--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2008-01-22 00:28, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > Thanks. So the root is puts isn't it?
> > What was the Original Onomatopeea in this case and where is the
> > verbal suffix?
>
> A bilabial initial and an affricate/fricative final consonant. Both
are
> frequent enought in words meaning 'kiss'. What "verbal suffix" do
you
> mean? We have a verb root to which the normal personal endings were
> added. What else do you need?
a VERBal formation from an ONOMATOPEEA IS usually CONSTRUCTED based
on that Onomatopeea plus a suffix
> > g) Next, You cannot use only the taste here,
> > you need arguments to reject Alb. puth < PIE *puk^-
>
> You haven't answered any of my semantic objections (which aren't a
> matter of taste). As long as you have no convincing case, I don't
even
> have to bother to reject anything.
I answer in a distinct post. Please to read it.
> > Of course we are talking inside a defined model that could be
> > finally wrong, or more or less accurate...
> >
> > But if, inside this model:
> > burta 'belly' (< barukta:) is not from *bHer- 'carry',
> > brandza 'cheese' is not from *bHer- 'boil, ferment'
> > malai 'kind of flour' is not from *melh-,
> > pandza 'fabric' is not from *peh2n-,
> > bardza 'stork' is not from *bHerg^h1-,
> >
> > Let's forget all the Indo-European reconstructions, not only
for
> > Romanian-Substratum but, in general, I mean ....
> >
> > because we both know that the words above have a probability
> > different from zero to be Chinese words, isn't it?
>
> Of course I agree they are MOST LIKELY substratal, since no other
> hypothesis explains them better (let's ignore the fact that the
> accompanying reconstructions aren't all so good).
> That doesn't mean that
> a substratal solution works for each and every Romanian word that
> exhibits a slight irregularity or has an uncertain etymology.
> OK, Dacian
> was a real language and it (or something related to Albanian, at
any
> rate) provided early Romanian with plenty of loanwords. But you go
to
> such great lengths to prove that Romanian is Dacian just sprinkled
over
> with some Latin that you end up blurring the distinction between
> genuinely identifiable substrate words and all sorts of
> might-have-beens, down to outright fantasy. In this way you can
only
> replace the substrate of Romanian with a conlang of your own
making,
> compromising your purpose and doing a disservice to substrate
studies.
> Piotr
I prefer that you show some specific issues, if any, than to
assert 'in general' something that I don't consider that has any link
with me.
Here is what I'm thinking:
--------------------------
1. Romanian is a Latin Language => I never said something else
If necessary, I could list here about 1200 Romanian Latin Words
(almost the complete list)
Even without them the language structure is a Latin one
2. This is not in contradiction with the great probability that putsa
is not a Latin Word
=> and I cannot understand why you make such a generalization
suddenly, started from a single word : putsa
3. This is not in contradiction with the great probability that
burta
brandza
malai
pandza
bardza
etc...
are Substratual-Words
BUT THESE ARE SUBSTRATUAL WORDS
NOT BECAUSE "since no other hypothesis explains them better" as you
wrote so often here
BUT BECAUSE folowing the SAME PHONETIC TRANSFORMATIONS THEY CAN BE
WELL DERIVED FROM THE PIE ROOTS WITH A CLOSE MEANING.
4. Greek has a lot of substratual words; German too, and they are
still PIE languages ...if Romanian has a great number of Substratual
words as a Latin Language, where is the issue?
5. this also doesn't mean that I need to accept the false
theory 'that the Daco-Romanian' formation is a Myth: because from a
linguistic point of view I can demonstrate today that is Not.
6. this also doesn't mean that I need to accept the false theory that
all the Romanian Substratual Words are "Albanian loans in Romanian"
7. this also doesn't mean that I need to accept the false theory that
ONLY the Romanian words that have acounterpart in Albanian could be
Substratual Words : pandza (peh2n- fabric) and brandza (bHer-
'ferment') has no counterparts to give you only 2 examples
8. I assert that Romanian-Substratum was genetically linked with the
Proto-Albanian (in Roman Times: Romanian-Substratum and Proto-
Albanian was 2 distinct dialects)
9. I assert that both Romanian-Substratum and Proto-Albanian were
closed linked with Dacian Language (very probable 2 distinct Dacian
dialects) based on the fact that I couldn't detect till today ANY
PHONETICAL CONTRADICTION between Romanian-Susbtratum, PAlbanian and
Dacian
10. I assert that The PAlbanians 'arrived' in the Greece' vicinity
long time before Roman arrival in Balkans
11. I assert that the split bewteen the Romanian-Susbtratum and
PAlbanian took place too, long before Roman Arrival in Balkans
(somewhere around 500-300BC)
Comparing with I saw that was written on this forum regarding
Romanian, Albanian and Dacian my position is one of the most
coherent here..regarding his argumentation : the 1 to 11 explained in
a coherent way the linguistical situation of Romanian, Albanian,
Dacian and Balkan Latin
So if we are talking about generalities : my position is the above one
Marius
P.S. : I could easy assert for you too, some Latinist exagerations
like this never attested *putia 'penis' (and if Latin is not a well
attested Language, there is no Attested Language in this case),
but I think that this would be faraway from the spirit of our
previous discussions