Re: Romanian -Albanian Genetic Link ( c /ts/ - story)

[AK] wrote:

" You must take in consideration that as PIE *ty/tj, as Latin *ti
(>tj only
after became semivowel und was in unstressed position) became /s/. In
stressed position, as you may see in Latinus > L(ë)ti:, -ri/-ni, this
change didn't happen."

Of course you are right, but also in Romanian there are a lot of
Latin ti/te stable.
My explanation is the following. Both Albanian and Romanian
have also stable "d" and "t" consonants that correspondant to same
Latin "d" "t" sounds too. So its normal to find stable t- and stable
d- too.
When they clearly listened sounds that they can easily
reproduced too (so they had the corresspondances in their languages),
they could correctly pronounced them. But when they listened
a "tiu" especially a non-stressed one, of course that they had
problems to identify it, as result they tried to use the most closer
sound that they have for this in their language: c /ts/.

On the other hand, the complete set of reflexes of Latin
ti:/ti/te:/te in these Languages don't have to be exactly the same,
because they are due to a WHOLE sound system that these languages had
at different moments in time : ONE of a t-moment, the other one of a
t+1-moment, and this t,t+1 is only a simplified model). The sound
system, even the same, suffered changes from the c-period (when the
split appeared) until the d-period (new inovations took place
meanwhile).
As result the global rule system in the two Languages, that
described the aquisition of Latins ti/te/etc..is of course
different (as we also saw regarding 3 evolution, where
intervocalic -d- is lost in Albanian but in Romanian is not lost).
But as explained above this doesn't means that the 2 systems
cannot derive from a common one.
So I need to check and to prove THE COHERENCE of the
reflexes of c /ts/, and its evolution as T at the next moments , or
its later reapparitions as c /ts/ on other axes) (based also on the
new inovations that took place), in order to conclude if the 2
Phonetics Systems regarding "c" derived from a Common One or not, and
not that ALL Latin Tranformation with te/ti in these languages are
identical.



[AK] wrote:
" Yes, <shkorsa> 'woolen cover' is present too in Albanian, but I
think that you must have in mind that Illyria falls under Roma
occupation in 168 BC, so you hypothesis that Alb. Latin loans belongs
to stage *d, until Romanian to stage *c, for me, is very suspicious. "

Romanian is a complete Romanized language so for sure ( maybe not
the first words) but its main wave of Latin loans arrived EARLIER
that the main waves of Latins loans in Albanian.Why? Because if not
the Albanian would be today a complete Romanized language either. But
a "later arrival of a word in a language" doesn't means directly "a
later arrival in a geographical space" as a lot of Slav and Hungarian
historians like to think about Romanians and Albanians (see Corvinus
library on the net on this subject) on their proud assumption that
nobody were there when they arrived. Based on this assumption each of
them moves Romanians and Albanians on the map in order to eliberate
the geographical space before their arrival.
At the end a small triangle as big as three counties around NiS,
Skopljie etc... were allocated for the genesis of two peoples...
Let's take a clear example, regarding what the "Romanization"
process could mean :
In today Romanian villages the people did not know a lot of
English words. Maybe the children know something due to the schools.
But in Romans time there weren't schools in Albanian or Romanian
villages. However in the Romanian cities where European and American
culture arrived, a common young man for sure knows between 50 - 200
English words some of them already usual Romanian terms like :
computer, mouse, xerox, scanner, fast-food etc...So after 200-300
hundred years if the Western Union will not collapse as the Roman
Empire did, we will have a "romanization" on 2 speeds : a first
process in the cities or in the industrial centers (mines,
oil stations etc..), (where a lot of immigrants will arrive too, as a
normal population movement inside an Empire, like in today Paris,
Milan or London); here we will have a bilingual population. The
second one in the villages of the country (especially in the isolated
areas like inside the mountains) where the immigrant waves will not
arrived in mass, and the contact with English culture will not be so
massive; here the population will be still not exposed to loose of
his language. From here we will have 2 scenarios : the Empire will
survive or the Empire will collapse as Roman Empire did...
This seems for me the normal scenario when somebody want to
describe how the Romanization took place in Balkans or in Dacia. What
interest could have the Roman army to occupy the villages, or to put
10 soldiers in each village?. None. But of course they put 10000 or
more, around the mines or inside an important city (see today similar
examples)
Now to come back on our subject, I think that :
The Romanians and Albanians were Romanized at different moments
in times in the sense that I described above.

On the other hand if we take a look on the Latin Loans in
Albanian and at the Latin Loans in Romanian we discover also, that
the Romanians and the Albanians were Romanized IN DIFFERENT
geographical areas. Why? Because the Latin Loans in Albanian are NOT
A SUBSET of the Latin Loans in Romanian. As result the "small
triangle" allocated for us around NiS is just a story.

If we take a look on the ancient maps, on the toponimy, we saw
that the Dacians occupies a large space from nord of today Romania,
in Moesia Inf. and Moesia Sup., with also some penetrations in
Paeonia and today Albanian etc.. (see the map with "dava"
toponyms).
Illyrians also were largely spread from Pannonia, on the whole
Dalmatian coast, on today Albania, until today Macedonia...

Viewing this, all the assumptions remain available :
1. some Dacian tribes were fully Romanized (Romanians) , some
others not (Albanians)
2. some Dacian tribes were fully Romanized (Romanians) , some
Illyrians tribes not (Albanians)
3. some Illyrian tribes were fully Romanized (Romanians), some
Illyrians tribes not (Albanians)
Also the Thracians tribes should enter in this equation too.

Now to come back :
If something is wrong on my assumption,that Romanian and Albanian
are genetically linked, later or sooner we will discover the
differences.
But every model is good after the first contradiction will
appear.
And when this contradiction will appear, this will be a good
answer also, because we will see on what these differences consist
of. So please take it only as a model that have to be proved.

Best Regards,
marius alexandru

P.S. Now at the question : who our ancestors were? I really don't
know "for sure". But to ignore the substratum of Romanian language as
NOT belonging to an Ancient Balkan Language, (when I speak its sounds
day by day when I pronounce &, c, z (<3), h, s^, and after all the
arguments that I posted), as I saw that is the case on this forum, is
hard for me to understand.