Re: [tied] Dacian - /H/ -> seems not possible

Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

>> which is the logic here Miguel? I see here 2 steps:
>>
>> 1)Latin lost "h" very early thus every Latin word could not have any
>> "h" because the "romanised" population _could not know_ where once
>> in Latin was an "h".
>>
>> 2) there are substratual words which have had "h" and the "h" was
>> preserved.
>
> Not necessarily. Once the population had become Romanized, they
> didn't have /h/ anymore in their native language (Eastern Vulgar
> Latin).

> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
>

Here I have trouble to understand the way you suppose. Even learning a
new language this fact won't stop me to speak out the sound I know for
the word where this sound appear. I mean, learning Dutch where no "g" is
present, it wont stop me to say "Gröningen" in German instead of
"Hröningen" as in Dutch.
If there is "horcãi" why I should speak it "orcãi" out? What will oblige
one person to don'T use this sound anymore?
For me seems very clear why the Latin words have no reflex of "h". They
have been borrowed without "h" since the sound was lost already very
early in Latin. Am I wrong here?

Alex