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

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

I'm calm ( used that examples only to can exprress better my
doubts). But your explanation based on some supposed 'color' of some
vowels is not a solid linguistic argument (see below my arguments).

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

Honesty based on my investigation I expect PAlb. a: > *wa > wo >
o/dial. u ( Ma:risia > Mwarisia > Mworisia > Muoresh >
Moresh/Muresh;
Sa:mus > Swa:mus > Somesh;
A:lutus > *Walutu > *Oultu > Oltu) ...see also your a:tra
derivation *a:tra>*watra (even not true due to the 'e'-traces in
Romanian so better: *(s)wai+a:tra)

(I also think that a:>wa>wo>o wasn't the single transition of a:
(that depended somehow on the phonetic contexts too, but I still
don't have a final conclusion on this))

It any case it wasn't O: because a:>o finished earlier in PAlb
than o: > e
So a supposed a: > O: > o would not give *o, as result, because
PAlb o: was still there at that moment so the result would have been :
a: > O: > o: > e -> that is not the case.

So in any case the transition of a: cannot be O:...due to the
presence of PAlb o: : still in place at that moment (that later
passed to *e).

> 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.

Yes, it's true: Romanian Substratum fit almost perfectly
ProtoAlbanian. I fully agree. This indicates in my opinion a genetic
(linguistic) linked bewteen the Romanian Substratum and Proto-
Albanian one. But the split between Pre-Romanians and pre-Albanians
took place before Romans arrival in Balkans otherwise a:>o would been
taken place also in (Pre-)Romanian.

Remain only to identify with what Balkan people we can identify
ProtoAlbanian (ProtoAlbanian being not the name of a people but only
a marked here) among Dacian, Thracian and Illyrian. By all chances
these was the Dacian Language wiewing the Dacian phonetic Rules (even
we can deduce them only based on the toponimy)...that fits alomost
perfectly the PAlb. rules.

Only The Best,
Marius







--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

> 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