Re: [tied] Re: rom. hameS - or Romanian /h/ theories

m_iacomi wrote:

>> 1. the 'pro-slavic' theory
> [...]
>> For obvious reasons Piotr sustained this theory.

obvious= some clerical slavic words which entered Rom. Lang and present the
sound "h" ?

> 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.

the same for you. And for me , of course:-))

>
>> 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.

That is nonsense. What has one to do with another?

> 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.

You are curious here. You point out sure and dead sure " there is no
substratum". I could agree with you if you demonstrate it letting by side
the nonsenseof missing "h" in Latin.

> 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.

Well, almost all linguist you like to call as being linguists sustain that
"&" is a substratual sound.

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

>> "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.

Here you become fussy. It seems you confounde "BalkanRomance" with "Latin".
BalkanRomance is that kind of Latin which was learned by that people who
have had their language the assumed "h". From my point of view there is no
contradiction. Your refutation has actualy no basis sicne is ilogical.

>
>> 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

Fact is, the "-VS" is very used in Rom. at the end of the word. In most of
the cases this is a suffix in some, it is not.
The "V" here can be "a, �, e, i, o, u" but so far I remember there is no "&"
, thus the ending "-aS, -�S, -eS, -iS, -oS,-uS" cover all the table of
vowels existent in the language except &.

Alex