Re: s-stems in Slavic and Germanic

> > 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, if it were that easy, then Ruhlen would be doctrine.

What is it you think I have in common with Ruhlen?

> 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.

>

True, but the creolization which is the loss of the noun flexion came
about because those that mattered were Turkic-speakers, not native
Slavic-speakers.


Torsten