Re: [tied] husk

m_iacomi wrote:

>> 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).

Are you still OK? There is "oaspãt" and "oaspete". The form "oaspe"
which is almost unused is the short form of "oaspete" and nothing more.
Thus you cannot have any "&" there .

> 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.

More better for what I sustain.

>
>> then it could not be borrowed into Rom. with "h".
>
> Latin loanwords in Romanian are _only_ a few neologisms, not the
> basical vocabulary.

I guess you never made up your mind about this "h" and its phonological
medium , otherways you won't say such "shubrezenii".

>
>> 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/.

It does. Since there was no "h" in Latin you won't expect to have "h" in
the loaned words in Romanian.

>
>>> 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 do answer. In my opinion Romanian is not the Latin language. It has
words which derived from same PIE roots, it has Latin words insinde of
it loaned at different period of times but it is still not the Latin
language.

>
>>>> 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?!

If you don't want to understand the answer I cannot help.

>
>>> 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.

As well as the word missing in whole Romance but present in Romanian has
the same probability value in the same sense.

>
>> "Viezure" is too not in Aromanian .
>
> Bad choice: "viezure", "yezura" are Aromanian forms.

Rosetti does not mention it. Al. Philippide too.

>
>>> 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.

I don't intend to repeat myself. I was speaking here about "h" and you
about Vinereanu-s bla-bla. One of us was for sure missing the 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

I did not misread your words. You simply begun to argue in your usual
way when you get the mention "drum înfundat" on your way. That is all.

Alex