Re: [tied] husk

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

>> 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".

... deriving from "hospitem", not from "hospes".

>>> 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.

Of course, not. The existence of a phoneme is not sustained by
a couple of marginal supposed substrate words. It is only the
massive interaction with Slavic and significant number of loan
words possessing it. "more better"... yeah, right.

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

Unless it's really necessary, you should avoid Romanian words on
an international list. Out of that, just forget about your guess:
it is false and it has no relevance for the thread.

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

It does not. Not having substrate words in Romanian with initial
/h/ prevents your "explanation" against explaining something which
doesn't exist.

>> 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.

Of course it is not. Neither is French, Italian, Spanish or
Catalan. They are all Romances. That is: languages derived from
(vernacular) Latin, with no sharp discontinuity point.

> 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.

So exactly what it is in your bright conception?! Its' own ancestor
or what?!

>>> 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.

I understand perfectly your so-called "answer". I write "so-called"
because it does not answer to my question (chronologically, before
the answer there was my question, so either you answer it or forget
it, but don't blame me of "not understanding" your reply). This
thread is related to the word "husk" and we were discussing about
inexistence of substrate words with /h/. You said that you won't
give a certain word as example (incidentally, a word which could
not be from substrate, as largely debated here), then why did you
mention that word in this thread?! What is the relevance of your
mentioning in this context, does it enlighten us on something?!
or it's just another useless bla-bla in order to impress yourself?!

>> 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.

... which has then to be considered in correlation with all other
linguistical facts concerned in order to drop a plausible conclusion.

>>> "Viezure" is too not in Aromanian .
>>
>> Bad choice: "viezure", "yezura" are Aromanian forms.
>
> Rosetti does not mention it. Al. Philippide too.

Bad for them, 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.

Well, having the memory low is no longer a surprise. Let me refresh
it, maybe that will help. You said: "Even if onomatopeical words are
a special thing it happens I find very interesting the idea of
Vinereanu about Romanian "to have". And not for "to have" itself but
for "to get" which is "a gãbui".". This _is_ a diversion.

>>>> 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.
>
> I did not misread your words.

Well, as a young person you need probably more details. You were
sarcastically saying that all interjections starting with /h/ are
due to Slavic contact, meaning actually you don't believe that and
that in some manner, it was me who sustained that point. That is
simply false. Expressive constructions often contain non-phonematic
sounds. Aspiration can be one of these. Nevertheless, it will be
not perceived as phoneme unless it exists in regular words. Once
the phoneme instated in language, one can identify it in expressive
formulas and (if the language is written) can be noted. More than
that: it becames productive and can be used for new creations (be
them expressive or not). That's the point I made and you did not
get. Slavs are responsible for instating the phoneme in Romanian,
supported by a bunch of normal (non-expressive) words. Romanians
are responsible for further use they give to this phoneme, including
creation of interjections, or taking into account some previously
non-phonetical aspiration.

> You simply begun to argue in your usual way when you get the
> mention "drum înfundat" on your way. That is all.

It's rather boring to have to write in extenso so many things
which could have been understood since the very beginning with
just a bit of intellectual effort from your part. You prefer to
lament -- that's your choice -- but don't count on me for other
explanations, especially when are time-wasting and not welcomed.

Marius Iacomi