[tied] Re: Plural of 'vatra' in Aromanian -> I found trace of 'e'

>So these words are Older in Romanian than the Romans arrival in
>Balkans showing that Substratum of Romanian Language pre-existed and
>is older than the Romanian Main-layer : the Latin.

Also this correspondance : Rom. 'a' for Alb. 'o' (<PAlb. a:)
together with the timeframe of PAlb transformation 'a:>o' that
finished 'Before Romans arrival in Balkans', lead us also to other
important conclusions: this time regarding the ancestors of the
Albanians.

1. The split between the Pre-Romanians and Pre-Albanians took place
at least 'Before Roman arrival in Balkans' so at least before 165 BC
(when the Romans occupied Skodra).

This is confirmed by another linguistic fact : the Pre-Albanians
was in contact with Greeks 'Before Roman arrival in Balkans' (because
Doric Greek loans in Pre-Albanian shows also Grk. a: > Alb o as in
the case of Romanian ancient words but Lat. a: > Alb. a)

So not only that the Split between Pre-Albanians and Pre-Romanians
took place before 'Roman Arrival in Balkans' but also

2. Pre-Albanians was in contact with Greeks also before 'Roman
Arrival in Balkans'...

Knowing very well the Greek position in Balkans we can conclude
also that:

3. the Albanians ancestors was approximative in the same place as
they are today (maybe not on the Dalmatian coast but not far from
it) 'At Least Before Romans Arrival in Balkans'.

And all these logical conclusions (debated on several hundred
pages in different history books) are based only on a single
linguistic fact: the exact timeframe of a single PAlb
transformation 'a:>o', timeframe deduced based on the loanwords that
reflect this transformation in Romanian, Doric Greek and Latin.

Historical Linguistic seems to be a very strong instrument for the
History science.

Only the Best,
Marius









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

>
> >I don't understand. Any inherited word in Albanian shows the

effects

> >of
> >all the old sound changes (if applicable in a given case) down to

the

> >Roman period. What else would you expect? Now, if you could
> >demonstrate
> >that Romanian words of substratal origin _fail_ to show some of the
> >expected traces of changes datable to the Roman period, that would
> >have
> >interesting implications as regards their age. But I don't see
> >anything
> >of the kind.
>
> I think that you didn't want to see them...
>
> I. PAlb a: > o finished before Roman Arrival in Balkans but

there

> are words in Romanian containing an 'a' that clear reflect a
> PAlb 'a:' with their counterparts in Albanian showing the

normal 'o'.

>
> I already gave you these examples but seems that you skip them
> because they not fit your model.
>
> Rom raTa /ratsa/ 'duck' - Alb. rosë 'id.' - PALb ra:t(s)ja
> Rom mazãre 'pea' - Alb. modhullë 'id.' - PALb ma:dzula
>
> Lat 'a:' give always 'a' in Albanian (ma:lum for Alb. mollë was a
> wrong example because it cannot be linked to the Balkan Romance

where

> the form was me:lum)
>
> For more details see my message:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/35216
>
> So these words are Older in Romanian than the Romans arrival in
> Balkans showing that Substratum of Romanian Language pre-existed

and

> is older than the Romanian Main-layer : the Latin.
>
>
> II. The second different treatement older than the Latin treatement
> is :
>
> PAlb *wa - Alb va - Rom. o
> samples:
> PAlb *wala - Alb vallë - Rom oare 'really?maybe?'
> PAlb *walwo: - Alb. valle - Rom. hora 'circular dance'
>
> (despite your reserves all the facts shows that: 'vatra' is not

from

> *w+a:tra but from *(s)wai-a:tra > *weotra/*weatra (a:>o;Tosk:lost

of

> a length: a:>a) -> Alb votër~vatër <-> Rom/Arom 'va' with clear 'e'-
> traces in both dialects: Rom. pl.'vetre',Arom.sg.var. 'veatra'
> reflecting original *wea)
>
> see my message: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/35436
>
> in contrast Latin loans in Romanian and Albanian shows:
> Lat. va > Alb. va - Rom. va
>
>
> Only the Best,
> Marius