From: Torsten
Message: 67632
Date: 2011-05-27
>The present size and social importance of a dialect is in principle irrelevant to its role in the past so your objection is invalid.
> >Istro-Romanian developing as a creole in Slovenia as the first
> >'Romanian' language, as in my proposal, would also take place
> >in a non-coast setting.
>
> I understand your proposal, but Istroromanian doesn't fit (it is
> a petty marginal and awkward Romanian dialect of a tiny population
> that moved away from the main territory where the language is
> spoken; a dialect that is heavily influenced by Croatian and
> Slovenian).
> Much more interesting might be Aromanian, since itIt is very common in the common conception of languages outside of linguistic circles to ascribe great conservatism to minor and isolated dialects, but they rarely have any factual basis, and that is the case here too with Aromanian etc. I proposed, which has escaped your attention, that Istro-Romanian and Daco-Romanian came into being on a Dacian substrate and the rest on a Thracuian substrate.
> contains whole lotta linguistic (phonetic and lexical) stuff
> that is in accordance with various equivalents that once also
> existed in Northern Romanian ("Dacoromanian"), and others that
> are still alive and kicking in Romanian subdialects too (and
> absent in the variety of standard, official Romanian).
> What would fit is the Latin vernacular (and then theYes that is the standard theory, which you are now lecturing me about, as every linguist knows.
> Vulgata) spoken by compact Roman and Romanized populations in the
> whole province of Illyricum (roughly Dalmatia) after the Roman
> conquest.
> So that the Avar kagan Bayan could order the relocationEtc etc.
> of a considerable Romance population from there to other provinces
> (I forgot which chroniclers wrote on this).
> But what about those linguists who, after analyzing the LatinI won't doubt Bonfante's assertion that 'Romanian is ... the popular Latin of the second century after Christ', but I will doubt the following one: 'it is neither older nor younger than that date, which is the date of the colonization of Dacia'; I grant that it is not younger, but all he can deduce from his data is that Romanian *separated* from popular Latin at that time, not that was generated then. A Creole can coexist with the language it is based on for some time, I'll wager eg., without actually having proof of it, that Tok Pisin adopted and still adopts words from English after its inception.
> elements of Romanian, have concluded that Romanian is a derivation
> of a Latin not earlier than the 1st/2nd century CE? For example
> Giuliano Bonfante: re-read the citation posted by Peter Gray in
> 2003:
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/21722
>Well shut up then.
> > Okay, you have no evidence other than the fact that other
> > proposals are being taught at universities.
>
> I don't have the time to prepare appropriate texts for you.
> But it suffices to underline to you the fact that Istroromanian isThat would just show that Istro-Romanian and Daco-Romanian made up one trading community apart from the other Romanian dialects.
> no archaic Romanian, it went through the same transformations as
> did Romanian (Dacoromanian). Aromanian has some features that
> really seem more archaic than Istroromanian and Dacoromanian (or
> at least it is more conservative as far as some developments
> are concerned).
> But all Romanian dialects are late developments (7-8-9 centuriesWe have no evidence for that one way or another. What will you build on 'Torna, torna, fratre'?
> after the era of those slave markets); they are the result of
> those *centuries* of Roman state extended in the whole area.
> For centuries, the language was Latin, not Proto-Romanian,Restating your belief again, with no evidence one way or another. Ignored.
> regardless of the degree of correctness. Even if Romanization
> had started in those slave markets in the 1st century BCE, it
> had virtually no impact (ein Tropfen auf dem heißen Stein) on
> the development of the neo-Romance language called Proto-Romanian
> (i.e., the decay and distortion of local Latin, the transformation
> process being for a quite long while parallel, or the same, as
> compared with the other neo-Romance languages, esp. with Italian
> and even Old French)
> >That is a restatement of your belief. Ignored.On no evidence, you mean.
>
> This is not my belief: this is what's been taught and stated based
> on sound judgment.
> Show me an author who has stated and given?? Is that what you think I've proposed? I didn't.
> evidence that prior to the 6th-8th century there were additional
> Romance languages, and not only Latin and its neighboring ancient
> "Italic" Romance languages.
> Show me the work of an author whoI make my own proposals, I don't regurgitate other people's. If I have nothing new to contribute, I shut up.
> has stated (and is being taken seriously by the sc. community)
> that at least one of the Proto-Neo-Romance languages existed
> between AD 0-500 or earlier (when there was only Latin and its
> dialectal kinship).
> >Of course they do. Those theories and laws are a description ofA creole based on some language is not that language and a Latin-based creole is not Latin. You have no clue what you are talking about.
> >fact, but they may equally well be understood as a description of a
> >regular slow development of a single language as as a description
> >of the development from a language into a creole based on that
> >language.
>
> Yes, but that "creole" thing was STILL Latin!
> If I'd learn DanishPidgins are created on the spur of the moment and are not really languages, unlike creoles. It would be another matter if a massive number of Germans moved into the country and learned Danish badly (unlikely scenario, instead of speaking German LOUDLY to the natives). That would produce a creole, which BTW you could already argue the modern Continental North Germanic (Swedish, Danish, Norwegian) languages are.
> and then communicate with you in some sort of... Pidgin-Danish,
> it would be Danish, and not a new thingamagig language.
> >Restating your belief. Ignored.You haven't read them and you present no evidence for them. You presenting factoids you haven't researched yourself will hardly rewrite history.
>
> I have no beliefs in these matters: I only give some credit to those
> who present hypotheses, models, theories that are well thought,
> logical, documented (welche in sich stimmig sind). If, by doing
> so, parts of history have to be rewritten, it'll be okay with me.
> >It is not my problem that you can't extract the line of reasoningNo, you learn some goddam manners and academic decorum!! Your debating style of commenting on half sentences before you have read even to the next full stop with wild rants which show you have misunderstood the half sentence to mean something else is particular to you and to no one else.
> >behind the standard theories from standard textbooks, it's yours.
>
> I like this sentence: it's well put, as if you've quoted my
> thought. ;)
>
> >Again you break up a paragraph, distorting its meaning.
>
> Learn communication via email!
> I (and every non-bloody newb onYou are not selecting anything. You even complain of contents missing in a sentence which appear in the next, without bothering to delete your obviously mistaken first comment when you read on. Das ist eine Schlamperei, George, and not worthy of someone who wants to participate in an academic debate.
> earth) select out of the thicket of a posted message that what's
> relevant to ME in order to discuss aspects/themes/subjects that
> are relevant to ME. This means that I don't discuss all points
> that are riveted in your mind, but only SOME of them.
> >I ignore nothing of the sort. I'm saying these transformations andI just read in the paper that in central Copenhagen only 76% do, besides one predominantly Danish one was destroyed by arson recently (Sweden has appr. 500 school fires a year, half of them arson). Also schools are becoming segregated as Danish parents are taking their children to private schools. Result: immigrants are developing sub-dialects.
> >vocabulary changes can be equally well explained by as the result
> >of creolization as the result of changes within a single language,
> >which is the standard proposal today.
>
> This is not true, for God's sake. Go in your town to the Arabs,
> Turks and other foreigners and see how they learn Danish: if they
> grow up there and go to kindergarten and school there, any
> foreigner is able to speak Danish as a native-speaker.
> The "bastardization" and pidginization of Latin in order toRestatement of belief ... Ignored.
> become French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan, Rumansh,
> Romanian, Sardinian, Corsican etc. happened only because of the
> decay of Latin in the aftermath of the ... implosion of "Romania"!
> The vast population didn't have FOR CENTURIES any possibilityStandard theory, which we all know.
> to be corrected by a school system. Only extreme few people
> (clergy, monks) dealt with classical Latin. So that regional
> variants of Kaputt-Latin differed so grievously that in the
> 8th-9th centuries some scholars complained (in vain: it was
> too late) of the adulteration of regional "Latin" variants,
> which by then were those Proto-French, Proto-Italian, Proto-etc.
> The linguistic "archeology" of all Romanian dialects andMultisecular? You mean centuries-long?
> sub-dialects show that this language went through exactly the
> same multisecular process as the other neo-Romance languages.
> And the closest similarities, for Romanian, within this longInteresting, since those are the provinces of the Arberësht dialects of Albanian. So perhaps those Italian dialects are based on the Latin sociolect of the slaves (cf. the similar situation in Greece)?
> process were and are in all dialects of the Italian language
> (esp. those of the middle and south, incl. Sicilianu - so
> that there were some scholars who even thought of a possible
> origin for the Romanian language in a hypothetical emigration
> of contingents from Sicilia, Calabria and Abruzzi east of the
> Adriatic sea).
> Lacking schools and state institutions, any language "shrinks",Long and boring repetition of things we all know.
> and phonological and lexical diverging tendencies grow in
> significance in time; after centuries the differences are
> tremendous (dialects become other languages). The Amish in
> America speak South-German. Their ancestors left Germany and
> Austria only 200-250 years ago, yet for a German, Austrian
> or Swiss guy is difficult to communicate with them, because
> Amish German is quite "shrunken", its vocabulary (naturally!)
> poor and fulla Anglicisms. Much the more is the effect in
> Transylvanian German spoken by Transylvanian Saxons: their
> ancestors went thither many centuries ago; so that their
> German dialects are even more difficult to understand than
> Swiss Alemanian; therefore, those people must talk to you
> in Hochdeutsch so that you'll be able to communicate with
> them (although you are in command of other two Germanic
> idioms, Danish and English). But Transylvanian Germans always
> had their own German institutions, above all schools, where
> they learnt the contemporary Hochdeutsch, as well as their
> scholars were always in contact with their colleagues living
> in the "Reich". Romanians ceased to partake in the Romance
> continuum of "Romania" already in the 7th century. But in
> spite of that, to a Romanian it is not more difficult to
> learn Italian or Spanish quite quickly than to an Englishman
> to learn Dutch or German (the same time period for the split
> between Anglo-Saxon and Dutch+German, or "Bastarnian" if you
> prefer).
> This is the main and real thing of your "creolization" inSo your saying that my proposal is the same as the old proposal? No, it isn't.
> virtually all European languages. Don't hurry up comparing
> creole situations in the "new world" and in Asia, coz you'll
> end up in a Sackgasse.
> > Here is the whole passage, which you broke up as usual:I put the passage there not for its content but to show that the two sentences you split apart belonged together. Now you are commenting on its content which had already done earlier without calling a Binsenweisheit. Here is the paragraph in its original context:
> > 'To any Roman, Proto-Romanian would be very bad Latin. So would
> > Proto-Spanish, Proto-French etc.'
>
> Hey, Mistah Linguist: this is a "Binsenweisheit", mah man,
> really! This is taught in the 1st semester to students (at least
> here in Germany).
> Nobody knows how good or how bad was the LatinMe: To any Roman, Proto-Romanian would be very bad Latin. So would
> spoken by the Romanized populations in the relevant provinces
> from the 1st century CE until the Avar+Slavic conquests (and
> territorial abandonments by the E-Roman Empire).
> And they are also taught that Proto-neo-RomanceRestatement of belief. Ignored.
> (any and every of them) of course were bad Latin (there are
> a few written relics of complain, preserved in the Frankish
> empire, from the 8th or 9th century, I don't remember exactly).
> Why? Because, after reaching the phase of Proto-ness, we can
> no longer talk of the Latin language, creolized or not, but of
> new Romance languages - because the lexial, grammar, phonetic
> differences are far too big! The differences are way beyond
> those differences that had existed between classical official
> Latin and various types of vernacular, dialects, that already
> had shown grammar simplifications and errors (compared with
> "normal" Latin).
> In AD400 (the era of St. Hieronym's Vulgata Bible) there wereZzzzz.
> no proto-languages derived from Latin; only after about 400
> more years, when hoc ille est gradually "shrank" to oc and oui.
>
> >You criticized the first sentence for not putting Spanish andNo, you didn't. You criticized the first sentence for not putting Spanish and French on an equal footing with Romanian. The next sentence does that. In other words, you are commenting at whim on your first reading through the posting without even reading one sentence ahead. And as usual, when someone points out your mistakes, you change the subject and wildly accuse your opponent of something completely unrelated.
> >French on an equal footing with Romanian. The next sentence
> >does that. In other words, you are commenting at whim on your
> >first reading through the posting without even reading one
> >sentence ahead.
>
> I am commenting a stubborn and naive use of the word Proto-<xxx>
> for language evolution phases 7-8-9 centuries earlier.
> As youOf course I will have to use new terminology, including a new word for 'Old Bastarnian', since I can't use 'OHG' which has already been taken; I have discussed that already. The fact that you try to revive that old accusation shows how desperately short of counterarguments you are.
> did when comparing OHG, MHG and NHG with Germanic idioms 500-600
> years older than Jordanes's Gothic! That's what I was and am
> doing! To a linguist, your kind of comparison and Wortwahl are
> a no-go!
>I disagree with you.
> > Well, we disagree there.
>
> You do not disagree with me, since it doesn't matter what I'm
> saying:
> I'm no representative of the "guild". You disagree with theThe difference being?
> "community".
> So, show me how you manage to convince the communityNo.
> you are right and the community has been for many decades wrong.
> >And your righteous sockpuppet continues pummeling the Dacian-You don't know what you are saying? What have you been smoking?
> >is-Romanian nationalist sockpuppet in the continued belief that
> >he is Torsten
>
> What did you smoke? :-)
>
> >You're not threatening me, George, are you?
>
> What are you talking about?
>
> >Exactly what are you trying to say here?
>
> Ask the moderators of this group.
> >>>What linguistic realities are you accusing me of neglecting?If it would take you weeks and months to get an overview over the fields on which you have so strong opinions perhaps you should let the matter rest?
> >>
> >>Tons of them.
> >
> >Which ones?
>
> Do you really expect me to collect them for you? To spend weeks
> or months? And then to reply "Circular. Ignored".
> >Restating your belief. Ignored.Erh?
>
> This is no belief, this is standard; and based on obvious
> simple evidence. It is you who's *obliged* to prove that
> those languages existed many centuries prior to their "invention".
> >As you noted yourself, and what is standard theory, is thatYes, I know. The simpler theory is to assume just one substrate in Romanian and that the ancestor of Albanian was that substrate.
> >Albanian is a continuation (although strongly influenced) of the
> >language which appears as a substrate in Romanian.
>
> Put it in these terms: both languages share a common substrate.
> This conclusion is based on a certain shared vocabulary (whose
> Albanian and Romanian phonologic variants quite differ or
> differ very much, cf. modhullä <> mazäre) and a shared "collection"
> of locutions (cf. "union linguistique balkanique").
> This is all we know. Whether Albanian might be a transformedI know.
> Thracian idiom or Dacian or Moesian or even Illyrian, it remains
> only a hypothesis.
> >Obviously the Romanians were more eager to speak the local LatinI can't see why.
> >creole at home than the Albanians were.
>
> This is a hypothesis too, but a much weaker one.
> Why RomanianOccam would advise you to assume a single source.
> has, along with later (tremendous) Slavic & al. influences
> (components), this special common heritage, nobody knows for
> sure.
> But be asured, there are several hypotheses, not onlyMy favorite model situation of such a process is what my Estonian teacher told me: she worked in an office with a Finnish girl, and since their mother tongues are mutually incomprehensible, they would commincate in English, but, on the occasions where their English vocabulary was insufficient for some situation, they would try an Estonianor Finnish word, which sometimes worked, since there is som similarities in single words between their two mother tongues.
> one. One says that the vulgar-Latin speaking population in
> those "dark ages" in the 7th-8th-9th centuries lived together
> or nextdoor-neighbors with the ancestors of Albanians. Others
> say the Romanian variants of the shared vocabulary have
> characteristics that show earlier phases of their development;
> and others say just this feature might be an additional hint
> that Proto-Romanians borrowed that vocabulary from the ancestors
> of Albanians and did not inherit it. (And other scholars say
> that there are "markers" hinting that Albanians' ancestors
> must have lived in the first millennium in areas of today's
> Serbia and Banate, which coincides to a great extent with one
> part of the "cradle" of Romanian ethnogenesis.)
>
> And last but not least: after centuries of "Romania" in the
> northern "half" of the Peninsula (at least down to the East-
> West line of former "Via Egnantia", that roughly coincides
> with Skok and Jir^ec^ek linguistic lines), the Latin-speaking
> population, that didn't migrate to Italy, was composed not
> only of local Romanized Moesian, Dacian, Thracian, Pannonian,
> but also of various different elements who were colonized
> there during the centuries and whose ancestors came from all
> provinces of "Romania". Your assertion that Albanians are
> the continuators of Carps occurred not from "ungefähr", but
> because you speculated that "free Dacian" tribes who joined
> in "a bit" later on were supposed to have been exposed to
> Romanization to a much lesser extent or not at all compared
> with other populations that had lived under SPQR for centuries.
> Who knows? Maybe. But it could also have been that some
> marginal populations did not Romanize or were slow in that
> process; then came the Avar + Slavic "whirlwind", "Romania"
> retreated and disappeared, so that the linguistic Romanization
> of some stayed in "Kinderschuhen", whereas the Latin of the
> others decayed in the next 3 centuries to come, and grew more
> and more distorted, and enriched with foreign vocabulary
> (substrate + Slavic + Turkic + Greek), since there was no
> teacher around to teach them "grammar".
> >As you noted yourself, and what is standard theory, is thatI gave you the reason why one can't use general statements about the tendency to switch languages here so it's not about you, and you know it.
> >Albanian is a continuation (although strongly influenced) of the
> >language which appears as a substrate in Romanian.
> >Therefore, you can't use general statements about the tendency to
> >switch languages here.
>
> Of course I can't, coz this is your privilege and monopoly, isn't
> it! :>
> >Obviously two populations here reacted very differently, so theyOk.
> >must have been in different circumstances. We should find out
> >what they were.
>
> We don't know how many populations were there and how they
> interacted and what percentage switched languages becoming
> Proto-Croats, Proto-Serbs, and Slavic Bulgarians. We even don't
> know how many Huns colonized there (among them some called
> "Hunni fossatisi") joined the Romance population or the
> Slavic population. Etc. What we know is what resisted until
> modern times: the Romanian-speaking population known by an
> exonym Vlach(os), the Albanian-speaking population (that was
> mentioned for the first time a bit later than the first
> mentioning of the Vlachs) and a small population speaking
> the second Romance idiom, Dalmatian. The rest is known under
> the ethnonyms Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian, Bulgarian (and
> of course, the Greek). Two former "upper crust" populations
> disappeared as language + culture, but has lived on within
> the other nations: Avars and Bulghars (Protobulgars). We
> even don't know to what extend there were Iranic (Sarmatian)
> elements assimilated by those peoples (esp. by South-Slavs),
> and whether some Germmanics temporarily living there (Goths,
> but especially Gepids) were also assimilated; e.g. Serbian
> archeologists say necropoles in Serbia (e.g. in the Gradiska
> area) show that Gepids were buried in the same cemeteries as
> the local Romance Christian populace).
> >Could you rephrase this? If you can't express it in English, youStrabo 7, 3, 11
> >could do it in German. I'll try to make sense of it.
>
> It doesn't matter, not important enough. It'll do to retain your
> main message: "inception of Romanization in the Trieste area,
> due to slaves An- und Verkauf"; and that you haven't yet explained
> the signification of the Romanization process in the Peninsula
> regions for the migrations, relocations etc. of Bastarnae & al.
> >Well the whole started about ten years ago with me trying to makeHow were Romanized ... played no role ...? Could you rephrase?
> >sense of Snorri's and Saxo's story that Odin came from somewhere
> >around the Black Sea to Scandinavia, and it developed from there.
> >As for transformation of the Roman population in the North of the
> >Balkan Peninsula after the withdrawal of the Roman administration,
> >state, army I don't have much to say, since I haven't studied it.
>
> I know your "proposals" referring to Odin as well as to Bastarnae.
> But I still don't get why dealing with how were Romanized some of
> those populations living in Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania: Vlachs
> and Albanians played no role in the movements concerning
> Bastarnae, Elbgermanen, Langobards & al. Germanic tribes, or did
> they?
> >Why? Because white folks don't speak creole?No, because of a creolization process.
>
> In the case of the Roman population it became "creole" because of
> a... decay process.
> In time, they... forgot much of their languageRestatement of belief in standard theory. Ignored.
> (Latin). That's why. Esp. because those who were genuine Romans
> (Latins), the Italians suffered the same thing (they even forgot
> their own word for "war" and borrowed a Germanic word in order
> to form guerra; they forgot albus-alba-album (with some
> exceptions in the periphery) and had to replace it with the
> Germanic blank > bianco).
> >In theory, yes, but they are drifting apart. And Norse (andIt's more complicated, because it the cases you mentioned there is a 'correct' language and a 'deviant' variant. Both Danish and Swedish are official languages, which means that adopting words from the other side can be politicized in a conversation, if one of the parties wishes to do so (basically thus stating that Swedish is bad Danish or vice versa). But things are in a state of flux because of the facts of immigration creeping up on people, so old rules don't apply.
> >Icelandic and Faroese) definitely not, we can't understand a single
> >word of them. Usually it takes a few weeks to months of immersion
> >for Danes and Swedes to be comfortable in the linguistic milieu on
> >the other side. It also depends on attitude, of course.
>
> So the differences aren't bigger than between Plattdeutsch and
> Oberdeutsch (or betw. Romanian and Aromanian).
> >Of course not, that's like saying the port of Berlin is the mostCrawford doesn't mention Sarmizegetusa, those hoards were found all over Dacia.
> >important for import and export in Germany, not that of Hamburg.
>
> Yes, but take into consideration where archeologists unearthed
> the most significant quantities of coins, esp. of gold. I don't
> know exactly how and where, since I don't care, but I remember
> vaguely that Sarmizegetusa is one very important "address" (and
> even today there are tens of people who mostly illegally search
> the area for the much desired gold coins "cossoni". (If I don't
> forget and if I have enough leisure time, I'll look up info on
> this.)
>Your nausea over linguistic definitions is not relevant to the question of their validity.
>
> > As I already said, the creation of a creole is not dependent on
> > whether the adopting people switches voluntarily or under duress.
>
> Do not repeat "definitions" ad nauseam!
> Refer to the subjectRestatement of faith in traditional proposal. Ignored.
> and consider what really happened. Creole hypothesis might
> fit some parts of populations over there (esp. those reluctant
> or not able to better learn Latin), but is not applicable to
> the entire Romance population living in vast areas for at least
> 4-5 centuries within "Romania" (and of which many were genuine
> Romans or representatives of other nations that had been
> Romanized for a long time, in other provinces of the empire).
> The Romanized population didn't consist only of Pannonians,
> Illyrians, Moesians-Dacians and Thracians.
> >So what?Tell me what it is, George.
>
> Instead of reacting this way, just think a bit and realize that
> whole processes might have occurred in several other ways, and
> not only in one way out of your own imagination; at least take
> into consideration what the all those Romanists and Thracologues
> have published sofar.
> >Okay, so you think Albanians are stupid. What else do you want toI would be, if I made such sweeping statements of the Albanians.
> >teach me?
>
> Mann, biste krank oder bloß unterzuckert?
> >I can't follow your reasoning here. Please explain.Ok.
>
> No, I won't.
> >No, we're not. I know you Germans don't get it, no matter how oftenIs that advice from your own perspective, George?
> >the Danes tell you. It's like telling someone who has a crush on
> >you that you're not interested, you always come back with new
> >reinterpretations.
>
> If you stick to theories and don't like to read/hear other
> opinions, then do not communicate them to other people: keep
> them for yourself and for your buddies whom you might have
> and who'll tell you "yessir!"
> On the other hand, I don't care what Germans think of DanesYes, and by the way, you didn't want that ice cream cone anyway. That's the way they usually react to that information, so normally I keep it to myself.
> and what Danes think of Germans (geht mir völlig am Allerwertesten
> vorbei).