Re: [tied] husk

From: m_iacomi
Message: 26463
Date: 2003-10-15

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

>> Not only that. Your "reconstructed" forms do not have any hint
>> 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". [...]

Useless Romanian words on an international list are not welcome.
Digression aside, you still didn't get the point.

> It doesn't matter from which language it derived,

Oh yes, it does. It does depend in which language are you trying
to "reconstruct" those forms, and around which century.

> the /oa/ is typical Romanian here and the /ã/ can be just from
> an /a/ or /e/.

As said, the similar Latin [ospe] did _not_ give any /&/, so you
have already a hint about pertinence of your "*hospe" (that is 0.0).

>> Balkan Romance did not possess the _phoneme_ /h/. Thus any
>> 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.

No. I'm making precise statements you fail to understand.

>> Coming to the proposed word, Latin /(h)ospe(s)/ became at some
>> 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,

It was muted even prior of Late Latin, you should have already
had in mind this simple information.

> then it could not be borrowed into Rom. with "h".

Latin loanwords in Romanian are _only_ a few neologisms, not the
basical vocabulary.

> And this explains why we have substratual "h" in initial words
> and no "h" from Latin words.

It does not. We still do not have substrate words with initial /h/.

>> Supposed substrate but not substrate -- at least for Romanian.
>
> Your opinion based on the ferm idea the Romanian is the Latin
> Language and not a Language which has a lot of Latin loans.

Ooops. Do you mean Romanian is not deriving from Latin?! (may I
remind you that Piotr already banned explicitely any kind of thread
on this delusional topic here, on cybalist). So are you contesting
what all specialists admit as common knowledge?! Please do answer.

>>> I don't bring here as example the word "harmãsar" (stallion)
>>
>> 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".

Re-read my text. {Why did you mention that word if you were not
intending it as an example?} Should I repeat myself another couple
of times before you getting it?!

>> So?! does that make the word from substrate?! Al. Philippide
>> 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!!

The word missing in all other 3 Romanian dialects has some
probability value in the sense of lowering it.

> "Viezure" is too not in Aromanian .

Bad choice: "viezure", "yezura" are Aromanian forms.

>> Still a diversionist action.
>
> You are just disperately blushing, that is all.

Watch your language. Vinereanu's bla-bla about some other word
has nothing to do with this topic.

>>> Turkish has no aspiration here.
>>
>> 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..

You misread my words. Read them again the necessary number of times
to understand. Focus on the last sentence of the phrase.

Marius Iacomi