Re: s-stems in Slavic and Germanic

--- On Mon, 2/9/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> From: tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
> Subject: [tied] Re: s-stems in Slavic and Germanic
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 12:26 PM
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister
> <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Mon, 2/9/09, altamix <alxmoeller@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > From: altamix <alxmoeller@...>
> > > Subject: [tied] Re: s-stems in Slavic and
> Germanic
> > > To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 6:45 AM
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com,
> "tgpedersen"
> > > <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I don't think non-native speakers
> "ran" German or Russian,
> > > > > otherwise these languages would be very
> different today,
> > > > > wouldn't they? I think it depends
> on the language, each
> > > > > language's particular situation.
> > > >
> > > > Turkic-speakers 'ran' Bulgarian and
> Macedonian, and today they
> > > > have no case system, unlike all other Slavic
> languages.
> > >
> > > < SNIP >
> > > > Torsten
> > > >
> > >
> > > are you sure that Turkic-speakers are these who
> influenced
> > > Bulgarian language? So far I know, their
> influence on the
> > > Bulgarian language is reduced just to words
> borrowing and
> > > eventually some sufixes, mostly obsolete now in
> the language. I
> > > remember about Bulgarian as beeing said, the
> Romance and
> > > "Thracic" should be these who
> influenced the language. The
> > > Turkish Bulgars it is said to have been
> assimilated and they
> > > should left just a few traces in the language,
> most of them very
> > > disputet, even today. Beside of the old Bulgars
> and beside of
> > > the Otoman Turks, the other Turkish speaking
> people ( Avars,
> > > Cumans, etc) could not influence the language, at
> least not in
> > > the manner of losing its flexion.
> > >
> > > Alex
> >
> > It was probably a combination of the effect of a
> succession of
> Thracian, Ancient Macedonian, Greek, Latin, pre-Romanian,
> Bulgar
> Turkish and Slavic spoken in the same place in a span of c.
> 1000
> years. That would do wonders to any grammar.
> >
>
> Please don't try to confuse the picture. The thing that
> wreaks havoc
> with a grammar is the learners being on top. For such a
> language to
> survive the contemptuous attitude of the strangers in
> control, there
> has to be a reversal of fate, with reversal of attitude as
> a
> consequence, like the Normans giving up their ambitions in
> France, or
> the Turkic peoples (Avars, Cumans etc.) being defeated in
> the Balkans.
>
>
> Torsten

Torsten, if it were that easy, then Ruhlen would be doctrine.
Keep in mind that Macedonia, Bulgaria and Albanian are on the line between Ancient Greek and Latin, and these were on top of various substrate.
Then Slavic comes in and Macedonia & Bulgaria is where they peter out, leaving a linguistic frontier with Byzantine Greek plus an undercurrent of pre-Romanian speakers, etc. Then the Turks come and complicate things even more.