[tied] Transhumance [Re: etyma for Craciun]

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Mate Kapovic" <mkapovic@...> wrote:

> > Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> > >> It didn't save the case systems of Bulgarian and Macedonian.

And in

> > >> those cases we what the cause was: Admixture of Turkic-

speakers.

> > >
> > > I'd rather say, areal diffusion of morphological traits. Not all
> > > contact effects consist in creole-formation. The elimination of

case

> > > forms was a prolonged and gradual process in Bulgarian, just as

in

> > > English. It began about 1100 and reached completion about 1400.

The

> > > earlier absorption of a Turkic (Old Bulgar) speech community

did not

> > > "creolise" Slavic Bulgarian. Note, by the way, that while the
> > > Bulgarian/Macedonian dialects lost their declensions, their
> > > conjugation is exceptionally rich and more conservative than

anywhere

> > > else in Slavic!
> >
> > There are some other opinions that Bulgarian lost its case system

due

> > assimilating the speakers of Romance/influence of Romance

speakers on

> > Bulgarian.
>
> Turkic *has* cases so that is not the reason.
> In Macedonian some cases could have colapsed also because phonetic
> development contributed to the sincretism:
> N. sg. noga < noga
> A. sg. noga < nogoN (oN > a in Mac.)
> I. sg. noga < nogo:N < nogojoN
>

You argue as if those rules were an independent agent; but in order
for speakers of a language to let such rules apply to their language
there must be a will to give up (or lack of will to maintain) the
case system those rules would make collapse.

Torsten