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

From: alex
Message: 28097
Date: 2003-12-07

m_iacomi wrote:
>> 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.
> There is nothing to be _corrected_ as you imply with "false". If you
> have a proposition 1. {A -> B} its only applicability is the case "A".
> You state some 2. {C -/-> D}, it's appliable to the case "C" (for
> which the statement 1 is perfectly irrelevant). So you cannot correct
> Miguel but you might want to bring out a _complementary_ judgement.

Is not complementary but the second principle of Newton. Miguel pointed
out what happen if a Latinophone learn Dacian, I pointed out what happen
if a Dacian learn Latin. The story appear so how I mean. Not the
Lationophone learned Dacian, but Dacian learned Latin, otherway you wont
sustain today Romanian is a Romance.

>> Now, your Latinophone who was that one which wanted to learn Dacian
> Noone. Read my message and don't divagate: "Let's assume a first
> generation Dacian guy learning Latin...".

And the second , tirth, tenth generation learned Latin. And they used
the Dacian words too. You, even you use them today after hunderd of
generations, so where is the problem?

>> 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.
> You have a wrong image of what other people think. Romanians are of
> course the result of a population mix-up: local people (a probable
> relative majority among other ethnic groups) having learned VLatin
> and people "ex toto orbe romano" having already either using Latin
> as mother tongue or as "lingua franca". The dominant language used
> was (as elsewhere in Western Romanity) Latin which became over the
> time the mother tongue for more and more people among that multi-
> ethnic group, and finally ruled out remnants of local language(s).

This mother tongue you speak about was Rom. Lang as baby. A mix up of
the language of the probable relative majority among other ethnic groups
with VLat. You have no evidence about that people speaking a pure Latin.
>> 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
> No surprise since (as pointed out a certain number of times) it was
> instated in Romanian by Slavic influence (I prefer "instated" instead
> of "reinstated" since there is no clear proof that Slavic aspiration
> we use nowdays was the same in Old Latin).
>> and the presence of this "h" is not only in Slavic words.
> Sure it isn't. All words having made it into the language _after_
> /h/ became a legitimate Romanian phoneme (after Slavic influence)
> can preserve it eventually; also words created in Romanian after
> that date.

Well, here is the know we need to make right. If you don't know when
happened the asspiration , how can you say it was instated by Slavs? I
have difficulties to understand it, belive me. If the Latin words
learned by that people HAVE HAD NO H, they could not think there should
be any H in Latin, somewhere in a certain word. Here I fail to see the
connection you make. In fact you assume that the asspiration happened
just after the "h" was known due Slavs. I will agree with it, but let
mee see why not before, which is the impediment here?
>> The amount of interjections which are not of Slavic origin
> ... is of no use since aspiration & vocalic yelling are always
> naturally encountered in interjections and since /h/ was instated
> as phoneme more than 11 centuries ago, there was plenty of time
> to identify that aspiration with it at the level of Romanian.

Well, it is of use if the same interjection is found in more IE
languages. It is a crietrium for being an old IE interjection , mostly
becoming a root for a family of words in actualy IE and New-IE

>> I don't need here the comparation whith Albanian
> Could you please explain if you consider a PIE cry of heavy pain
> as a legitimate "word" and all kinds of modern pain yells have to
> derive from it?!

Because regardless the percentage of each language, except turk
languages and hungarian, all the other languages which have been related
in t way on another to making up Rom. Lang have been IE Lang. Slavic,
Germanice, Latin, Greek, Thracian, Ilirian, etc. The probability to
trace back to IE and not to something else is so-to-say, very high.

>> (it seems to me you are an adpet of Rosetti which does nto admit
>> any substratual word if this has not counterpart in Albanian).
> I am an adept of scientifical method and rational argumentation:
> if there is no support for a hypothesis, it should not be made.

The scientifical methode based on two elements of comparation. This is
very sure, but when one miss it, which is the scientifical method? I see
just one, and this is the sound law. This is why I don't agree with
Reichenkron. His rules ( the consonatismus specialy) are too far away
from the way how Rom. acts regarind the IE roots.

>> Now, let us see the reality today. From all Romance, Romanian has
>> the less amount of Latin words,
> False. I hope you saved the numbers I gave once on other lists.

No. There is nothing false here. Rom. is the Romance with the smallest
amount of Latin words. This is a known fact.

>> and the Romanists loves the idea that they are so few because they
>> have been re-placed by loans from other languages, mostly Slavic.
> Interesting theory. Some sources?! Who are those "Romanists"?

Well, begining with Pushcariu, O. Densusianu, almost all the coripheas
have recognised more or less this. Do you not agree with them ?

>> which is confirmed by the lot of substratual words, more, much
>> more as Gaulish in French.
> This is wishful thinking. You have no basis for claiming that. You
> just reiterate your fixation.

Hmmm... I have my basis. The fact I can construct sentences with
substratual words, even if poor sentences. I doubt you can do it in
other Romance as well.

>>> No substratal words have inherited /h/. [...] 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.
>> If you understand trough substratual words just these which have
>> a counterpart in Albanian,
> By "substratal words" I mean words having allegedly a fair chance
> (supported by real arguments) to be from substratum.

Fair= ? You make here the same point as many other. It can be
substratual just if in Albanian is present. This cannot be the only way,
and I told you about the sound laws. Therefore one does not need Alb.
but when the word is present in Alb. this is more better as control

>> then from which language should this come and how get the Romanians
>> the same word into their Language in the recent times.
> I don't know. That's why it has only "cf. Alb." as etymology.
>> (in fact in Rom. there are a lot of derivatives from the root *ha
>> (to eat);
> There is no "root *ha" `to eat` in Romanian. There is instead the
> sound of closing the mouth, expressively noted as "hap" which stands
> perfectly well as originator for "hap-" words. "hãmesi" and its p.p.
> do not belong here.

Isn't it?

>> Now, this "h", we spoke about being from substrate or not,
> No. You are the only one claiming loud it is substratual because
> you want to. Repeating your claim regardless of arguments against
> it will not confer it further support.
> Marius Iacomi

My arguments are rejected by you without bringing nothing too much
against it.