Re: [tied] Re: Celts & Cimmerians

m_iacomi wrote:

>
> Of course they are. I was not referring to CS [!] introduction nor
> to any other genuinely Slavic formulas, but to Romanian text.

Do you mean here the "style" of the letter comparative with how you as
an educated person would exprime the message he send to Mr. Bengner?

>> But the Rom. text does not show any phonetical changes
>
> Oh, really?! As far as in your quoted text (a part of the whole
> letter) one can see "den" instead of "din", "se-au" instead of
> "s-au", "pre" instead of "pe"; the document contains also other
> spellings which might be related to some minor phonetical changes.

Well.. for a such querulous person I shouldn't have used "any", but his
own word "almost". OK, I revided the formulation and I say " does show
almost no phonetical change".

>> The mathematical principle here doesn't apply very correct
>> since there is no"=" but "~";
>
> Yes, but _you_ were the one still speaking about that: "Today
> JohnNormalPerson speaks exactly as in the letter of Neacsu if
> not in even in the same way as he spoke 2000 years ago.".

My o my... do you ever think that I indeed sustain there has been no
change in 2000 years? If you do it, I am sorry for you.

> In
> this phrase, you claim there is a reasonable probability that
> 2000 years ago, some people spoke the same way as modern
> Romanians do. Then you bring the fallacious argument: "but the
> proof for the year 1521 is there.".

No. That is a failure in your interpretation. First of all, the peasant
of today speaks "almost" as Neacshu ; this thing is recognised by you
too. The second is that the proof is there for 1521 for this "almost".
The thirth proof is Aromanian. For this proof we have two points on the
time line which oscilate between V and X century since the shcolars are
not in a unanime agreement when the Arom. separated by Drom.
By myself I believe in a separation in the X century not in the V
century, thus I will push the thirth proove ( Arom. Lang) in the X
century.
That will mean we have today 1000 years (prooved) _with minor phonetical
changes_. Agree or not?

>> 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.
>
> Are the archives regularry updated up to your AD 1312?! Are you sure
> there was no other guest painter after that moment, simply not written
> down in the archives?!

so far the archives of the church let see, there shouldn't have been
any. Of course I don't exclude the posiblity one guy came 400 years ago
and wanted to make to the pope of the church a happy moment
"actualising" the texts in a "more inteligible" language and telling
them to not make any record in the archives because he wants to remain
"unknown" to posterity:-)

>
>> The texts there are readable even today and when one reads
> "paraschevie
>> au taet capu" then one has already the image of the language.
>
> Well, the image one gets from one single cunningly selected phrase
> can
> be _very_ misleading. Is that all you got from there?!

I ask myself what to get from your question. I don't want to think you
assume "paraschivie taet capu" should be a missleding statment and we
have here to deal with a certain dead Slavic dialect in these 3 words.

> Marius Iacomi

Alex