From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 30202
Date: 2004-01-28
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...> wrote:
> --- 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