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

Hello Alex,
You wrote:

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

Any other posiblity?"

No. No other possibility. In fact the second possibility:
"- the words are loans from Romanian into Albanian _after_ the F
ceased as phenomenon."
is almost impossible (--) too, because the rothacism is present
in 'brusture' (and also because at that moment the albanian /sh/
or /sht/ can be reproduced with no difficulty by Romanians).

Best Regards,
marus alexandru

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "altamix" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" wrote:
> >
> > >> Your said that :
> > >> 1. " Since /*s/ > /sh/ happened for sure at some
historical
> > >> moment in Albanian and since all Latin loanwords in Albanian
> > >> exhibit this feature, the most likely assumption is of course
> > >> that the change took place afterwards."
> > >
> > > This is only one possibility. And it isn't 'the most likely'
> in
> > > this situation (viewing the moment of the slavic loans).
> >
> > Of course it is the most likely.
> >
> > > The other one is that /*s/ > /sh/ was ALREADY active on all
the
> > > period of Latin loans, and that 'strunga','sterp','brusture'
> etc...
> > > are older than this moment.
> >
> > It depends what do you mean by "active".
> > 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.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Marius Iacomi
>
>
> And what do we learn from here? All Latin loans presents "sh" for
> an "s". That will mean just as follow:
> - if ProtoRomanians should have borrowed the common words from
> ProtoAlbanians, then they should have had "S" instead of
actualy "s".
>
> 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.
> - the words are loans from Romanian into Albanian _after_ the F
> ceased as phenomenon.
>
> Any other posiblity?
>
> Alex