Re: [tied] substratum ( it was Re: Creole Romance?)

On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 06:53:57 +0200, alex <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 22:53:08 +0200, alex <alxmoeller@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Is this substratum somehow related in Romance or there is no
>>> connection between substratum of a Romance with substratum of
>>> another romance? Clar text, are there words from French substratum
>>> which are to find in the substratum of Spanish or Rom. for example?
>>
>> Not likely. The substrate of French is Gaulish. The substrate of
>> Spanish is part Celtic, part Iberian, part Basque. The substrate of
>> Romanian is Albanian.
>
>1)there is an amount of words from Rom. substratum which are not to find
>in Albanian.

That's possible. Albanian and Basque have evolved too.

>2)one example here: the word, "mare"= great is considered to belong to
>substratum. In Albanian the word is "madh", in OF was "mare"

I'm not aware of any OF word <mare> "big".

>It is said the word for horse was in celtic "caballus"

Caballus is not necessarily Celtic. Whatever its origin, it's not a
substrate word, but part of the Vulgar Latin heritage.

> , the word in Alb. & Rom. are "kalë" and "cal"<
>Lat. "caballus". But the word marshal from French is a compound of mare
>+ chal and not mare+cheval for instance.

Maréchal is a borrowing from Frankish (superstrate), cf. OHG marahscalc,
Du. maarschalk, from Germanic *marh- "horse" and *skalk- "servant". There
is no connection whatsoever to either VL caballus or Rom. mare.

>> The only candidate could be Celtic, dialects of which were spoken in
>> Northern France, and in Iberia, and (marginally) in the Balkans.
>
>Thus you will see the common words in substr. of French and Rom. as
>Celtic relicts I guess.

Which common substrate words?

>> Other than the Celtic expansions (which were relatively recent as
>> well), the Mediterranean before the Roman Empire was culturally,
>> ethnically and linguistically scattered (as were indeed most parts of
>> the [world] until recently).
>
>Tthat is a suspposition.

No, it's a fact. As I made clear, in Italy alone, a dozen or more
independent language families were spoken before the rise of the Roman
Empire. There were hundreds of language families spoken in the Americas
before European colonization. The same goes for Africa, New Guinea.

>> In Iberia there were Iberians,
>> Tartessians, Lusitanians, Celts, Phoenicians and Greeks.
>
>You forget to meantion for Iberia the followings:

<snip>

I wasn't giving a catalog of tribal names, but of larger linguistic groups.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...