>>What fits in other languages, is' mir schnuppe.
>
>Yes, apparently, since you're not a linguist. I can't ignore those
>facts.
I am a linguist, albeit not a PIE specialist. And I ceased
dealing with theoretical linguistics in 1978 or so.
Definitely, the suffix -e$ti has nothing to do with your assumptions
on Tergeste as a slave market.
>>The same way in names ending in -escu: Ionescu > Ione$ti,
>>Popescu > Pope$ti, i.e. the idea of plurality/community/group.
>
>I know.
If you knew this, and if you're a linguist, then wouldn't think
of such nexuses as "Tergeste" and people speaking Romanian 5-8
centuries before there were linguistic conditions for the creation
of this neo-Romance language.
>And that word, we established, was probably a substrate word.
Maybe, yet irrelevant in that sub-thread of the discussion.
>I propose that the Romanian language originated in the mid-first >century BCE
It started as popular Latin in the centuries when various
Italian and esp. non-Italian populations *had* to speak Latin,
in order to be able to communicate with one another and to
understand the orders issued by military commanders and
administrative bosses ... within the borders of Imperium Romanum.
In the 1st c. BC it was too early. The fitting time span was
approx. from the 2nd to the 6th c. (when Latin all over the
empire got more and more dialectal and sociolect features that
*enabled* the gradual transformation into neo-Romance languages:
phonetical and lexical ones, e.g. so that the Latin speakers
hat enough time to get accustomed to use instead albus, -a, -um
bianco, blanco, blanche, instead of equus caballo and cheval,
instead of mansio casa, instead of the old pronunciation [kajsar],
[kikero] the new ones [Äezare], [se:zar] (that enabled the English si:z&) and [ÄiÄero(ne)]. And myriads of other changes.
>If you know of any reason why this couldn't have happened, say
>so or keep quiet.
Tell me "keep quiet" as soon as you become a co-owner of cybalist,
but not earlier than that, que te lya mamma dreaqu. :)
>But those 'specific transformations' are dated only relatively, ie. in the sequence of the development of Latin into Romance languages, not absolutely, which means they can't be used to date stages in that development.
Have a look. The scholar literature on that phase of transformations
(i.e. of a tremendous and growing gap betw. class. Latin and "latina
vulgata" in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th ... 8th, 9th centuries)
contains a richness of data. It is way richer (for obvious reasons)
than in the case of German (Deutsch: old high German and middle
high German) as compared with Germanic idioms 1,000-1,100 years
earlier Germanic idioms (i.e. 400 and 600 years earlier than
Wulfila's and Jordanes's Gothic). No real linguist can ignore such
long time spans that engulf tremendous linguistic transformations.
(You tend to ignore them, although you, occasionally, mention
certain sound shift laws.)
>As usual, you give no reasons why it *must* be so, so I'll ignore >that.
Because:
1) I don't know all relevant shifts and changes by heart (that
happened in a relevant period of 4-5 centuries);
2) I ain't gonna copy all of them in order to pour all of them
here, in a posting. (Which wouldn't respect the netiquette &
wouldn't be polite.)
Since you're a professional linguist yourself, you know very well
what I'm alluding to, so I don't have to point to any of those
"tagliavinis et Co". :)
>I propose that West Germanic in the 2nd century BCE split into two
>languages:
>
>1) Proto-English/Low German/Frisian spoken by the Sciri/Cimbri in
>the Przeworsk culture,
Why did they have to be in the Przeworsk area? There were enough
Germanic people in the relevant areas towards the North Sea shores.
>2) Proto-Hochdeutsch spoken by the Bastarnians
I know that, you've mentioned many times that. By now, I know that
what the mainstream community calls "Elbgermanen", to you they
were "Bastarnians". OK with me ("jedes Tierchen hat sein
Plaisierchen" :)). The only question would be: is it plausible
that an entire population that was able to Germanize South
Germany, Alsacia, Switzerland (Rhaetia) and Austria (Noricum)
consisted only of Bastarnae? And, if so, how come that this
name (Bastarnae) vanished in the 3rd c. forever, whereas
Southern Germanic tribes that later on developed the so-called
lingua diutiska/teodiska (old High German), called themselves
only Suebians (incl. Langobards), Bavarians, Franconians and
Burgundians? But, agreed, this is of lesser importance; what's
important: those "Elbgermanen", including Bastarnae or not,
indeed played the decisive role in Germanizing the areas South
of Main and Danube, and around the upper Rhine, way into the
area of the southern Alps in Italy.
>'My' Bastarnae would have spoken a language which was the
>ancestor of the languages you love so much. Bugs you, doesn't
>it?
Not at all! Quite the contrary: if one (you or whoever) could
prove that the "Elbgermanen" were actually that Bastarnae group,
then it would be fine. We'd have a refined image of who were
the ancestors of "mir san mir". :-)
>Are you trying to say that my proposal can't explain that?
It can't.
>>On top of that, a considerable population of colonists from all
>>over the Empire took part in the process of the Romanization of
>>the relevant SE European regions for centuries (most of them
>>military veterans; NB: in Romanian, "old man" is expressed by
>>a derivation of veteran: bätrân. The word vechi (fem. veche) is
>>semantically restricted and can't be interchanged with bätrân/ä
>>except for certain few situations).
>
>I know. Irrelevant.
Quite the opposite of your "conclusion": it is in as much relevant
that it thwarts 100% your assumptions. It is, for your thesis,
such an obstacle that the tag attached to it reads "No pasaran!"
(Of course, if you're a linguist. If not, then no wonder: you may
very well take Fomenko and Heribert Illig for granted! :-))
>I said:
>'If the Slavic languages arrived in the Balkans (-> South Slavic)
>with Ariovistus' Charudes / Croats
I know what you had written: I'm in pretty good command of
alphabetagammadelta. If Charudes really were *SLAVIC* Croats,
it won't be enough. For the Slavicization of the aria, the
relevant epoch wasn't that of Ariovist (when the Romanization
of the Balkan Peninsula hadn't arrived its peaks yet!), but
much later on: after the Avar conquest - i.e. when the late
Latin-speaking population cum Germanic (Gepidic)-speaking
population were beaten and had to retreat (and decay). Only
then had the Slavs, underlings of the Scythian-Turkic Avars,
the chance to take over (in the better regions of the Peninsula,
the Romance-speaking populations having to withdraw to worse,
chiefly mountaineous, regions).
>which means we don't have to assume any close genetic relationship >between Slavic and Dacian / Thracian.'
We must, since, at least linguistically, the big "Thracian"
group was closer akin to the Balto-Slavic branch than to the
Italic-Celtic-Germanic one.
You, as a trained linguist, know better than outsider dilettantes
the significance of kentum-satem, and that far-Eastern plaid-
wearing, kentum-speaking Tokharians were closer to western PIE-
language-speakers in spite of geographic spreading. :)
>You deleted the premise of that, which means that what you quoted
>is no what I said, so I won't comment on it.
What I delete isn't worth wasting time on. ;)
>Nobody wants to be a slave, they don't need an Abe Lincoln to tell
>them that. Going to war against your neighbor and enslaving him was
>also the option favored over merely selling a slow trickle of
>domestic criminals among 18th century African Burebistas. You may
>call it job security for tyrants. I'm not presupposing any French-
>Revolution type concept of 'freedom' as a motive for Burebista, as
>you seem to think I do. Greed would suffice. Not that one excludes
>the other.
Yes. But it seems that *TO YOU* it is not yet clear that in
those ancient societies slaves were something ... "natural",
i.e. normal. So much so, that, even without wars and subjugations,
and without the *national* component, there were slaves who
were bought or sold. The same way within the framework of the
Imperium Romanum, of Greece, of Thrace, of Dacia, of the Persian
(Iranian) empire.
>I said 'the *then* free Dacians', which you don't seem to have >noticed.
I've noticed very well, but it is you who (still) doesn't
understnd that it is a ... NONSENSE to use the wording "free
Dacians" in Burebista's century! You oughta use that syntagm
for occurrences in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th centuries in the *Christian
era*, and not *before the Christian era*. Because the
dichotomy "free-unfree" has a sense (is justified/warranted)
only in this context: "were they or weren't they subdued by
the Imperium Romanum?".
>The *then* free Dacians. Hello?
Es ist blödsinnig von freien Dakern im ersten Jahrhundert
vor Christus zu reden! Geht das endlich in dei'n Schädel
nei? >:-( Du hast einen Fehler gemacht, gib auf und
konzentrier Dich auf andere Sachen.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Albanian#.28Old.29_Albanian
>That would make Albanian a direct descendant of Daco-Moesian
OK! But this means that, for this occurrence, the
emigration/immigration of Carpi & Costoboces contingents
were not inherently necessary. (I.e.: migrations from the
"Polish/Ukrainian" Carpathians to the Balkan-Rhodopi-
Yugoslav Alps.)
>Interesting.
Translated from Torsten's English into plain English: "Wow,
I've never heard of that before!" :-)
>>we shouldn't expect anything. The ethnogenesis and
>>the numerous changes and Umwälzungen were far too
>>complicated and over long period of times that the
>>minor aspects (which occurred centuries earlier) really
>>have nothing to do with that.
>
>Did you actually say anything there?
Of course I did, you frecher Dösbattel! I thought the
Fischköppe in that Dansk arhipelago were a friendly,
polite kind of fellas, and no pack of Gesocks. But I
have to agree with my fellow Alpine brethren: Fischkopp
bleibt Fischkopp. (Zufrieden? :))
>>Just take into consideration that for 2-3 centuries,
>>in all areas which today are called Albania, Croatia,
>>Serbia, Bulgaria everybody spoke popular Latin (and
>>educated people Greek as well), and some Gothic and
>>Gepidic; and some Hunnic. The substrate languages
>>virtually vanished, Slavic + Prototurkic + Alanian
>>Iranian hadn't yed arrived there.
>>
>>After the Roman provinces were distroyed by invasions,
>>among which the first important one was the Avar-Slavic,
>>the Romance-language speaking population *decayed* and
>>took refuge or was chased away. Sources tell us that
>>the great Avar kagan Bayan displaced 100-200 thousand
>>Vulgata-speaking population from the NW of the Peninsula
>>to other areas to the East or North-East. (To begin with!)
>
>Interesting, but not relevant here.
Quite the contrary, it's highly relevant! You ain't seen
nothing yet. Even, AFA your Snorri tales are concerned, it
is relevant: since what Snorri says it has to do with the
"gesta Scytorum", namely with the "adventures" of various
Scythian tribes, that gradually replaced their Iranian
(satem PIE idioms) with Turkic. Ruling clans with such
origins were those who were the highest ranks in the
"Avar", "Protobulgar", and perhaps "Croate & Serbian",
configurations. If something of Snori Sturlasson's tales
is true then perhaps those parts referring to Scythian-
Turkic ancestry (during the "Hunnic"-Germanic cohabitation).