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

Sorry please read:
" the substratual presence (Dacian) in
Romania was very active, even long after sec IV A.D."


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

>
> Piotr wrote :
> " Word-finally, as in <abe$> and <hame$>, /s^/ is, I think, a
> reduced reflex of *c^, not normally found in this position in
> Romanian. "
> [...]
> " 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)
>
> 1. the 'pro-slavic' theory (I'm not invented here this name, this
> is the name used in Romanian books regarding romanian /h/): argue
> that the Romanian h /x/ appears in Romanian only during Slavic
> influence (so somewhere between sec . VIII- sec. XI).
> The main argument of this theory is that there is no 'h' in

Later

> Latin, so Romanian as a Romance language have no /h/, either. This
> theory argue implicitly that the substratum of Romanian Language

(and

> as result maybe of any language?) cannot introduce its sounds in

the

> main layer of that language.
>
> For obvious reasons Piotr sustained this theory.
>
> 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.
> For the obvious reasons, I sustained the second theory.
>
> 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..), even the number of glosses with 'h' doesn't

have

> the same frequency as the number of glosses with 'z' (and/or dz) in
> the same language (this fact cannot be considered an issue).
>
> A colateral argument for the existance of /h/ in Dacian is

that

> Albanian 'sk'/sk/->'h'/x/ transformation is older than the Latin
> Loans in Albanian, and at that moment we cannot speak about

Albanians

> but about Dacians etc...
> (This collateral argument is based on the assumption (I not

discussed

> it here, if is true or not) that there is an inheritance link

between

> Dacian and Albanian too.)
>
> The fact that the Latin didn't have an /h/ at that moment,
> explain very well the fact why no Latin word in Romanian have

no 'h'.

> Both theories agree on this.
> 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.
>
> 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' )
> b) the existance of Romanian dz /3/ (later passed to /z/)

like

> in dies -> dzi (but also in substratual words :viezure , mazare,
> brad)
> c) the existance of sh /s^/ (geusial->guS~a) (already

discussed

> here, even it appears in a late period, but before Slavic loans )
> and 'with your permission' (as Ion Iliescu said when he killed
> Ceausescu)
> d) romanian /h/ (hameS , hoT)
>
> Next because there are also some H-words too...
>
> Now in order to sustained their 'pro-slavic' theory these

linguists

> have "something to do" with the word 'hameS' . Why? because ONLY

this

> Romanian H-word has an Albanian correspondant ( and these scholars
> reject the other very probable words like 'hoT' , on the reason

that

> they don't had an Albanian counter-part).
>
> As result, the real fight is all around the 'hameS' word.
> 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/ ?
>
> "what substratal words, don't tell me about 'hoT' etc...,ah,...
> oh, ... 'hameS'? well it should be a loan that arrived later in
> Romanian from Albanian, because the Balkan Latin don't have
> any /h/ ... '
>
> Up to you to analyze , this type of argument based on the
> information I presented above.
>
> 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).
> This phonetism is not-at-all a Latin one, but also is not

Slavic,

> Gothic, Magyar, Cuman, Turks...etc...It is an 'albanoid' phonetism
> (see Nis^) that shows that the substratual presence (Dacian) in
> Romania was very active, even long before sec IV A.D.
>
> All these toponimy is very old (folowing the SAME phonetism),

as

> very probable (++) 'hameS' is too.
>
> Best Regards,
> marius alexandru