Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
so, I put out the first one with zero since it is of no use and I let
the text so:
> "I mean, learning Dacian, where where /h/ is
> present, it wont stop me to say "aprus" in Latin instead of "haprus"
> as in Dacian."
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
Since the people who became romanised learned Latin, it seems the corect
sentence is the one here:
"I mean, learning Latin, where /h/ is not present, it wont stop me to
say "haprus" in Dacian insteasd of "aprus" as in Latin."
Your stenence is correct for a Latin who learn Dacian, false for a
Dacian who learn Latin. The Dacian won't stop to use in the new learned
language its way to speak the words he still use. I see it by myelf. The
German use "merzedes" and I make usualy the same mistake speaking out
"merc^edes" as in Romanian.
Thus is false that one mention there cannot be any substratual words
with "h". The Latin words have been spoken as learned , without "h" (
since no "h" in the learned Latin words), the Dacian words have been
spoken with "h" (since "h" present in Dacian words). Prety simple and
uncomplicated at all. We have the Latin words without "h" and the
substratual words with "h".
Alex