Hello Glen,
1. The Similarities of the Albanian and Romanian Phonetic Systems
are only ONE of the arguments related to the connections between
these 2 languages. Take again a look on these 2 systems...and make
them in relation with Piotr presentation Albanian (1,2,3) to see how
easy the differences could be explained by LATER distinct evolutions
(exemples : later albanians evolution to D T), and that the
assumption that the 2 systems have an original common point is not
easy to abandon.
I remeber your here the other arguments (that I already post
them):
2. see the number of "loans" in Romanian related to the big
similarities that we have here.
3. the romanian h-substratual theory.
4. the localization in time of romanian-albanian common words
that easy arrive AT LEAST in Latin times,if not EARLIER
5. also I presented that in Latin Times : pre-romanian 3 /dz/ is
identical with albanian 3 /dz/ , and I will try to take one by one
other sounds or linguistic rules related to Albanian and Romanian and
that time (I have a lot of arguments here...)
6. I point out also that in "pre-romans" times or "during Balkan
latin period" it is improper to speak about proto-albanians (or even
pre-albanians) or about pre-romanians also. This is like we talk
about "pre-english people" or "pre-french people" ...At that moment
of time the Historical Facts clearly indicates that in Balkans there
weren't Albanians or Romanians but only Dacian, Thracian and
Illyrians.
So, if somebody really want to proove the "LOAN THEORY" has to
take each of the arguments above and to put side by side his contra-
arguments. If not I don't see how, WHY this "LOAN THEORY" could be
credible...
And I will post other arguments...on this topic too.
Now deriving this discussion to the similarities between spanish
and indonesian or to what satem/centum really means (I only wanted to
point out an example there)..of course they represents something in
this equation, but they are not direct arguments inside the Albanian
and Romanian context.
Best Regards,
marius
P.S. : So please take into account that my argumentation is not
ONLY related to the their phonetical systems, but this represent ONLY
ONE (but STRONG) argument for a common origin of Albanian and
Romanian.
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
> Alex:
> > Satem / Centum split : the most important division of INDO-
> > EUROPEAN languages was detected based on the "Swadesh Lists" or
> > Based on the PHONETICAL SYSTEMS OF THESE LANGUAGES???
>
> Honestly, Alex. With all those question marks and capital letters
it looks
> like you've gone and flipped your little head. Faut pas casser la
tête,
> mon bonhomme. Breathe some calm.
>
> Your opinions on languages are unfortunately very incorrect and
oppose
> linguistic fact. There is no "satem/centum split". There is a
satem/centum
> isogloss division and it's not as important a "split" as once
thought. We
> must keep that in mind because there are some "centum" languages
that
> share features with other "satem" languages. This is because the
dialects
> were side-by-side and affected each other. Do those centum languages
> belong to "satem" or "centum"? The answer is: They don't belong to
any
> side per se because there is no centum-satem split.
>
> Now, the phonetic system of a language has quite plainly no bearing
on any
> linguistic relationship. Two languages may have different sound
systems
> and still be related (like Hindi and English) or have two of the
same
> sound systems but not be related (like Akkadian and Etruscan). You
place
> importance on sound systems in opposition to all linguists world-
wide. You
> can either accept this or rant more with capital letters and triple
> question marks but if you choose the latter, I'd rather it be on
another
> forum because it certainly doesn't foster an environment of
learning.
>
>
> = gLeN