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

m_iacomi wrote:

>> 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.

Man! You are indeed refusing any logic here?
A) one language spoken by a populatin. This population , this language has
"h"
B) Latin Language
B+A= Balkan Romance
B+A= Latin sounds + sounds of that population including "h".
Is that hard to understand?

>
>> 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.

If this is an explanation then that explanation simply does nothing else as
"sugeo". And if you feel hurted here by this word, then is for sure not my
fault.

>> 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.

Buzz.. The Balkanic Union appears to be the only one existent Union of this
kind. It has been tryed to see some other on thelinguistic world but it
appears there is nothing like this Balkanic Union.

>Neither we have an indication
> of its presence in ancient Balkan languages, nor is this phoneme
> specifical only to modern Romanian among Romances;

It would nice to test your imagination for seeing how you would render with
Greek and Latin alphabet the sound &. If there is no posibility then the
indication you look for is nowhere to obtain beside the languages in charge.
For these languages though, there is plenty terrain of speculation even
because of missing the indication you need, thus you can assume everything
you want. Comparing -as it ought- with .. of course, what else, Romance.

>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 of substratal influence in which concerns this phoneme is outdated,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.

you consider or you soustain the opinion of other linguists? I won'T ask
that way, but "along with" sounds as if you consider yourself a linguist as
well.

The sound & was present even in PIE and there is nothing to consider there
is any break in having this sound from PIE until now.
Your logic is just based on the fact Latin has had no &, thus in Rom. could
not be no &. You keep close your eyes to something else.

>
>>> 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.

You are so sure on youre afirmations.. I begin to wonder (about) you.

>
>>> 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

I just made a simply observation, I did not conclusioned anything from that
observation.

Alex