Re: [tied] Re: Loans, Slavs, Church (it was : Walachians are placed

willemvermeer wrote:

>> Albanian cannot be mentioned by name since the phonetical
>> concordances speaks about a pre-Roman time, and there cannot be
>> mentioned any Albanians but just other "Folkerschaften" which have
>> been recorded in &
> before that
>> time.
>
>
> Well, there is a lot more to the Albanian-Romanian nexus than this.
> You can't talk about the early medieval past of Romanian without
> bringing in Albanian or the language of which Albanian is the
> descendant, and without bringing in Albanian dialectology. (We're not
> talking V�lkerschaften but languages.)

That is an interesting affirmation. What are the reference points which will
lead one to put the eraly medieval times in connection with Alb. and Rom? I
suppose these can be just linguistic arguments and I will like to see them.

> [On the plausibility of migrations of various types.]
>
>
> Because starting around the middle of the seventh century those
> previously hazardous areas became progressively more inviting due on
> the one hand to changes in Avar behaviour and on the other to the
> rise of the First Bulgarian state, which appears to have gone in for
> managerial methods favouring stability (we've gone over this in
> earlier postings).

It happens the Chornic of Ragussa tells as about a migration in the VIII
century. From North to South. There have been Valachs comming to Ragussa and
they have had not only sheeps but a lot of big breed, catles and cows.

> Assuming for the moment the Ohrid scenario is
> basically correct, starting with 650 or 700 there must eventually
> have been speakers of Romanian (let's call them Vlachs) who realized
> that in the north there were empty spaces worth millions of sheep.

So, they decided to migrate in the places controled by Avars, these being
too people who need pastures, since they have heard about empty places
there. This is a scenario, indeed.

> And started acting upon that realization, knowing that if they didn't
> others would and they happened to have the skills. And would I like
> to know who they were and interview them and hear them speak Proto-
> North-Romanian!

Ha! You will like the timemachine ? Me too !!!! I would love to hear the
IndoEuropean speaking, I will love to hear the Cimmerians speaking and of
course, I will love to hear the people of Decebalus speaking. That will be a
nice situation. We will be here and we will comment the happenings which we
have had in our travel and of course, there will be more, more easy to
"reconstruct" the way how actuly IE-Languages developed from the ancient
"hippomulgi".

>> I simply don't see
>> any data, historical or linguistical which will help out to locate
>> the Valahs between VI-X century North or South of Danube.
>
>
> Obviously there are no documentary data. Happily the linguistic front
> is different because the period of Albanian/Romanian contacts has to
> receive a time and a place.

How, I said, the linguistic data speaks for a layer which is PreRoman. In
how far does this help us for the time of IV-X century?

> And on a transdanubian scenario the place
> can only be Transylvania or thereabouts, implying southward movements
> of speakers of Albanian and Aromanian at awkward moments, not to
> speak of the dialectological complications such a scenario generates.

I cannot speak about Albanian migration, I can do for the Aromanian
migration. I said, the arrival of the Hungars was the fact which put them on
move. And they migrate within Bizantine Empire where they immediately got
recorded. BTW, Kekaumenos say something about the Vlachs that they never
have been obedient to them ( aka to the Romans and Bizantine). That is: he
knows that folk and he mentions how they have been in the relationship with
the Bizantine Empire, even if they are never mentione within the Bizantine
Empire until XI centuy.What do we have to understand from here?

>
>> The paralel with the Romanians which assimilated the Slavs
>> North of Danube is not too oversee.
>
> Whatever the exact dynamics it would seem to be obvious that a
> Bulgarian-speaking population was assimilated to Romanian north of
> the Danube. But now that we're on the subject of language shift it is
> important to realize that we need a reverse shift south of the Danube
> in order to account for the linguistic Balkanisms of present-day
> Bulgarian-Macedonian. But that, I suspect, is textbook knowledge.

Look, we have even today Bulgarians speaking Bulgarian in Romanian, in South
of the country and there where they got refugee in the time of Osman
Invasion. There are already 600 years and they still speak their languages.

>
>> Well, that will mean the oldest loans are to be located too in the
>> IX-X century? And what did happen between VI-IX/X century? Was there
>> no contact between Slavs and Valahs?>
>
>
> No it is not so easy. Most Slavic loans into Romanian must be later
> than Kretschmer's reorganization of the vowel system, but that
> reorganization cannot be very late either.

a subject whee one has to digg a bit deeper.

> So when speakers of Romanian were beginning to press northward
> starting from their impregnable mountain strongholds near Ohrid (say
> not long before or after 700) the type of Slavic they started
> interacting with is just right: it is the Bulgarian-Macedonian
> dialect of Common Slavic busy evolving into Bulgarian as attested in
> the Church Slavonic tradition.

The OCS is not the language spoken by actual Bulgarians so far I know. It
should have been an "another" slavic dialect, actualy dead. I hope I do not
mistake too much here.

> [On Hungarian loans that can be explained only by way of Slavic.]
>
>
>> Rosetti mentions here the verbs which are ending in "-ui" as
>> alc�tui, b�nui, b�ntui, where the "ui" is to explain just via Slavic
>> since the Hungarians forms will hardly be suitable for yelding the
>> Romanian forms directly.
>>
>> alc�tui < alkotni, b�nui < banni, b�ntui < bantani
>
>
> Yes, but if -ui was a productive suffix you don't need Slavic
> intermediacy for every individal case. I don't see how the point can
> be important from the point of view of the formation of Romanian.

"-ui" is a productive suffix which in my opinion is the same as Alb. "-ej"
both derviing from "-ony". There is a bit more work to do but apparently
there are two pairs of cognates for this kind of suffix:

IE -any > Rom. "-�i" and Alb. "-oi"
IE -ony > Rom. "-ui" and Alb. "-ei"

>
> The Asen brothers episode is late twelfth century (1185-, if I'm
> correct). Note that the Ohrid scenario does not exclude the
> possibility of a northward expansion the initial phases of which may
> have been going on as early as 700CE. Nothing that happened as late
> as the Asen episode can be of any conceivable consequence for the
> problem of the rise of Romanian. Note by the way that the Asen
> brothers' activitities are primarily associated with the Ta~rnovo
> area in present-day Bulgaria, which does not sound very transdanubian
> to me.
>
>
> Willem

I mentione dhte Assan episdoe here just because this is at the begin of the
XII century and they brought help from North of Danube. The episode is not
to use for any aspect regarding the IV-X century.

BTW, the Blakorechinos are not mentione din the nieghbourhood of Ohrid, but
somewhere more South, right?

Alex




--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.5 - Release Date: 26.12.2004