m_iacomi wrote:
>> You are partly right. I cannot bring any proove for what was spooken
>> 2000 year ago. But the proof for the year 1521 is there.
>
> It is, but you fail to interpret it correctly. The language of
> Neacsu's letter is not identical with modern Romanian, it's just
> not too far from it, and one can understand it without pain. But
> were a modern Romanian due to write the same informative letter,
> he'd never use exactly the same 1. words, 2. formulas, 3. grammar
> (morphology) and 4. phrase turns.
The objections regarding the formulas are not entire correct. The both
formulation are in OCS; The introduction as follow:
Mudromu I plemenitomu, I cistitomu I bogom darovanomu jupan Hanas
Bengner ot Brasov mnogo zdravie ot Nécsu ot Dlagopole
Then end of the letter is too in OCS as follow:
I bog te veselit
In OCS is too the introduction of every passage where he begins with "I
pak" which should be the equivalent of "idem" today. But the Rom. text
does not show any phonetical changes as it was the case with English in
the same period.
A comparation between the first passage of the text with actual modern
Rom. should be self-explaining:
--Quote NeacSu---
dau stire domnie tale za (=despre) lucrul turcilor, cum am auzit eu ca
împaratul au esit den Sofiia, si aimintrea nu e, si se-au dus în sus pre
Dunare
--End Quote---
--Mod. Rom.---
dau de stire domniei tale despre lucrul turcilor, cã am auzit eu cã
împaratul a iesit din Sofia si altminterea nu e si s-au dus in sus pe
Dunãre.
---End---
Of course there are small differences, but so small that one could
easely oversee them:-)
> Of course, the differences aren't
> tremendous (nor they are between Dante's and modern Italian, for
> example) so one can say the language is _almost_ the same. Still,
> one cannot make a generalization over the time (as well as over
> space) of the assertion; that is: if language A1 is almost the
> same with language A2 which is at its' turn almost identical with
> a language A3 not too far from the language A4 and so on, then
> language A1 is practically the same also with A3, A4, ... This
> is simply false and contradicted diachronically by objective
> facts as language evolution, and diatopically by existence of
> smooth transitions between various modern Romance (and not only)
> areas.
The mathematical principle here doesn't apply very correct since there
is no"=" but "~"; and if
A1 ~ A2 where A2~A3 and A3~A4 the difference between A1 and A4 is so big
that they are not anymore "almost" the same language. They are not
anymore comprehensible with each other. The question is with which point
begins one language to don't be comprehensible anymore with another
language? I guess that begining with its gramatical system, with
morphological aspects which makes big, big confusions as for instance
Rom. and Latin is. Every Rom. will understand some Latin words; due
semantism change some words will be understood completly eronately, the
meaning of the sentence will be complete eronately. Thus the languages
are not comprehensible it is not the same language it does not deserves
for comunication.
Leting by site the comparation in the timeline between a dead language
and a modern one, we can make the comparation in the actual time;Any
Rom. will understand some Italian words, less Spanish, Portugese and
very few words from French. But they will understand the Aromanian even
if the first feeling is to hear a "strange " Rom. One will say, the
wellknown arguments about loosing contact thus idioms became
uninteligible. That cannot be true with the loosing contact. If Rom.
have been until 12 century South of Danube, they should have been lost
by Dalmatians too. And the Dalmatians have heavy and big Venetian and
Italian influences beside the loaned/inherited Latin lexic. But
Dalmatian is an another language, is not Rom. It has an another
structure, it is not less/more to understand as any other Romance. Thus
positioning the ProtoRom. somewhere in South of Danube that must be
somewhere away from Dalmatians too, but where?
>
>> And is high debatable if the year 1312 is correct for the
>> documents of Iehud.
>
> It is "Ieud" and I already pointed out its' language is specific
> for 16th century and Northern Daco-Romanian (see r-hist). I don't
> know any valid reason to debate on a.D. 1312 with respect to this
> document.
I see, you think at same analysis of Rosetti. I was now not thinking at
the texts from teh book, but I was thinking at the texts which are on
the walls of the church. And the argument here is that the church was
never renowed; at least the archives speaks just about a single
renovation of a damaged part of a turm due a big fire but no renovation
at the walls.
No church will function as church ( at least in the ortodox rithus)
until it is not ready. Ready means here, the pictures should be on the
walls , the church must be painted before it become holly. And This
church became holly on 1312 attested by archives.
The texts there are readable even today and when one reads "paraschevie
au taet capu" then one has already the image of the language. Reading
just only a glosse founs somewhere ina a Greek or Latin text, singular
words as "taet", "kap", "paraskebi" there are big doubts about which
language should be the one there.
>
>> P.S. I have a *.wav file which is supposed to be the pray
>> "Our father" in OE. It sounds not as English but as a strange
>> scandinavian dialect. I guess it is eassy to find it on the net
>> but I can post it on the group too if requested.
>
> The native English speakers on cybalist will be more than pleased
> to find out what your proven perfect musical ear makes you think
> about modern lecture of some OE text.
> Anyway, if you think it's worthy, you should _not_ post it, nor
> put it in the Files as wav, but in some decent 80-bitrate mono
> mp3 format.
>
> Marius Iacomi
Well, I repeated the words of my wife. "It sounds like skandinavian".
She is nither musical nor interested in linguistic. And beside of this
she understand no Romanian, the only foreign language she speaks if
needed being English. I wanted to see what her Germanic ears hear and
how she felt it.
I post the file now in mp3 format.
Alex