, and by now you should be familiar
with the counterarguments. If you have forgotten them, search the
archive. I declare this thread CLOSED on this list.
Piotr