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

Sorry - please read :

"But every model is good UNTIL the first contradiction will
appear."


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

> [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.