--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:
> On 04-12-13 13:35, altamix wrote:
>
> > The "cf" means "compare with". It is interesting to see here that
> > Rom. linguists who do not have any troubles with loans, generally
> > speaking, they do not accept the denomination "loan from
> > Albanian". Their reason is that there has been no loan from
> > Albanian as such but words which belongs to one of the "ancient"
> > languages which ever this one be. Thus,in each Rom. word where
> > one has an Albanian counterpart, in every dictionary there will
> > be an "cf" with the meaning "the word in the from xxxxx is
> > present in Albanian as well".
>
> True enough. In a comparable situation linguists usually draw the
> obvious conclusion: since the source of the substratal loans in
> Romanian is not really distinguishable from Proto-Albanian, why
> pretend that the loans come from a mysterious lost language?
> Piotr
because the denomination you use is missleading on the time line.
There are some phonetic changes for which it is clear, they have been
finished in that/these languages before the roman times in Balkan and
we did discussed them here as such where a good examples will be that
IE kW /+ > Rom. "c^" & Alb. "s" but never Latin "kW/+" yelded in
Alb. "s"; in fact the Latin velars remains unaltered in Albanian and
in whole Balkan; the proof is Albanian itself, the Latin loans in
Slavic and the Dalmatic all these show that there has been a
population who spooke with unaltered velars. On the another side, the
Alb-Rom. evidence shows that in Rom. existed since preroman times the
affricated "c^". Apparently, there are insurmontable pieces of the
puzzle since it will means as the Slavs came, they found in Balkan
one kind of latin speaking population ( that one who spoke with
unaltered velars) but this population could not be the
BecomingRomanians since these should have had the affricated "c^"
and "g^" in their language. In fact the paranoia is here:
1) pre-Roman time "ky" > Rom. "c^" which yelded later Alb. "s"
2) Roman time "ky" > Rom. "c^" which yelded later Alb "q"
3) loans in SouthSlavic > Rom. "c^" not present but plain Latin "k/+"
Do I oversee something here? If I don't then the only explanation is
that the Slavs did not found any ProtoRomanians here but something
else. And that will fit with the historical sources. The Chornic of
Ragussa which mentioned that in the 751 AC there has been a migration
of Valahs from "Dogia" (Dacia) and the later sources of Kekaumenos
mentioning the "valahs" as comming from north of Danube since they
are what the ancient called them "dacians". Isn't it funny how the
facts(seen by me as facts) complete each other here, the linguistic
with the historical sources?
Alex