>Pozitia a doua este [...] ca aceste derivate presupuse
>a fi existat, nu ca au fost pierdute, dar ele nu au existat
>niciodata in limba.
Okay: if according to your position (assumption or
conviction) the presumable derivations of various
Latin words actually never existed in Romanian, at
any stage of its development, then what substrate
(Thracian, Dacian, Mysian or whatever) once stood
or, for that matter, have stood up to now - in
coherent diachronic chains of transformation (from
substrate to medieval and then modern Romanian)?
In other words: if that <aproape> "near, close to;
nearly, almost" is so... lonesome and forlorn in
the Romanian lexical landscape, with no relatives
whatsoever across the Adriatic sea, then where is
its substrate kinship? Since you assume that <aproape>
must have had its roots deep in the substrate.
>Alex
George