Re: [tied] Re: substratum

Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:

>> 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").
>
> I've no idea what you mean. Why wouldn't there be any <dh> in
> Albanian?

it seems I missed an "intervocalic" here. Thus " there won't be no
intervocalic "dh" in Albanian".

>
>> The change stopped prior the Romans reached
>> Balkans. Something against this statment?
>
> What change?

/*g'/ > /dh/ or /*g'h/ > /dh/ or /d/+front vowel > /dh/

>
>> 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?
>
> What logic ;-) ? Sorry, Alex, but I find the final part of your
> posting completely incomprehensible.
>
> Piotr

I am not sure you don't understood. I thought linguistic has something
to do with logic and not just with hypothessis.
Concretly, what is the point you do not understand?

Alex