Hello Alex,
For sure: Not the Colonists loan the "Albanians" or the "Dacians"
words, but the local populations learned Latin.
Why? Because the Colonists (from all around the world) will never
transform in the same manner:
lucta -> lupt~a ;
-> lufte:
dece -> zece
die -> dzi -> zi
clave -> cheie etc...
even they will retry using M. Iacomi "stochastic methods"
and "inherent mutation rates" 10,000,000 times from now on...
But seems that for M. Iacomi there was nobody in Dacia or in
Moesia in that time, but the Romans colonists that "evolved
completely isolated", as he explained us, based on a "genetic drift"
that "was applied" to their "language", without any "external
interventions"...
Now a second subject, well explained by M. Iacomi is the
following:
When a guy start to learn (to adopt) a new language, the first
words that he learns and starts to use day by day are not "loanwords"
but he can adopt the new language just immediately in one second....
In other words: The adopted language becomes from the beginning
its "own system" and evrika...no "loanwords" exist in this famous
case...
Of coursec that is more easy to loan a word that to adopt a
language, and when you adopt a language you have to start taking the
first "loan" and next the second one and so on...BUT...BUT we are
here in the M. Iacomi's Magic World: where everything "change
immediately for nothing" based "on the stochastic methods"
and "genetic drift"...like in the "satem/centum" - "its classical
example"...
However, as you know, to adopt a language, "usually" (but not in
all cases as you can see above) will take awhile (it can be centuries
if we apply "the guy" example to a "whole population"...)
But based on M. Iacomi explanation: during all this time, this
population will speak "ouside of its own system", because as he
explained us very well: "the adopted system " (that didn't exists
yet)..."already became its own system from the beginning" ...and in
this famous case...we will never have "loanwords"...
Best Regards,
marius A.
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
> m_iacomi wrote:
> > In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" wrote:
> >
> >> 3. "> Unlike Slavic, most Latin words in Romanian are _not_
> >> loanwords."
> >> I was very surprised by hearing this assumption. In this case
> >> my question is: "Who learned the Latin in Balkans: the Latins (or
> >> the "already Latin-speaker" colonists)"?
> >> => No.
> >> => If a non-Latin population learned Latin in Balkans...
> >> => The learned words are "loanwords" or not? (even they
> > learned
> >> also the morphological and syntactical Latin rules, the learned
> > words
> >> are of course "not their own words" )
> >> => So they were...loanwords...
> >
> > That's your very original (and used by nobody) definition of
> > "loanwords". Everybody calls "loanword" a term from language A
> > adopted in language B, and never call an adopted language as being
> > formed of "loanwords" because its' words were never out of the own
> > system.
> .
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Marius Iacomi
>
>
> But it remains an interesting question as long as there is no proof
that
> one folk abbandon its language and adopts an another one. Even
adopting
> a new language, these words are loans for this folk.
> Now, the question of the esence shoudl be here:
> is the lexical data common with Albanian inherited or are they loans
> word into the language spoken by Roman colonists breought from every
> part of the world and which have been droven back in 160-180 AC?
>
> Alex