>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.
1. the Common Romanian existed. I can understand Aromanian phrases
constructed n Latin words only by knowing some small transformation
rules ....
2. However my opinion is that Common Romanian already has
dialects inside it (see the Substrual vocabulary that is not present
in Aromanian).
(In fact this is a huge debate among Romanian linguists...)
Without considering already Aromanian as a distinct dialect
inside Common Romania, I cannot understand otherwise the below
Facts :
1. " Lat. ce, ci -> Rom. c^ <-> Arom . ts" related to another
fact
2. "Arom. c^ is still present in some substratual words so it
survive in the same time with Aromanian ts"
So these 2 facts shows that Aromanian was already a Distinct
Dialect inside Common Romanian, otherwise I cannot explain together
the 2 Facts above.
In fact there is another explanation:
"Lat. ce, ci > Common Romanian ts > Romanian c^ , Aromanian ts"
but is refuted by Romanian Linguists (from both parts: pro&contra
dialects in Common Romanian) based on the 'c^ area' in Daco-Romanian.
"I strongly doubt if it can be harmonized with the factual evidence."
What are the 'factual evidence' that you talked about?
Only The Best,
Marius