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

On 04-12-21 12:02, alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> 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...

Calm down, my explanation is not based on a sequence of ad hoc assumptions.

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

What kind of o-sound would you expect to get from long *a:? Surely an
open [O:] is the most natural expectation.

> 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

Even if that's right (and I've already given my reasons for thinking
otheriwse), the Albanoid substrate in Romanian and reconstructible
Proto-Albanian differ at best minimally and trivially. Some Americans
say /kOz/ while others say /kAz/ for <cause>. That doesn't make them
speakers of different languages.

Piotr