Re: rom. hameS - or Romanian /h/ theories

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" wrote:

> " There must have been such loans (I also think <hame$> is not
> exactly of Balkan Latin age, or it wouldn't have kept its <h> /x/).

"

>
> Regarding the romanian h /x/ there are 2 theories in Romanian
> linguistic (and not only inside inside Romania - see above Piotr
> position on this forum)

In _Romanian_ linguistics?! You've to be kidding. Give us the name
of any distiguished Romanian linguist sustaining nowdays your #2.

> 1. the 'pro-slavic' theory

[...]

> For obvious reasons Piotr sustained this theory.

Reasons are indeed obvious for any linguist, as Piotr is.

> 2. the 'pro-dacian' theory (or the /h/ - substratual theory) :
> argue that the Romanian h /x/ appears in Romanian as inherited
> from the substratum of Romanian language: The Ancient Dacian
> Language.

This is a dead horse.

> For the obvious reasons, I sustained the second theory.

Obviously, you're _not_ a linguist, that's why you feel free to
err on the field on the above-mentioned dead horse.

> Despite the 'obvious reasons' there are also some arguments too:
>
> As discussed here the presence of h in Dacian glosses is very
> probable (++) ( Hydata - toponym, hormia - dacian plant at
> Dioskurides etc..),

If Dacian phonetical realization of the phoneme reproduced in
Greek script as "X" was really what one would call /x/, that
would prove only that the phoneme existed in Dacian. Not in
Balkan Romance, which is the ancestor of Romanian dialects.

> But for the 'pro-dacian' adepts, this cannot be an argument to
> the assumption : that no other word in Romanian couldn't keep an
> inherited /h/ (like we have in (substratual romanian words):
> hameS, hoT, etc...), as 'pro-slavic' adepts say.

There is no "etc.". The word "hameS" is no substratum, its origin
is still to be clarified, I pointed out only that it has an Albanian
_correspondent_. The word "hoT" is no substrate. Nobody out of way
too enthusiastic Reichenkron thinks of this word as substratal.

> Why 'pro-dacian' adepts sustained an 'inherited' h?
> First, because the fact that the substratual layer introduced
> new sounds in Romanian is fully proved:
> a) the existance of Romanian ~a : cas~a 'house'; mas~a 'table'
> etc.. (a kind of non-stressed a : like in english 'under' )

BS. The schwa /&/ is a natural developement everywhere in Romance
world (Occitan dialectal, Catalan, Italian dialectal), there is no
reason to link it with substratum since it commonly appears in
unstressed vocalism.

> b) the existance of Romanian dz /3/ (later passed to /z/) like
> in dies -> dzi (but also in substratual words :viezure , mazare,
> brad)

Phonetical evolution of /dj/ has nothing to do with substratum.

> c) the existance of sh /s^/ (geusial->guS~a) (already discussed
> here, even it appears in a late period, but before Slavic loans )

Phonetical evolution of /sj/ has nothing to do with substratum.
Generally, a phonetical transformation occuring only in certain
phonetical conditions (as presence of a yodh) is to be linked not
with substratal influence but with normal variation within the
language. In fact, influence of the yodh /j/ on consonants is
plainly attested already in late Latin, in all Romance area, there
is nothing to point out towards specifical sound creation on the
basis of substratal phonemes.

> and 'with your permission' (as Ion Iliescu said when he killed
> Ceausescu)

You're short of memory. That was when he added himself "last but
not least" on the list for CPUN.

> d) romanian /h/ (hameS , hoT)

You're also in trouble with logic. You are inserting the hypothesis
to be supported as its own (4th) argument.

> As result, the real fight is all around the 'hameS' word.

There is no fight.

> The 'hameS' has all the phonetics necessary to be fully placed
> before Romans occupied the Dacia, it has an Albanian counter part,
> etc...
> But for the 'pro-slavic' scholars their circular reason is the
> following :
>
> "we have no substratual words with /h/ in Romanian because the
> Balkan Romance didn't have any /h/"
>
> but as regarding the subtratual words , that keep the /h/ ?

Assumed that Dacian had this phoneme, Balkan Romance still didn't.
Obviously you haven't understood what a phoneme is, otherwise you
could not possibly argue that a substratum word could have preserved
a phoneme non-existing in the list.

> Now, how old this 'hameS' coud be? Well if we take a look on the
> Toponimy of the Romanian Main Rivers , we found rivers with a
> phonetism like :
> 'Arges^' , 'Mures^' , 'Somes^' , 'Cris^' , 'Aries^' ...
> (....please repeat again this list and ...add 'hames^' at the
> end. Sound ok, isn't it).

No, it isn't. That's how "linguistics" was made more than 200 years
ago, but some people still prefer to dream on at that level.

Cheers,
Marius Iacomi