m_iacomi wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:
>
>> Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
>>> "I mean, learning Dacian, where where /h/ is present, it wont
>>> stop me to say "aprus" in Latin instead of "haprus" as in Dacian."
>>
>> 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."
>
> Of course. But once the language used was no longer Dacian, the
> /h/ couldn't have survived.
>
>> Your stenence is correct for a Latin who learn Dacian, false for a
>> Dacian who learn Latin.
>
> Miguel's sentence _is_ for a latinophone learning Dacian (words).
This what I said too. I agree with him trough his prisma, I corrected
the things trough the prisma of the native which learn Latin.
Now, your Latinophone who was that one which wanted to learn Dacian and
why? For leting us have that nice part of the language which comes from
them? Of course not some Syrians, Palmirians, Italians , Spaniols with
linguistic hobbies, but they have been simply the Dacians peasants who
used their words until today, even if their language got a Romanic coat.
The main difference here is that you people assume that a certain
population (which one?) became romanised (aka learned Latin) and this
population learned (from whom?) some Dacian words.
The idea is sur-realistic since the population who learned Latin was
Dacian/Thracian and they did not needed to learn from someone-else the
Thracian/Dacian words since they have had them already.
I agree with you that the "h" is hardly represented in Romanian
comparative with Germanic, but is heavy represented in Rom. Lang.
comparative with Romance and the presence of this "h" is not only in
Slavic words.The amount of interjections which are not of Slavic origin
and which are not new buildings since they are very easy to be traced
back to IE speaks for the existence of this "h". I don't need here the
comparation whith Albanian (it seems to me you are an adpet of Rosetti
which does nto admit any substratual word if this has not counterpart in
Albanian).
Now, let us see the reality today. From all Romance, Romanian has the
less amount of Latin words, and the Romanists loves the idea that they
are so few because they have been re-placed by loans from other
languages, mostly Slavic.
Even if I don't agree with Reichekron in some phonetical issues, I agree
with him that THAT LATIN learned by BecomingRomanians was just a simply
Verkehrsprache and nothing more. This explain the reduced amount of
Latin words in Rom without the need to say "we assume the Latin words
have been replaced by Slavic words". The assumtion has no basis , less
the wish to think that the romanised population spoked a very nice
Latin, thing which I doubt and which is confirmed by the lot of
substratual words, more, much more as Gaulish in French.
>
>> I see it by myelf. The German use "merzedes" and I make usualy
>> the same mistake speaking out "merc^edes" as in Romanian.
>
> Are your children making the same mistake?!
No. They hear just me speaking that word. I am like the grandma of Glen
which left her country and learned a new Language, thus from this
example one cannot compare with people which are living in their country
in a big amount. There are two different situations.
>
>> We have the Latin words without "h" and the substratual words
>> with "h".
>
> No substratal words have inherited /h/. G. Reichenkron did a bad
> job by proposing lots of regional terms with initial /h/ as being
> from substrate (his "Dacistic" etymologies were actually bad not
> only for "h" words, but they were also SF in many other points).
> The only "h" word having something to think about is "hãmesi" for
> which there is an Albanian correspondent "hamës", though Albanian
> word looks recent since one has /s/ instead of /S/. Thus there is
> no serious support for Romanian having substratal words with /h/,
> and judging by number of occurences of this phoneme in preserved
> Dacian transcriptions, it was rather too rarely used to have a
> real impact on PBR.
>
> Marius Iacomi
If you understand trough substratual words just these which have a
counterpart in Albanian, then you can say that. BTW, if Albanian "hames"
is new because of "s" instead of "sh", then from which language should
this come and how get the Romanians the same word into their Language in
the recent times. (in fact in Rom. there are a lot of derivatives from
the root *ha (to eat); haplea, hãmesi, h7mesit, hãpai, etc.)
These terms are not to find in other languages. They are neither Slavic,
nor Germanic, nor Latin.. They must come from somewhere. If they can be
explained due IE posiblities, then they can be autochtoneus.
The fact they are regional , that is no impediment. The intelectual
class did not cared to cultive the archaic elements, but they tried to
introduce a lot of neologisms from Romance, even they tried to clean the
language " from everything which is not Latin". That is not a story,
that is known by you and by me as well. Think at "genune" which was
brought back into language thanks to Eminescu.
Now, this "h", we spoke about being from substrate or not, Miguel argues
that it can appear, it can dissappear, that does not matter too much. I
should rememeber you about the "h" present in Rom. and its origin in the
email I made where we can see in which position and from which sounds we
can have an "h". What we do not know is when a certain sound becaume
aspirated or not, thus instead of k,g, (just as examples) we have now an
initial "h" ( hârâi/gârâi, câSâi, hâSâi, etc).
We just can constate them, but we cannot place the time of aspiration in
timeline.
One more thing:
-II Rusu does not admit even the "f" as existing in the substrate; he
never could demonstrate why, but he simply decide:" there could be no
"f" in substrate"".
Alex