-----------------------------------------------------------
In the first place, we don't really know
whether the linguistic process you refer to must be
exclusive to the postulated Dacian (?) foundation of
Albanian and Romanian, or whether it also existed in
other Palaeo-Balkan languages now extinct which were
mentioned by various authors at the turn to the CE.
-----------------------------------------------------------
You are right. With my examples I can Only proof that there is a
Proto-Albanian component in Romanian OLDER than the Latin layer in
Romanian. I used as arguments to show this only the timeframes of
Albanian phonetic rules and nothing else: this is a very solid
argument in my opinion.
So I fully agree that the assertion "Proto Albanian = a Dacian
Dialect" need to be further proved (even this is not a new
hypothesis : Hasdeu, P^arvan, Bonfante, Weigand, Hamp, Orel etc..
sustained this hypothesis)
However regarding Romanian ancestors for sure we can place them at
the North of the Jiricek line (Jiricek line = the border between
Latin and Greek Language in Balkans during Roman Empire - even this
is an "official border" based on "the inscription's language")
(if somebody could post an internet link with a map showing the
Jiricek line please do it, I couldn't find one)
and
the border betwen Dacian "dava" versus Thracian "para" are quite
the same with the Jiricek line too.
Please see at:
http://members.tripod.com/~Groznijat/thrac/thrac_8.html
Regarding the Albanians origin my opinion is the following:
The arrival of today Albanians ancestors in aprox. same area as
they are today: Today Albanian and Kosovo (so maybe not on the
Dalmatian coast but not far from it) happened Before Romans Arrival
in Balkans (aprox. sec. III B.C.) ...Why ? because there are some
Greek loans showing an ancient phonetic treatement in Albanian than
the treatement of the Latin Loans in Albanian (you can see this in my
examples too).
So the Albanians were in contacts with Greeks before their contacts
with Romans and we know very well the Greeks position in Balkans at
that moment.
This expansion of some Dacian tribes from Moesia, Banat and
Carpathian Moutains to south, south-west direction is very well
identified around sec. III B.C. by Vasile P^arvan in Getica based on
the toponimy of today Albania region in that period of time.
Based on these historical facts we can very well have an Illyrian
Substratum in Albanian and a Dacian Main Layer also that is (in my
opinion very well visible) in Albanian language too:
See Alb. 'ujk < ulk' 'wolf' and Ilyr. 'Ulcinium' etc...
and in the same time
Alb. 'karpë' 'rock' related to Dacian tribe name "Carps" and
Dacian Mountain name: "Carpathians" for the "Carphatians Mountains"
etc...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This would in no sense deny that Romanian is fundamentally a
Latin-based language. Two cents worth from a non-linguist.*****
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I don't deny at all (I don't know from where in my message you
have deduced this: is a mis-understanding here): in contrary I fully
agree that the Romanian language is fundamentally a Latin-based
language. Please see that I talked about 'Romanized Dacians' in my
message.
I wanted only to point out that based on the Proto-Albanian
timeframes of Proto-Albanian phonetic transformations the Proto-
Albanian(Dacian?) Substratum in Romanian Language is OLDER than the
main layer of Romanian language: the Latin.
Only the Best,
Marius
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
> --- alexandru_mg3 <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
>
> > The subject that I want to open here is the
> > following:
> >
> > << PAlb a:>o ended before Romans arrival in
> > Balkans but 'is
> > reflected' in Romanian Language>>
>
> >
> > Based on the conclusion above the Daco-Romanian
> > theory (->theory
> > that presents the Romanian people 'resulting from'
> > Romanized Dacians)
> > received a solid argument in its favor.
> >
> > The facts above generate a big problem for those
> > that qualifies
> > the Romanian Language as a Latin Dialect with some
> > Loans from
> > Albanian and that deny any Proto-Albanian(=Dacian?)
> > component in
> > Romanian Language or from those that accept some
> > Dacian influences
> > but deny the fact that the Dacian component is OLDER
> > than the Latin
> > component in the Romanian Language.
>
> *****GK: In the first place, we don't really know
> whether the linguistic process you refer to must be
> exclusive to the postulated Dacian (?) foundation of
> Albanian and Romanian, or whether it also existed in
> other Palaeo-Balkan languages now extinct which were
> mentioned by various authors at the turn to the CE.
> And in the second place, it can hardly be denied that
> there was a strong "local" (Balkan) component in the
> ethnogenesis of the Romanian people, which could well
> have left some small traces in the parlance,
> influencing the "colonizing" component. This would in
> no sense deny that Romanian is fundamentally a
> Latin-based language. Two cents worth from a
> non-linguist.*****
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail