--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
>
> >> The INHERITED words in
> >> Romanian are those of Latin origin.
that is a big trap. Latin layer is an undenyable layer of Romanian
language but there is an older layer as Latin. And this layer IS
older as the Latin one. The phonetic treits are clears here.
Writting "IS" with cappitals in this casse shows just an inviolable
reality.
> >
> > It depends on how you you define Inherited
> >
> > If Spanish is the inherited language of Maya-People,etc.. than
> > ok...
> > If English is the inherited language of Irish-People than ok...
> > Any Gaelic words in Hiberno-English or Maya words in Mexican
> > Spanish are loans. Linguistic transmission should not be confused
> > with ethnic, cultural or biological continuity.
One cannot consider "loans" a completly layer which has clear
phonetic rules and which rulles shows an older form as the words of
the language wherefrom they are supposed to be loaned. The phonetic
aspect of this layer is older as Latin. What you try to do here is to
demonstrate that 2 is smaller than 1 and the result of this operation
should be obviously to everyone.
>
> > NEXT: THE MEANINGS OF ALL THE OLD SLAVIC LOANS IN ROMANIAN FITS
> > PERFECTLY THE MEANINGS OF THE ATTESTED OCS WORDS...I DON'T KNOW
ANY
> > COUNTER-EXAMPLE
>
> Of course for obvious historical reasons most Slavic loans in
> Romanian are of CS origin, but there are other layers of borrowing
> as well, starting from the most archaic loans like <baltã> 'pond'
> and <daltã> 'chisel', which cannot be CS. The fact that you write
> something in block > capitals doesn't make it an inviolable law.
>
> Piotr
>
The "balta" and "dalta" have been cleared for years. They are
CommonRomanian and in Albananian and their Slavic cognates presents
the methathesis and the change of "a" to "o" in Slavic. Yet, you stil
consider they should be "old loans" even if the arguments speaks
about an another direction of loaning here.
Regarding, "straj" I was not aware it was present in CommonRomanian (
thanks Marius for this information). The Aromanian form stran'e
explains the "ie" in Romanian, thus it is clear that Slavic *strojiti
is NOT the etymon. And the Serbian "straz^a" has its counterpart in
Romanian "straja" thus the Albanian "shtrezë" is not a loan from
Serbian ( due "e" where Rom. has "a"). The correct loaning way here:
- Serbian has it from Romanian ( because of "a") and Albanian has it
from a common source with Romanian ( because of "e").
Romanian cannot have if from Albanian because there is no "e" in word
and even in plural form there is no "e", neihter in derivatives:
dstrajã- strãji (pl.)
Alex