Re: [tied] Slavic "o"

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:

> m_iacomi wrote:
>
>>> Here are a lot of semantic changes too, but one can discusse
>>> about them on each word and not on the whole list.
>>
>> What for?! Is that crucial for IE issues? What's your point?
>
> I guess you pointed right with the question. There are many words
> considerated simply "slavic" where I have my doubts about.

Based on...?!

> Since there ist the big chanse they are not Slavic at all but
> loaned in Slavic from other languzages,

From Romanian point of view, the above mentioned words are
loans from Slavic. It can be of some interest where from they
come in Slavic (if not inherited), but that's of minor concern
with respect to Romanian (only marginal, for words like "ogor"
which probably are Latin/Romance loanwords in Slavic). Anyway,
most Slavic loanwords in Romanian are inherited in Slavic and
your "big chance" amounts to slightly more than three times
nothing.

> that should be interesting for this list too.

You should focus on _topic relevance_ for the list rather than
on _members' interest_ for the issue. Late loanwords (less than
some 1300 years) from Slavic to Romanian bear little relevance
for (P)IE matters.

> Actualy the old Balcan Languages can be discussed / speculated
> just on a list like this, don't you find?

With coherent arguing, yes. But up till now, you just produced
another wordlist, failing to make any reasonable support to your
alleged link between Slavic terms and Balkan languages. This is
far from being a decent standard. Either you come up with clear
linguistical data, or find another subject.

Cheers,
Marius Iacomi