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

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

> 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" ?

The word "obvious" was misused by someone else, not by me. Of course,
you're not better than the person having used it, reducing Slavic
influence to "some clerical slavic words" (BTW, you both should
learn once for all that in English, names of people and derivatives
are to be written with capital initial).

>>> 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:-))

Well, for what you're concerned, I undoubtedly agree you're a
perfect errant on dead horses.

>> 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?

You gave the implicit answer: nothing. There is no obligation for
Balkan Romance to adopt a low-represented phoneme (if any) from
substratum language. That is: any indication favoring existence
of /x/ in Dacian is of no use for Balkan Romance, direct ancestor
of Romanian, a different language.

> I could agree with you if you demonstrate it letting by side
> the nonsenseof missing "h" in Latin.

Replace "nonsense" with "my unability to understand the importance"
and you'll get a correct phrase.

>> 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.

Not quite. It is sustained by _some_ that local Balkan schwa is not
coincidentally used in Romanian, Bulgarian and Albanian as members
of the so-called Balkan Union, and it is linked with a potential
influence of substratum languages. Neither we have an indication
of its presence in ancient Balkan languages, nor is this phoneme
specifical only to modern Romanian among Romances; OTOH there is
no exact phonetical correspondence between various modern Balkan
schwas. I still consider along with other linguists that the theory
of substratal influence in which concerns this phoneme is outdated,
reflecting the incomplete analysis from some historical moment.

>> 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.

Obviously you too haven't understood what a phoneme is.

>> 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.
>>
> 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.

So?! What is your wise conclusion based on the fact that there are
some
modern Romanian words ending with /-s^/?

Marius Iacomi