Layers ( it was: Emphatics)

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

>
> --- 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.

I was using layer as synonim for stratum here. To explain it very
simple, a bounch of words which belongs to a certain period of time
from a certain source. Of course the matter is a bit complexer since
it belongs here much more as lexica.

>
> > > 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?

please see bellow

>
> > > 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.

One cannot understand or speak Romanian just with the Latin
layer. See the point of view bellow too.

> What had been spoken before on the
> territory currently occupied by Romanian speakers
> is not Romanian.

I agree.


Now, I guess I understand the difference of our views here too. I
see the romanisation as a process where the Latin words have been
used by the inhabitans under Roman rule in a long time and they
replaced more and more the native words with the Latin words.

You see probably the process from another perspective. That is,
someone ( soldiers, colonists )who spoke vulgar Latin borrowed into
their languages words from a foreign language there where they have
been "implanted". From your point of view, the language starts indeed
with vulgar Latin. But from your point of view, we cannot speak here
anymore about any substrate.

Any other possibility?

best regards

Alexandru Moeller