Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> You can escape from sound knowledge into a Thracian dreamworld if you
> so wish -- who can prevent you from wasting your own time? But your
> personal utopia is really taking up too much _public_ space on this
> forum. There are lots of "already discussed" topics that you raise
> again and again. If you go on starting more silly debates like "Are
> Romanian <unu, doi, trei> Thracian?", I'm afraid I'll have to
> restrict your posting priviledges.
>
> Piotr
Dear Piotr,
on this list I learned that people need a demonstration for what one say
for a certain thing to be accepted.
I learned too, that when people have already an idea, it is hard to make
thme change it. However, the only one thing which one can do, is to show
this demonstration . If the people does not accept it, that is an
another cup of tea.
You say, if one means anymore that <unu, doi, trei and all other words
which are generaly accepted to derive from Latin>, is not true, then
this one is simply ill and he does not have the right to expone anything
about it.
I agree with you. In my case, if you show me why the demonstration I
make for < unu, doi, trei > has no value from linguistic aspect, I
promise you , I won't touch anymore at least the "unu, doi, trei" words.
I sustain:
PIE *oinos > Rom. "unã" via substrate and not Latin.
My argument: For the change oi > u we have attested the change oi > oe >
in Thracian:
Oiscus > Oescus > Uscu
I sustain:
PIE *duu > doo > douã in Rom, the masculine form "doi" being probable
influenced by trei, but keeping its "do-" there. The fact the there is
an "o" , exclude any Latin speculation.
My argument:
-Latin "dues" cannot give "do-" in Rom.
-PIE short "u" appears to be very open in Thracian (see Reichenkron
arguments for it. If you don't have them, let me know and I will show
them here).
I sustain:
PIE *tri > trei in Rom.
My arguments:
a) -Latin tres cannot give trei in Rom. The "i" is not explainable
trough Latin tres
b) -Thracian glosses: Treibitos ( too Traibitos), Treicentos, Treisucu,
Tricornii, Triballi.
The Thracian forms have all the requested "i" and will explain the Rom.
"trei".
Agains Thracian glosses one can counter-argue that "we don't know what
"trei-", "trai-", "tri-" in Thracian meant". I agree but a such argument
is to put in co-relation with all PIE roots we know and to see if there
fits anything as the PIE *tri-
Since I am sure you won't agree with this demonstration, or maybe you
will call it a laugh-number but not a demonstration, I will beg you to
show me why and where are the weak points in my argumentation for
considering it as having no value.
Alex