From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 30206
Date: 2004-01-28
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...> wrote:
> --- 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