Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> The majority of Romanian words (excluding relatively recent loans from
> Slavic etc.) developed from PIE via Proto-Italic, Latin and Balkan
> Romance; a minority come from PIE via stages identical with (or at
> least very close to) pre- and Proto-Albanian. Until they were
> absorbed by Balkan Romance, their history had been different and of
> course the respective sound changes affecting them had been different
> too. However, since the time they were borrowed into Proto-Romanian
> they have undergone all the specifically Romanian changes, exactly
> the same that have affected the inherited vocabulary of Vulgar Latin.
> I'm not sure if I can make my meaning any clearer.
>
> Piotr
You did it as good as you could.
The problem here is that from their actual form you can derive very well
the Albanian forms. That means if they should have gone to the later
changes due Balkan Romance there are some posibilites:
- from the actual forms you could not derive anymore the Albanian words
- they did not followed the changes of the Balkan Romance ( which I
doubt)
- there is no change "Balkan Romance" but the regular ( from PIE )
changes of the language.
- your stuff here.
Observation:
1)if the Rom. Lang is so conservative as I belive it is, then I think at
the Slavic habbit of changing some borrowed words as they should have
been "urslavic". On this hand it can be the possibility the loaned Latin
words have been handled as the own language;
2) from your point of view, all the major changes in Albanian should
have been done _after_ Roman conquest. Due corpus latinorum which we
have at our disposal you are correct handling it as such; on the time
line you are wrong. 3000 years without major changes, 1000 years to make
all the stuff
3) I did not forgot Glen's remarque, kind of "what is minor, what is
major, it is a discutable matter".
Alex