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

<<I don't know why you make up your mind about the nonsense of not
having substratual "h". >>

I didn't change my mind, even sometimes I presented a neutral
position or a dubitative position, in order not to close some
discussions here, as I see that is the case very often when the
Romanian substratum arrived to be discussed here.
I though and I think that there is a substratual /h/ in Romanian...
Now I post also my arguments here...too.

Best Regards,
marius alexandru

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "altamix" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3"
>
> <alexandru_mg3@...> 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
>
>
> I don't know why you make up your mind about the nonsense of not
> having substratual "h". It is clear as the spring water that there
is
> a substratual "h" and there is no contradiction with the fact Latin
> have had no "h", thus no "h" in Latin words could enter with "h" in
> Rom.
> For "h" are more examples where we have it in Alb. and Rom. not
only
> in "hameS". The problem is just that somewhere people see stil a
> Latin word. There is no "hengst", "stallion" as such in Latin but
> there is admited an "equus admisarius" for making in Alb. and Rom.
> the "aspirated" /a/ > /ha/ in the word "harmãsar" ( Alb. "hamshor")
> despite the non-regular changes which a such transformation asks
for.
>
> What is funny is that seeing the Alb. transformations we see that
> before Roman Conquest , there have been already the sounds
> "h", "c^, g^" in Balkan-Carpathians and maybe even "T".
> The consonantal "j" seems it existed ( see "jar", Alb. "jërm-") and
> there appears resonable to ask which are the new sounds brought by
> slavs? Speacial Slavic sounds as nasalised vowels or the yers are
> simply not present in Rom. (they could not be borrowed ?), I have
no
> idea why they have been "adapted" but the sounds "h" and "j" should
> have been took as they are.
> What is funny again is that Rom. did not got any sounds anymore in
> this time?( from PreAlbanian time until today) Just the "â"? (
there
> are some linguist which believe the sound "â " is recent)
>
> An another question here is the Albanian "th" which is absolutely
> unknown in rom, as well as the palatalised "ti" which is
represented
> trough an "q" actualy in Modern Albanian.
>
> Vocalic difference between Alb. and Rom:
>
> -Alb stressed "ë" ( kind of Germanic ö in öffnen)= unknown in Rom.
> -Alb. "y" which is like germanic "ü" in "Tür"= unknown in Rom.
>
>
> Consonatic difference between Alb. and Rom:
>
> -Alb. "ll" as Russian "l" in "lob"= unknown in Rom.
> -Alb. "q" as German "ti" in "tja"= unknown in Rom.
> -Alb. "rr" a strong rolled "r" = unknown in Rom.
> -Alb. "th" as unvoiced "th" in English "thing"= unknown in Rom.
>
>
> Did I forgot something? If yes, please complete these difference.
>
> Alex