Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
).
>
> I think we can agree, at least, that the Balkan Latin stratum in
> Albanian is Romanian-like, whilst the non-Romance substrate in
> Romanian is Albanian-like. This criss-cross relation suggests close
> contacts between Proto-Romanian and Proto-Albanian.
>
> Piotr
Hmmmm.. hmmm.. let me please understand something. We learned that the
intervocalic "d" in Albanian went lost.
This is showed in words as Alb. "pyll", Rom. "padure" both supposed to
be derived from the methatesised form of Latin "paludem".
Now we take a substratum word: "viezure" in Rom. and " vjedhullë" in
Albanian. (we can take "mazãre" and "modhullë" too, or each other
substratum word which has the intervocalic equivalence Alb/Rom dh/z).
I don't make now any demonstraion here, I just say that the sound "dh"
in Albanian and "z" in Romanian should have been prior the time as
Latins arrived in Balcans, otherways there won't be in Albanian any
"dh", no matter if this "dh" is from an "di" or from an "*g' */ *g'h"
(with interime "d"). The change stopped prior the Romans reached
Balkans. Something against this statment?
If not, then the next logic step is that one cannot speak about
Proto-Romanian and Proto-Albania and contacts between them. And the next
logic step is that the "dh" in Albanian and "z" in Rom. is not because
any phonetic evolution of the Latin spoken in that region , but we can
mostly assume that the Latin words have been addapted to the way these
people have spoken. Something against this logic steps?
Alex