--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Abdullah Konushevci"
> why to suppose that Aromanian
> lost more than 50% of his subtratual words when in the same time
> Aromanian didn't lost 50% percent of his Latin inheritance due to
the
> Greek influence ?
As far as I can see there are two alternatives: either Aromanian
continues an entirely different early Romance dialect than North
Romanian, or part of the substratum vocabulary entered NR (e.g. owing
to specific Albanian-NR contact) during the break-up of Common
Romanian.
The former alternative has consequences for our view of Common
Romanian that don't strike me as pleasant, to wit that the Common
Romanian never existed as a homogeneous language. The latter is OK by
me in principle, but off-hand I strongly doubt if it can be
harmonized with the factual evidence.
Willem