Re: [tied] Derivation Rules from Old Slavic to Romanian

alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> Hello Alex,
> Sorry, but I cannot agree with you on the following item:
>
> << Simply trough the factor "time".>>
>
> Is not a sufficient condition.

You don't need to agree with me since I just presented you the accepted
opinions of the scholars. My personal opinions are different.

>
> ONLY the factor time couldn't explain why the Slavic loans in
> albanian folows the same rules as the latin loans in albanian , but
> romanian case didn't follow this rule.

Well, that was the explaination for Romanian not for Albanian:-)
Speaking about time, one should have to know that even the rules from
Latin to Rom. are not working if we try to precisely point out the
chronological order of the phonetical changes. Chronological here means
just what did happen first and which move was the second one and so on.

>
> In Albanian case, simple the factor time seems "not applicable
> for albanians" (I suppose here that the albanians latins loans
> weren't taken in the same time with albanian slavic loans (other
> opinion here?))

I will like to know too why Albanian has no different treatment in these
loans.

> Also I see the romanian case as an exception and not as the
> rule...
> See :
> cane -> c^ane
> pane -> p^ane
> but
> rana -> rana
> hrana -> hrana
> or
>
> clave -> cheie
> but
> clopot -> clopot

Well, the example are not very properly for "hrana" and for "clopot" but
the basis of asking is not hard to understand:-)

>
> For me it can me only 2 explanations:
>
> 1. the loaner "genetic" structure have changed meanwhile...
> (see also the First Law of Newton : "a body keep his status if no
> change appears...")

I don't know in how far the mechanical laws will work in linguisitc but
we know from other languages which remained isolated that they have an
archaic aspect compartive with their "sisters" which have been in
contact with other languages(for remaining by Newton and his
inter-action law)

> 2. the modality in which these 2 types of loans appear is quite
> different:
> My opinion is that the slavic loans arrived in Romanian MAINLY
> via the Church Institution...so this can explain why these loans
> didn't suffer similar alterations as latin loans...
>
> Best regards,
> marius a.

My question here is how arrived in Romanian the Latin words in this
case? As per church, if you make a search on the list youz will find a
thread about Rom. christian latin terms which seems to be a very few,
the gross of the temrs being simple linguistcs translations into
Romanian and not words which could be understood by a wannabe
Vulgar-Latin-speaker.

Alex