Re: PS Emphatics

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "altamix" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>
> > But this layer is not Romanian.
>
> no, it is a layer of Romanian. Romanian is something more as this
> layer.

Please give your definition of a "layer". I suspect we are talking
of different things here.

> > It belongs to a language which
> > preceeded Romanian. It is usually referred to as substrate.
>
> ist is considered to be the substrate and a such statement exclude
> any loan but include inheritance-

What statement? Could you re-phrase please?

> > Romanian starts with vulgar Latin planted in Dacia.
>
> actualy, it starts with the subtrate.

No language starts with a substrate. Romanian is Romance. Hence, it
is derived from vulgar Latin. What had been spoken before on the
territory currently occupied by Romanian speakers is not Romanian.

Taking your own example, Mexican Spanish is Romance. Nahuatl, Maya
and other Mesoamerican languages are substrates for it. Mexican
Spanish doesn't start with Olmecs.

> > It shows your emotional attitude towards this issue.
>
> is the reality to be measured trough emotions? I was just pointing

to

> the sentence of Piotr regarding the capital letters in the text of
> Marious, aka just trying to amuse myself a bit.I don't see the

matter

> emotional here.

That is good.

> > Does it concern your patriotic feelings?
>
> I think we discusse here linguistics, posibilities, times
> frames, most probable scenarios and we try to show why something
> appears to be probable of not. Feelings here are just bad. It was
> showed many times in our history thus it should be better to do not
> mix up water with wine and to keep distance with feelings when
> speaking about scenarios.

This is exactly my point too. Let's keep to it.