Re: Against the theory of 'Albanian Loans in Romanian'

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "altamix" wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...> wrote:
> [...]
>> Anyway, let's denote by t1 the historical moment of the last Latin
>> loanwords in Albanian and by t2 the historical moment of the first
>> Slavic loanwords in Albanian. Since the feature F:= {/s/ > /sh/} is
>> exhibited by all Latin words, the most likely hypothesis -- by all
>> means the one which makes less assumptions -- has to be that F
>> occured in (proto-)Albanian for all words concerned at some tF such
>> as t1 < tF < t2, explaining thus everything. If one supposes that
>> tF < t1, then at t1 Albanian had no longer the phoneme /s/, so the
>> supplementary assumption that all Latin /s/ from loanwords mapped
>> with perfect regularity in Albanian /sh/ (just by chance similar to
>> what happened earlier at tF) has to be done. That makes two instead
>> of one, plus the coincidence. It is _highly_ unlikely.

[...]

> And what do we learn from here? [...]

> The fact the Rom. has an "s" can means just two things:
> - the words have been inherited from ProtoAlbanians by
> ProtoRomanians _before_ first contact of ProtoAlbanians with
> Latins, thus before F begun to work.

Actually, that means these words are substratal. I prefer this
label to the one "loanwords" which refers to word circulation
between two languages of which none becomes extinct on contact
area. Of course, one can say that a word from substratum is a
kind of loan from a local tongue which eventually disappeared.
So we deal with "loans in Balkan Romance from some Balkan tongue
sharing many common points with Proto-Albanian".

> - the words are loans from Romanian into Albanian _after_ the F
> ceased as phenomenon.

This makes no sense.

Marius Iacomi