On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:37:05 +0000, m_iacomi <
m_iacomi@...> wrote:
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
>> [...] The substrate of Romanian is Albanian.
>
> According to whom?
> AFAIK, Romanian substrate is Daco-Moesian (or North-Thracian, as
>some people label it).
> "Latin element from Romanian has undoubtedly a Thracian substrate,
>whether one admits or not continuity [theory]" (Carlo Tagliavini -
>Le origini delle lingue neolatine).
A large number of Romanian substrate words have parallels in Albanian.
I don't know any Daco-Moesian, so I can't say much about that.
When we say that Castilian has a Basque substrate, what is actually meant
is that the substrate was a language X, close to the language that was to
become modern Basque 2000 years later (language X can't be the language
that *was* to become modern Basque, because the speakers of language X
became Romanized, and adopted the language that became Castilian). We
might say the substrate language was Aquitanian (or "South-Aquitanian"),
because a few words in ("North") Aquitanian are actually attested from 2000
years ago, but the Aquitanian evidence is much less helpful than modern
Basque.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...