george knysh wrote:
> ****GK: Perhaps the confusion is mutual. We've
> reestablished that Scythians are not Sarmatians and
> vice versa. Your initial contention was, it seems,
> that ancient Romanian and Albanian switched to "r"
> from "l" (in many cases) due to Iranic "ruling class"
> influence. Leaving some of the linguistics aside for
> the moment (e.g. your claim that "Alan" is not "Aryan"
> in the Alanic language) could you clarify where
> exactly an Iranic ruling class dominated a
> sufficiently significant group of Dacians so as to
> influence the r from l switch in all post-Dacian communities?****
>
that is the matter here. Even if Alb. shares with West-Rumanian
subdialects the rothacism of "n" to "r", Alb. doesn't know the rothacism
of "l" to "r". What can one assume from this evidence? The Rothacism of
"l" to "r" was a singular development in Rum, that is clear. The
reasons? Unknown. Substrate, foreign influence? Foreign influence is
excluded since no folk around knows this phonetic development. Then ?
Substrate or an accidental switch to this change?
-i am afraid the state of the scholarship nowadays does not allow us to
have a devinitive conclusion. We just do know the "r" changed after Alb.
and Rum. have been not in contact anymore and that this phenomenon
ceased before Slavic invasion in Balkan.
That is, we can establish aproximatively the uper limit as the change
ceased but we are not able to see its down limit. And here is the most
important point in all this soup since apparently the cards regarding
the cradle of ProtoAlb. and ProtoRum. have been finished long time
before the Slavs came. Any idea how to make the dates more concreter?
Alex