--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" wrote:
> Sorry, but I cannot agree with you on the following item:
>
> << Simply trough the factor "time".>>
>
> Is not a sufficient condition.
Well, you don't have to agree with him. You have first to learn
a lot about timeline of changes. This is still hardly appropriate
on this list. You should answer to that e-mail from the moderators
of r-lang, in order to be inscribed and ask the right questions in
the right place.
Still, a thing might be emphasized: rules of phonetical changes
from Latin to Romanian are rules of derivation in an evolving
language over the centuries. The rules for Slavic words are not
rules of derivation but of correspondence or phonetic adaptation
over a very limited amount of time, at some historical moment,
from a language to another. Keep that in mind before speculating
about how different are these rules.
> 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...")
All on the contrary in historical linguistics: even without any
external "influence" (if that would be conceivable), a language
undergoes changes. Physics is not the right method to describe
history of languages.
> 2. the modality in which these 2 types of loans appear is quite
> different:
Unlike Slavic, most Latin words in Romanian are _not_ loanwords.
> 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...
You already expressed this opinion and you did not produced any
valid argument to support it. With the above, you still did not
brought something valid, but a deep misunderstanding of what the
word "historical" stands for in "historical linguistics".
Cheers,
Marius Iacomi