willemvermeer wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
>> willemvermeer wrote:
>
>
> [In the context of joint Romanian-albanian features:]
>
>
>>> (d) certain features having to do with the dialect map.
>
>> here I am afraid I am not very sure what you mean ...
>
>
> It becomes clear further on. It has to do with the fact that Romanian
> as a whole is just a bit more Tosk than Geg and that NR is slightly
> more Tosk than SR. This shows that the final phase of the period of
> Albanian-Romanian interaction postdates both the latest Common
> Albanian and Common Romanian phases.
Hmmm.. the phonetic aspect says something else. There is indeed a common
fact for SouthAlbanian (Tosk) and WestRomanian subdialects, the rothacism of
the intervocalic "n". The differences are nice to be seen too in a paralel
way with Slavic:
-it is said, Rom. "c^", "g^", "j", "ts", "dz" are evolved due Slavic
influence, due bilinguismus, cohabitation etc, thus these sounds are present
in Slavic and they are present in Rom. as well.
-on another hand, Rom. does not know the Albanian sounds "th", "gj", "q",
"�" which will say they did not lived together, they did not cohabited
together, there has been no bilinguism, etc.
Further, let us see some of Alb.-Rom. phonetic corespondaces:
a) phonetic aspects which speaks for PreRoman times ( sec II BC ? )
-Alb. "th" versus Rom. "ts" < IE k^
-Alb. "s" versus Rom. "c^" < IE kW/+
-Alb. "gj" versus Rom. "sh" < IE s/+
b) phonetic aspects different in the Roman times
-Alb. "s" versus Rom. "ts" < Latin "ty"
-Alb. "q" versus Rom. "c^" < Latin "ky"
-Alb. "sh" versus Rom. "sh" < Latin "s/+"
All these aspects will speak for a interaction ( intermingling?) of actualy
Romanians with actualy Albanians in PreRoman times. The different treatment
of the Latin words will argue that both folks have been separated already by
the Romans since the treatment of the Latin lexica is different in both
languages. For the Slavic lexica, the situation is the same, there being too
different phonetical treatments in both languages.
about: -the wars of Goths, Gepids, Avars, Slavs
> Theodoric's Goths were offered "Dardania" to settle, on the grounds
> that it was fertile and uninhabited.
if they have been fertile and uninhabited, there shouldn't be any becomming
Albanians/Romanians there I will say.
>
>> so, we have: recent shift to Slavic, not very numerous. That will
>> speak more for recent imigrants as in Polen, Slovakia, Ukraine,
>> people who got quick (assimilated by the big mass of Slavs they
>> lived with (2-3 centuries ?)
>
>
> I don't understand this. The modern structure of Bulgarian-Macedonian
> (and the SCr of southern Serbia) can be explained as the outcome of
> speakers of Romanian having learned Slavic but in doing so having
> transposed some elements of the structure of Romanian to their way of
> speaking Slavic, after which some salient characteristics of the type
> of Slavic as spoken by ex-speakers of Romanian were generalized, e.g.
> limited number of cases, sufixe definite article, limited use of the
> infinitive, no vowel length, vowel reduction in nasal contexts. On
> the other hand the historical facts indicate that elsewhere Vlachs
> have usually been assimilated without such spectacular results.
This is exactly what I meant. The Vlachs who got too far from their "center"
and have not been numerous enough, they got assimilated. That happened
everywhere, how you say. Ukraina, Polan, Czech, Slovakia, Croatia, Istria,
etc. These facts speaks for a mass of "Wanderer" which have not been
numerous enough and they got assimilated in Bosnia, Croatia as well.
The cohabitance with Rom. should be even for Bulgarian language the reason
why this language lost as well the case system but as a pradox, Rom. is the
only "Latin" language which still has its case system even if -again a
coincidence(?)- the dativ/genitv and nominativ/accusativ merged together.
I consider the fact the pastoral terminology is mostly of "substratual"
origin is an important fact too for that kind of Latin we mean.
Alex
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.6 - Release Date: 28.12.2004