Re: [tied] Late Proto Albanian *3 /dz/ NOT QUITE Early Proto Roman

Hello Piotr,
First of all, please don't stop my thread. Will be not correct.
Of course, what I said is only an assumption. I have to check it
further.
Maybe is a wrong assumption (like 1000 others, that we read each
day). If so, this assumption will fail in a contradiction earlier or
later.
In any case I don't like at all pseudo-science. In computer field
a single bug is sufficient for a program of 100000 lines in order not
to work correctly. But I know also that any model is good until the
first contradiction will appear.

So please don't stop my thread at this moment because the
contradiction of this assumption is not obvious at all, so your
action will not be a correct one...

Now regarding my assumption:
I said only that based on my assumption the Romanization of
Albanians (in fact more exactly ONLY /di/ reflexes) took place after
3->D and 3^->3, and the Romanization of Romanian, more exactly ONLY
regarding the reflexes of the same /di/ took place earlier when 3 was
still 3. This is all I said and nothing more.

Now regarding the timeframes, I well understand you doubts
regarding the periodization of C,D,E and the periodization of Slavic
Loans regarding the Latin Loans. Of course you have right. I have the
same doubts as you, but I only indicate "C and D periods" in my
previous message only to point out the ideea of t-moment for
Romanization of Romanians and t+1-moment for Romanization of
Albanians.
But maybe D is not quite D and maybe C is not quite C or maybe
ONLY some transformations of these periods have to be shift earlier
or later. But is earlier to say something about the whole
periodization until other transformation rules will not be analyzed
based on my assumption.

So saying :
"I'd better nip your idea in the bud before this thread develops
into a whole school of red herring" is NOT correct from your side.
My ideea for instance stand up very well (of course in its limits
that I described above: we have analyzed only /di/ reflexes and thats
all)...

Also, it could be very well possible that we will find sooner that
my assumption is wrong (as already happens in other cases when you
have explained me why di cannot passed to 3i). So at that moment I
will say that my assumption is wrong, and I will end it.

But really we are not there at that moment. And you know this too.

Thanks and Best Regards,
marius alexandru


P.S. " Just for the record: _you_ claim that there are "great
similarities",
but some of your critics (including Yours Truly) fail to see any
remarkable similarities beyond such as can be expected in languages
belonging to the same regional sprachbund."

You are not right here, basically regarding /3/. I followed a t-
moment and a t+1 moment on the SAME axes INSIDE the SAME System.
(Regarding the other axes 3^ -> 3, I found also the reflex of 3,
another 3 regarding its origin, but the same regarding its physical
manifestation).
...also c->T (I could take only a look this evening, I just
arrived from my office) seems to respect the same rule.
This ORDER in time that folows the axes of the PIE basic
sounds...is not a "regional sprachbund" ...but of course we cannot
conclude anything based on only one transformation.

(now regarding raza, spuza etc.. is hard to say that we don't
have similarities : they are quite the SAME WORDS HAVING THE SAME
FORMS, but this is a colateral argument that could be very well ONLY
the same regional sprachbund if we take it isolated).







--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

> 05-02-04 01:10, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > Hello Piotr,
> > I found out why the reflexes of Latin /di/ doesn't exactly fit

in

> > Romanian and in Albanian,
> >
> > DESPITE the GREAT similarities that we found.
>
> Just for the record: _you_ claim that there are "great

similarities",

> but some of your critics (including Yours Truly) fail to see any
> remarkable similarities beyond such as can be expected in languages
> belonging to the same regional sprachbund.
>
> >
> >
> > Please take a look on your timeframes [ALBANIAN(1)]
> >
> > "
> > A B C D E
> > ------ ----- ---- --- ---
> > *k' > *c' > *c > *T > T
> > *g' > *3' > *3 > *D > D ~ d
> > *k'w > *c'W > *c^ > *c > s
> > *kW /+ > *c'W > *c^ > *c > s (the rest as above)
> > *g'w > *3'W > *3^ > *3 > z
> > *gW /+ > *3'W > *3^ > *3 > z (the rest as above)
> >
> > " Let's label stage A "pre-Albanian", stage B "Early Proto-

Albanian",

> > stage C "Late Proto-Albanian" (approximately the time of close
> > interaction between Proto-Albanian and Balkan Latin) and stage

D "Old

> > Albanian" (later than the first Slavic loans in Albanian). Stage E
> > represents the Modern Albanian state of affairs."
> >
> > ....so why the reflexes of Latin /di/ fit but NOT EXACTLY

in

> > Albanian and in Romanian ?
> >
> > Because the Romanian Latin Loans were borrowed EARLIER than

the

> > Albanian Latin Loans. The Romanian loans took place in phase C on
> > your timeframe (when g' was 3):
> >
> > Lat. di -> Rom. 3[i] ( [] -> means optional ) (dies ->

dzi)

> > where Romanian 3 (later z in Romanian ) is from *3' > *3 >

*D

> > (Rom. z) (so from *g' - Axe)
> >
> > The Albanian Latin Loans took place on D-period regarding

your

> > timeframes (when g' was D and 3^ was 3).
> >
> > This explains everything :
> >
> > a) Why Lat. di: -> Alb. di ---> because we are in D-

period,

> > and we have already passed from 3 to D (on the same PIE *g' axe).
> >
> > Also this explain why :
> >
> > Lat. rádia- > *rádja- --> Alb. *rä3- > rreze
> >
> > where Albanian 3 (later z) is from *3^ > *3 > z (so from

*g'w

> > axe).
> >
> > (is 3^ as you said but not exactly at that moment but a

little

> > bit later as 3).
> >
> >
> > This shows us an obvious thing:
> >
> > That the Romanization of Albanians started LATER (at least
> > the /di/(Main?) Latin wave), than the Romanization of Romanians.
>
> And who were those Albanians Romanised by? The ghosts of Roman
> legionaries? Note that Stage D is datable in absolute terms _after_

the

> first stages of the Slavic immigration. The oldest layer of Slavic

loans

> clearly belongs to the final phase of Stage C. Thus, Stage D may

have

> begun about AD 700 if not later. By that time, there were no Romans

in

> the Balkans, and the local variety Proto-Balkan Latin had developed

into

> Common Romanian. Any Latinate words would have entered Old Albanian

via

> some form of early Romanian or some other Romance dialect

(Dalmatian or

> some form of Italian, e.g. Venetian). In fact, there _are_ such

loans,

> but they can be distinguished from the Latin layer (see below).
>
> I'd better nip your idea in the bud before this thread develops

into a

> whole school of red herring. The Latin loans in Albanian are

_certainly_

> older than the Slavic ones, since they were affected by some sound
> changes no longer active during Stage D or even the final phase of

Stage

> C. One of those changes is the loss of intervocalic voiced stops.

It

> regularly affects loans from Latin but not those from Slavic (not

even

> the earliest of them), which means that the process was no longer
> operative by AD 600. The oldest loans from post-Latin Romance, e.g.
> monedhë < OVen.(?) moneda (_not_ Lat. mone:ta) show /-D-/ as a

lenited

> substitute of foreign /-d-/. Slavic and later Romance loans simply

show

> reinstated /-d-/ without exception. I could offer similar arguments
> along the same lines, but this one is already decisive. You just

can't

> get round it.
>
> Piotr
>
> > This is obvious because the Romanians were fully Romanized

(so

> > they needed more time to "can finished" this process) and the
> > Albanians not. (I knew this as historical fact but here I saw it

only

> > now)
> >
> > This also shows that we have to compare regarding the Latin
> > Loans, the "Albanian" transformations at the T+1 moment in time

(for

> > Albanians), with the "Albanian" transformations of the T-moment

in

> > time (for Romanians) in order to establish if Albanian and

Romanian

> > Phonetics Systems where ONE AND THE SAME at one moment in the

past.

> >
> > For instance what I found above fit very well my

assumption :

> > Genetic link between Albanian and Romanians, and explain very

well

> > the reflexes of Latin /di/ in both Languages.
> >
> > Please check my explanation too...