[tied] Re: substratum

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:37:05 +0000, m_iacomi <m_iacomi@...> 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.

Around 80, to be more specifical.

> I don't know any Daco-Moesian, so I can't say much about that.

But you do know Romanians formed as people North of Jirecek line,
which marks also the boundary between N. Thracian (= Daco-Moesian)
and (S.) Thracian.

> 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).

Why not?! One can suppose very well that a part of X speakers
became Romanized while another part tenaciously resisted. Are
there any linguistical or historical arguments pointing towards
complete Romanization of X speakers and tenacious resistence
opposed by X' speakers (> Basque)?!

> 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.

I use the regular definition for substrate: "An indigenous language
that contributes features to the language of an invading people who
impose their language on the indigenous population." Equating over
the millennia two languages (genenetically related) sounds somehow
misleading, even if one precises it's just a formal convention
enabling us to refer to some known modern language. I still prefer
a formula like: "Romanian substrate is a language Y closely related
or identical to Y' (Albanian stratum)". Specially when dealing with
a language "raising more questions to comparatists than solving"
like Albanian (Martinet).
Who else uses this convention?!
Regards,
Marius Iacomi