From: m_iacomi
Message: 26463
Date: 2003-10-15
>> Not only that. Your "reconstructed" forms do not have any hintUseless Romanian words on an international list are not welcome.
>> about language they belong and intended timing for that matter.
>> Therefore they're just a bad joke up till now.
>
> Aiurea. There are imediately protoforms of "hoaspã". [...]
> It doesn't matter from which language it derived,Oh yes, it does. It does depend in which language are you trying
> the /oa/ is typical Romanian here and the /ã/ can be just fromAs said, the similar Latin [ospe] did _not_ give any /&/, so you
> an /a/ or /e/.
>> Balkan Romance did not possess the _phoneme_ /h/. Thus anyNo. I'm making precise statements you fail to understand.
>> aspiration could not have a phonological value. Ergo, it
>> necessarily has to have been dropped out from the system for
>> some centuries, it couldn't possibly have survived only to
>> perpetuate a few supposed marginal substrate words.
>
> No. You are just kidding.
>> Coming to the proposed word, Latin /(h)ospe(s)/ became at someIt was muted even prior of Late Latin, you should have already
>> stage [ospe] in Late Latin. Any similar substrate word "*hospe"
>> would have had a similar treatment, so one cannot get a final /&/.
>> More than that, /h/ would not have survived.
>
> Thus if the "h" became mute _already_ in Late Latin,
> then it could not be borrowed into Rom. with "h".Latin loanwords in Romanian are _only_ a few neologisms, not the
> And this explains why we have substratual "h" in initial wordsIt does not. We still do not have substrate words with initial /h/.
> and no "h" from Latin words.
>> Supposed substrate but not substrate -- at least for Romanian.Ooops. Do you mean Romanian is not deriving from Latin?! (may I
>
> Your opinion based on the ferm idea the Romanian is the Latin
> Language and not a Language which has a lot of Latin loans.
>>> I don't bring here as example the word "harmãsar" (stallion)Re-read my text. {Why did you mention that word if you were not
>>
>> Why do you mention it then?! just in order to prove that debating
>> that word some weeks ago didn't had any inpact on your RAM?
>
> No. just because for the harmasar it is given as etymology -missing
> something better - this "equs admisarrius".
>> So?! does that make the word from substrate?! Al. PhilippideThe word missing in all other 3 Romanian dialects has some
>> and Al. Rosetti mention this possibility, but nobody else does,
>> you don't wonder why?! The term is found only in Daco-Romanian,
>> initial /h/, only one derivative... well, facts do speak.
>
> Missing the word in Aromanian HAS NO VALUE!!
> "Viezure" is too not in Aromanian .Bad choice: "viezure", "yezura" are Aromanian forms.
>> Still a diversionist action.Watch your language. Vinereanu's bla-bla about some other word
>
> You are just disperately blushing, that is all.
>>> Turkish has no aspiration here.You misread my words. Read them again the necessary number of times
>>
>> Still no substrate.
>> Since interaction with Slavic, Romanian got the phoneme /h/ as new
>> member of its' system, with equal rights and the possibility to be
>> written down if instated for some expressive reason.
>
> Ha! Yes. And all the interjection who I presented once here which
> beginn with "h" are all the result from the Slavic contact..