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

>To explain the observed patterns of phonemic substitution between
>early Albanian and Balkan Romance (both ways) it's enough to assume
>that
>the rounding of stressed *a: had produced Proto-Albanian *O: (a round

low back vowel). The quality of Latin /o, o:/ was intermediate between

>*u and *O:, which is why either of them could be substituted for
>BRom.
>*o (with positionally governed preferences). On the other hand, the
>*O:
>of Albanoid loanwords was sufficiently open to fall together with
>Latin
>/a, a:/ rather than /o, o:/ in Proto-Romanian, hence *ra:tja: >
>*rO:tja
>--> rat,ã etc. Perhaps the dialect from which the loans were taken
>had
>delabialised its *O:, just like those American English accents in
>which
><caught> rhymes with <lot>.

With this kind of logic for sure you can obtain from dog > cat :
1. "perhaps in a local dialect" the local d was a D very close
to "Latin" DK that next became K
2. and the g was a G very close to "Latin" "t"
3. And of course o was a kind of OE that later become AE > E etc...

So in what you explain: no traces no proof no attestation nothing:
only pure speculation...regarding an open O etc...


A more simple logic (as Rosetti supposed too) is that Romanian
Substratum and Proto-Albanian are based on the same ancient Balkan
Language.
Based on this we have in chronological order:
1. PAlb a: > a: (a: kept in Romanian Substratum ra:t(s)ja)
2. PAlb a: > o (PAlb. rotsja > Alb. rosë)
3. Romans arrival in Balkan
4. Latin a: > Alb a

But seems that for you is impossible to accept such simple facts...

Only the Best,
marius