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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" wrote:

> I understood, for awhile, that you have understood not to use
> injectives in your argumentation.

What is an "injective"? Has that something to do with not criticizing
your linguistically faulty approach?!

> Now, a short list of 'arguments' apud Marius Iacomi:
>
> 1. "Reasons are indeed obvious" (good argument...everybody
> understand it...)

Instead of this unworty reply you should apologize Piotr. You
should know why.

> 2. "This is a dead horse." (another good argument...everybody
> understand why: because it's a dead horse)

Because it was already accepted so on this list. With the somehow
noticeable exception of the now two resident champions of Romanian
proto-chronism.

> 3. "Obviously, you're _not_ a linguist"
> (as you are , isn't it?)

A linguist is able to understand the nature of an argument. Raise
your level of understanding or accept thair conclusions.

> 4. "The word "hameS" is no substratum" followed by
> ..."its origin is still to be clarified"
> (so, still to be clarified, but of course, you are
> already very sure of it...)

There is no contradiction. Not knowing where a word is coming from
does not prevent to know if there is some language from where the
word cannot come from.

> 5. "The schwa /&/ is a natural developement everywhere in
> Romance" (really? you speak like a linguist here...)

Being able to read beyond the ending of this phrase would have
endowed you with enough information to prevent you from writing
just for your own fun.

> 6. "Phonetical evolution of /dj/ has nothing to do with substratum."
>
> (of course, Dacian /dz/ is a pure Latin evolution, like 'everywhere]
> in Romance')

Like in Canadian French from Kebek, isn't it?! :-)
Let's be serious: there is no connection between existence of some
Dacian phoneme realized more or less as /3/ and objective existence
notation "z" or "dz" for /d(j)/ in Latin, all over the Empire (from
Africa to Balkans, passing through Italy), marking the alteration
of the original phoneme already in late Latin.

> 7. "Obviously you haven't understood what a phoneme is"
> (No. I'm not. But you do, isn't it?)

That is a good indication for you to read more. You cannot
realistically
make any valid reasoning using objects you don't fully understand.

> 8. "No, it isn't." (of course, not)

You really want a long explanation why existence of final /-s^/ is
not an argument for a word being from substratum?! I remind you that
my negation followed your nice rhetorical question "Sound[s] ok, isn't
it[?]" about the irrelevant topic of words ending in /-s^/ and
including
the word "hameS" on the list.

> It was more simple just to say that you sustain the "pro-slavic
> theory...

There is no "pro-Slavic" theory out of your misrepresentation. There
is simply a common linguistic reasoning already made on cybalist which
you are not able to retrieve and understand.

> If I understand Piotr position for 'obvious reasons', regarding
> your person the next simple question is: why?

Because I am able to understand it.

> (but seems that we re-open an old subject here)

That is an old "idée fixe". GO TO 1.

> P.S. : Regarding Ion Iliescu...I remember very well when he said
> what....if it wasn't obvious: I presented his FINAL results...after
> he asks for permission.

OK, than you mentioned "when he killed Ceausescu" just for creating
further confusion or for making fun.

Have fun.

Cheers,
Marius Iacomi