>The present size and social importance of a dialect is in principle
>irrelevant to its role in the past so your objection is invalid.
I meant the whole time period: 1,500 years. Insignificance and
recentness in the Croatian-Slovenian history.
>It is very common in the common conception of languages outside of
>linguistic circles to ascribe great conservatism to minor
I'm talking about real facts, that have been studied by the most
competent scholars in the field. On top of that, some of the
"frozen" features can be remarked even without linguistic
knowledge (for instance, the intermediary status of the -l- in
the article and demonstrative pronoun, which in Romanian can be
assumed based on linguistic rules/laws, but which in Aromanian can
be seen as living fossiles; and many scores of other groups of
features).
I ain't telling you my own impressions (or "beliefs", as you put it),
but what science, esp. Romance linguistics, has published (above all
the first "echelon" of researchers in the 19th-20th-21th cent.).
I can't provide you references and citations, because this would
require weeks, months, and I don't have the time - unless you'd
pay me 3,000 euro a month plus VAT: then I'd "ransack" the
libraries and copy all relevant stuff for you. And I'm not quite
"outside of l. circles": I myself studied linguistics towards the
end of the '70s, but I had to renounce for reasons that had
nothing to do with this "hobby", that stayed alive 'n' kickin'
(this is why I've subscribed to the list, where I enjoy learning
some stuff).
>and isolated dialects, but they rarely have any factual basis, and
>that is the case here too with Aromanian etc.
How can you make a judgment if you have no knowledge on these
languages and on which is what and of the significant details?!?
Don't you realize that you follow only the thread of a tale your
mind has randomly imagined, and then you try adapting history
(and linguistics only as a "footnote") on Procrust's bed?
>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.
No need to tell me, man, because I've known that since 1965.
(BTW, were you born in 1965?)
And keep in mind: "the rest on a Thracian substrate" is BS.
It is only an assumption by some (not all) Aromanian scholars
(of whom only some have the adequate level of linguistic training,
such as was dame Matilda Caragiu-Mariotzeanu).
Because nobody knows what exactly was the substrate; and nobody
knows in how far Dacian-Moesian-Thracian were differentiated: only
as Mundart? As dialects? As languages (e.g. as Czech and Slovakian)?
Both Dacian and Thracian languages are not known, except some
scattered words, some antroponyms, toponyms, hydronyms, oronyms.
So no researcher on earth can ascribe most of the Romanian
substrate vocabulary.
>Yes that is the standard theory, which you are now lecturing me
>about, as every linguist knows.
And I understand your intention: you'd like to be an "iconoclast".
OK, be an iconoclast, but put some substance on display. Up to
now, esp. as far as that Thracoid Romanized region is concerned,
the substance is zilch; only weak speculations on some slaves
and dealers as well as the using of the word Proto-Romanian in
the context of the 1st century BCE.
You don't take seriously my objections. That's OK. But present your
theory to the luminaries in this field of research, do publish it
in linguistic reviews. (And those Romanists and Tracologues who
might have subscribed to Cybalist keep mum. I presume why. :))
> > So that the Avar kagan Bayan could order the relocation
> > of a considerable Romance population from there to other provinces
> > (I forgot which chroniclers wrote on this).
>
>Etc etc.
Then how. in your imagination, could have a tiny population around
Trieste generate a huge population speaking Latina vulgata in the
entire area between Greece and Noricum and the Tissa plus nothern
Dacia and the Black Sea without the contribution of the Roman
Empire by extending its system in the whole area and without the
contribution of colonists? (Colonists of which most of the chro-
niclers wrote until the Renaissance and baroque eras.)
I.e. how can an insignificant population of, say, 2-3 thousand
people speaking sort of a Pidgin-Latin create a vast population
of hundreds of thousands or 1-2 milion people that give up their
own language and culture in order to use that Pidgin idiom
and observe Saturnalia, Lupercalia & many other such festivities
*exclussively*? Since this would be an outstanding feat.
> I 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.
I read it in a bit different way: that the Latin type which centuries
later on turned to Proto-Romanian show (according to him and other
analysts) features of the one spoken in those centuries, which co-
incide with the timeframe of the defeat of Decebalus's Dacia.
(The southern linguistic Dacian areas had then already been included
in the Roman Empire: areas that today are called Dardania, Serbia,
Northern Bulgaria; and the province that's called Thrace.)
If these researchers are right (that there are some "markers" in
the Romanian dialects for the timeframe of the beginnings), then
this is an additional objection to your hypothesis (1st c. BCE).
>A Creole can coexist with the language it is based on for some time
I know that. It's high time you reduce these generalities and
concentrate your attention on the subject matter, and really
denkst nach when reading the replies.
>I'll wager eg., without actually having proof of it, that Tok Pisin
>adopted and still adopts words from English after its inception.
This doesn't have to mean something. Look, Romanian has whole
lotta Slavic words (you'd be baffled to realize how much of
them). The same apply to Hungarian. Yet neither Romanian, nor
Hungarian are incipient creolized, pidginized Slavic languages.
Moreover, about 65% of the English vocabulary is Romance, and
still nobody says English is sort of a German language turned
to Pidgin-French. But you dare advance such thoughts on unknown
peoples and languages, and at the same time you completely
neglect, or deliberately ignore that what really happened:
Italy, that is the Roman Empire, occupied those territories and
kept them as its own provinces for about 5-6 centuries (except
for Northern Dacia), starting from the West (where Illyricum
became the first area of the Romanization: there one can
speculate that the Romanization started in the 1st c. BCE,
and that perhaps all of Illyrians (and their brethren Pannonians)
were Latin native-speakers by the 2nd century CE, unlike Dacians,
of whom many were never included in the Roman Empire under
Roman jurisdiction and administration).
5-6 centuries of Romanization of the whole kit and caboodle,
as well as with the entire arsenal of "tools" and possibilities
and opportunities -- and all this means nothing to you. Instead,
you fix your attention on some hypothetical and minor
ethno-social aspect some time prior to "Romania's" extension in
the Peninsula and try to establish a link to the Proto-Romanian
population during the Proto-Bulgar and Slavic domination of
the era (i.e. a jump from the beginning of the 1st c. BCE to
the 8th-9th-10th c. CE, i.e. almost one millennium; exactly as
in the case of Bastarnae > Alt-/Mittelhochdeutsch Germans). As
though there was no "Romania" there for about five centuries.
>That would just show that Istro-Romanian and Daco-Romanian made up
>one trading community apart from the other Romanian dialects.
Which is not true. Moreover, all studied features of the other
two dialects of the South, Aromanian and Meglenite Romanian,
had their territorial origin in the same area with the other
two - and namely roughly North of the lines proposed by Skok
and Jir^ec^ek. Which means that all Aromanians of Southern
Albania and Greece some time prior to the 10th c. moved from
the North to the South. (Which would also fit the geography
and graduality of the South-Slavic spreading/colonization.)
>>But all Romanian dialects are late developments (7-8-9 centuries
>>after the era of those slave markets); they are the result of
>>those *centuries* of Roman state extended in the whole area.
>
>We have no evidence for that one way or another.
There's a lot: whole lotta evidence of the Roman state in all
those provinces (when, how long, in which way, in how far). And
evidence on how spoken Latin diverged from written Latin, how
and when certain features (phonology, syntax, vocabulary)
occurred, and which of them were significant for the later
Romance languages (e.g. why k became c^ in Italian, Old French,
Romanian, why s in French and Spanish, and why tz in other
idioms). Nix geschieht von ungefähr.
>What will you build on 'Torna, torna, fratre'?
I'd only wonder whether fratRe instead of the later (and definitive,
for Italian and Romanian) frate really was still there in the 6th
century. Otherwise, it could be a hint that they were members of
the speaker community of addled Latin becoming Proto-Romanian.
>Restating your belief again, with no evidence one way or
>another. Ignored.
OK, then be happy in your state of an ignoramus, who's fond of
ingoring (hence his/her fitting name :)).
>?? Is that what you think I've proposed? I didn't.
Of course you did - by using the wording "Proto-Romanian" for
a hypothetical few people who hypothetically spoke some bad
Latin near the Adriatic Sea in the 1st half of the 1st century
BCE. You repeat this (and prompt my replies) many a time, but
you forget it.
>I make my own proposals, I don't regurgitate other people's. If I >have nothing new to contribute, I shut up.
But you are still aware of the dichotomy of the possibilities,
I suppose: that your "proposals" might be good, or might be
completely wrong.
>a Latin-based creole is not Latin. You have no clue what you are >talking about.
Indeed, it is in vain to discuss with you (the real linguist
members of this group are justified in their not interfering!):
in almost every post of you there are moments when you simply
do not understand what the other person says and, moreover, you
misunderstand what's said.
>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).
Of course it is unlike, because their children will attend
the Danish schooling system within a Danish environment, so
they'd speak a perfect Danish and no perfect German (i.e.
many of them with foreign accent, flawed grammar and poor
vocabulary). Pidgin and creole phenomena can occur only in
certain conditions.
>That would produce a creole, which BTW you could already argue
>the modern Continental North Germanic (Swedish, Danish,
>Norwegian) languages are.
Well, from the "reich"'s point of view, these are sort of ...
kaputtes Deutsch. :) (Actually, the comparison is quite useful,
damit du dir ein näheres Bild machen kannst, was aber oft nicht
gelingt: in some circumstances, Aromanian, Istroromanian,
Meglenoromanian are as close/remote to Romanian as are Swedish
and Norwegian to Danish, in some circumstances as far as
German dialects to Danish; with a major difference: phonology
is very similar though).
>You haven't read them and you present no evidence for them. You
>presenting factoids you haven't researched yourself will hardly
>rewrite history.
Read and *understand* what I'm writing! Don't project your
preconceived rickety thoughts in my sentences. I wrote of
*your* procedure. It's not me the one who's obsessed with
rewriting Odin's, Ariovist's, Harigast's story, neither that
of Bastarnians, and of the German and Romanian languages!
Only because Snorri Sturlasson put that tale on paper saying
that you, Fischöppe are actually Alan Scythians. BTW, why
don't you deal with Cimmerians, Sarmatians, Iazyges, Alans?
They better fit the (fictitious) Odin lineage than Burebista,
according to all traces left.
>No, 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.
No, you are wrong.
And this time I respectfully ask the intervention of the owners
and moderators of Cybalist for an arbitrage. On top of that,
AFAIK, everyone among them is a reputed real linguist.
So, gentlemen, pls. tell us: who is right as far as the layout
style in messages, esp. the quotation "techniques", is concerned?
>Das ist eine Schlamperei, George, and not worthy of someone who >wants to participate in an academic debate.
An academic debate does not require the REPETITION (and ad nauseam
at that) of long texts parts on which both parties agree. An
academic debate does not allow itself repeat long text excerpts
to put below them an insolent line consisting in "circular;
ignored; sockpuppetry" and no other brief explanations, arguments,
judgments in order to show the other fugger WHY.
And finally: an academic debate means an exchange of info based
on logical nexuses, and paying attention to hints alerting one
that something goes wrong with the network of nexuses. These are
the most important aspects, IMHO.
>Result: immigrants are developing sub-dialects.
Jetzt biste in meinen Klauen gelandet! >:-) Now an additional
mental step, please: think of "Romania" after her destruction;
the Latin-speaking population bereaved of administration, schools
etc. developed Latin/Romance idioms that year after year diverged
in such a way from written Latin that, after 2-3-4 centuries,
those dialects became independent languages (with their own,
individual, structures - from any point of view).
This is what in the case of the neo-Romance languages you neglect,
ingnore or disconsider. This is why you cling to your theory
(that might function when applied to a tiny population, not to
the entire area, that was divided, and redivided, and reredivided
into various entities under various other dominant nations).
This must be your first thought in judging the possibilities.
And then, the second thought, if in a beginning phase there
was a "creolization", then how could the Romanization get
so profound, so thorough? I mean during those 4-5-6 centuries
of SPQR-statehood. You imply that during the entire period
there was only sort of creole or "Yiddish" kind of Latin spoken
by all the people (even by the colonists who came from other
Roman provinces), and that the Roman civilization with its
institutions and population played no role from Aquileia/Venice
to Tomis and Callatis.
This is what you imply with your statements "Proto-Romanian"
7 centuries earlier and with "creole".
>>The "bastardization" and pidginization of Latin in order to
>>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"!
>
>Restatement of belief ... Ignored.
But there are some written statements from old times where
scholars and clergy people complained of wrong usage of
words and on wrong grammar! Pieces of written information
attesting instances in the long period of the transformation
of Latin > any of the neo-Romance languages. There was always
a small community of learned people who were in command of
correct Latin and who saw the divergent linguistic movement
within the community of the former Imperium Romanum population
of native-speakers.
I have no beliefs, I would gladly accept your theory, but
the evidence shown and analyzed so far is an obstacle one
cannot do away with. :)
>Standard theory, which we all know.
Then why doesn't it interact with your thoughts? Hm? If it
doesn't, then, ergo, something must be wrong with your type
of judgment. And this ought to prompt you re-reflect your
judgment.
>Multisecular? You mean centuries-long?
Yes, saecula saeculorum. It happens when one's in a hurry.
>Interesting, 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)?
Bißerl gewagt your hypothesis, since 2/3 of the Italian dialects
(they say) incl. those on the isles are in the same position; and
that some Romanists for many decades have proposed a different
taxonomy within the Romance languages classification: Italian &
Romanian forming a separate group.
But here again: aren't you able to realize the enormous time
span? Let's say, if there is something in your hypothesis concerning
the slaves (since they were a considerable part of an ancient
population), but how the heck can such a foreign population
maintain its non-Latineness in Italy from the 1st c. BCE until
the immigrations of the Langobards and of the Avars, and not
be able to learn proper Latin during so many centuries? Moreover:
and to teach the autochtonous people their own kind of Kaputtlatin
and prompt the native-speakers forget proper Latin!
>Long and boring repetition of things we all know.
Well, if you know all that and if you aren't able to use the
information in order to see what's relevant and why some parts
of your hypotheses can't work, then ... "lasciate ogni speranza".
>I put the passage there not for its content but to show that
>the two sentences you split apart belonged together.
Sheesh, again with your "splits". As if you were ... a bot that keep
giving me these retorts! (Childish, really.)
>Me: To any Roman, Proto-Romanian would be very bad Latin. So would
>Proto-Spanish, Proto-French etc.
>
>To which you now comment:
>Hey, Mistah Linguist: this is a "Binsenweisheit", mah man,
>really! This is taught in the 1st semester to students (at least
>here in Germany).
I realise that I should have put it in other words: no Roman
would have deemed Proto-Romanian or Proto-French or Proto-Italian
or Proto-Whatchamacallit *Latin*! Exactly because they were already
Proto-Italian/French/Spanish/Romanian etc. Different languages.
As differentiated as is your Danish compared with low German or
with high German. It is you the one who's taxonomy of the notions
subdialect, dialect, language, creolized, pidginized etc. is a
little bit tohuwabohued.
>So what you are saying is
>
>1) Nobody knows how good or how bad was the Latin spoken by the
>Romanized populations in the relevant provinces from the 1st
>century CE etc was.
But every real linguist (which you are by no means, even if you
show me a diploma and a title summa cum laudae) agrees that
Romanized populations spoke a Latin or another as good as the
Latin spoken by Italy's populations (in Latium, Etruria,
Padania, Messapia, Iapygia, Sicily etc.) Which is a Binsenweisheit,
a self-understood thing.
>2) It is a Binsenweisheit, ie common knowledge, that Proto-Romanian,
>Proto-Spanish, Proto-French etc was very bad Latin.
Of course. But that "proto" belongs to a timeperiod after the 5th,
6th, 7th centuries and not prior to the year of the incarnationis
of our Lord Yehoshua ben Yussef.
>In other words, you are saying I should know this supposed common
>knowledge which you yourself flat out contradicted a few postings >ago.
No, you are wrong: you misread, or (rather) misunderstood. And why?
Because you are full of preconceived thoughts. Because I read in
your posts only sporadically in the past, I didn't realize how
flawed are your logic, imagination and acumen (Urteilskraft). If
I had realized, I would have never started any discussion with
you. I regret having wasted *my* time.
>This unbelievable slovenliness of yours will have to go, George. >This is not something grown-ups do, let alone academics.
Okay, then drive the other George crazy with your foolish
topsy-turvy cabbage that's in your skull. His comparison in
which he resorted to the Holocaust thingamagig showed that
you must unnerved him with your logic from the Andromeda
galaxy in such a way that I thought he'd plonkomatize you. :-)
> Restatement of belief. Ignored.
If it is the belief based on facts and exhaustive analysis by
an army of scientific scholars, then the "belief" will be OK
with me. Who am I to contradict them? I ain't no Torsten. :)
>>In AD400 (the era of St. Hieronym's Vulgata Bible) there were
>>no proto-languages derived from Latin; only after about 400
>>more years, when hoc ille est gradually "shrank" to oc and oui.
>
>Zzzzz.
Wake up! In AD400 there was no proto-neo-Romance blabla.
This is why your Trieste slave hypothesis has nothing to
do with Romance languages. Period. Rather stick to your
Harigasti-und-andre-Spastis.
>No, you didn't. You criticized the first sentence for not putting
>Spanish and French on an equal footing with Romanian.
I was and am criticizing that you put Proto-Romanian in the
1st century BCE; then that you deem Proto-Romanian as the
result of language habits of a few slaves (language habits
of which you won't ever have any idea); then that to you
the 7-8 century gap means nothing; and finally that the
"creolization" or "pidginization" or <name it> of the
spoken Latin language (i.e. the totality of dialects spoken
in the 6th-7th centuries) occurred as a result of... decay.
To you (as you put it in every post), the aspects that prompt
you use the terms "creole" and "Pidgin" must have stemmed
from some stupidity or reluctance of a few thousand slaves
in the 1st century BCE, and which was then transmitted to
their inheritors who spoke Proto-Languages, as though the
time gaps "described" by such authors as Fomenko and Illig
(that's why I once semi-jokingly asked you whether you're
under their influence) would have been there - i.e. as if
6-7-8 centuries must be deleted from historiography, as if
they had been fictitious!
>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.
You are completely wrong. And I know why, but I won't tell
you.
>The fact that you try to revive that old accusation shows how >desperately short of counterarguments you are.
You are completely wrong: the opposite is true. I only take part
in a discussion, that contains some aspects interesting to me.
(And I'm doing a bit of English training so that I won't forget
this lingo completely.) But I don't care if you cling to stupid
conclusions based on flawed logic. Feel free, "it's a free
country". So your word choice "desperately" is utterly inappropriate.
Rather search for such ones as "cold shoulder". :-) The other
one is also wrong: "accusation". I don't accuse you of anything.
I only state my opinion on this or that and tell the discussion
partner why I deem that one thing wouldn't fit the other. That's
all.
By using such inappropriate words as "despair" and "accusation",
you show me a bit of how distorted might be your perception of
these threads of discussion. Wherefore (and because of your
frequent misunderstanding of sentences) I'm gonna get out of
these threads, so that you'll have more time to concentrate on
the data kindly supplied by the historian George.
>>I'm no representative of the "guild". You disagree with the
>>"community".
>
>The difference being?
I'm a "spectator", and I didn't make "proposals" of mine regarding
Peuce, Ariovist, Spartacus, Mithridates, Burebista. That's the
difference.
>>So, show me how you manage to convince the community
>>you are right and the community has been for many decades wrong.
>
>No.
What "no"?! If you publish your theses and if the sci.comm.
publishes comments on them, they'll be public - so I'd theoretically
be able to read them; thus, you'd show me, nolens-volens.
>You don't know what you are saying? What have you been smoking?
I put those retorts because your replies were so odd and weird
as if you had written them under the condition of 2 per thousand
of Akvavit or too much pot.
>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?
Because I would have to look them up in 4 libraries in Munich,
for which I would have to travel every time 80 kilometers.
And because I give a shit on most of the stuff one can find
on the web; or one must pay more on good stuff one can get
via Net. I could get much stuff from those libraries as PDF
or al. docs, but the mistake rate would be considerable. It's
better when you yourself search the catalog and the files,
and browse in the books and then copy the appropriate fragm.
or photocopy those pages.
Of course I'll let the matter rest - for ever. I'd search
stuff for you that you lack only if I'd be paid for it.
>Okay, so you're restating your belief in what you think you would
>have found the authories to have said if you had read them. >Satisfied now?
Gleich I'm gonna tellya what I give on your restating. But do me a
favor and state clearly: do you really believe that the Romance
languages spoken today already existed in an incipient, "creolized",
form in the 1st century BCE, independent of vernacular and written
Latin?
Here I deleted a long quotation that contained a previous
long cotation - the latter being thus posted for the 3rd
time.
And a few lines lower again a big chunk of fullquote, after
which you inserted these two letters:
>Ok.
And you pretend you observe the mailing-list and usenet posting
styles. (At least you make use of the ">" reply signs.)
>Strabo 7, 3, 11
>http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/7C*.html
[snip]
>Critasirus, and also of the Taurisci.'
>
>In other words,
In other words, this one I was taught in school when I was about
9-10 years old - only that some details (Taurisci, Illyrians etc)
weren't mentioned. And afterwards, I've been presented in school,
in mass-media, in books many such things. Lots of them I possess
in my personal library. I'm quite fed up with them. :-)
>Satisfied?
No, because you cannot make real use of such details for your
purpose. Every second attempt of yours fails because of judgment
flaws.
>>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?
>
>How were Romanized ... played no role ...? Could you rephrase?
"But I still don't get why Torsten's attempt at analyzing
of the typology of the Romanization of some South-Eastern
Europe's population is introduced in the discussion on
the events related to (1) Ariovist + Bastarnae; (2) Rome's
slaves & Spartacus, (3) Dacia's slaves (as an exporter);
(4) Mithridates & Burebista.
To me, the way the Latin-speaking and substrate-langu.-speaking
populotions wound up as Romanians, Dalmatians, Albanians has
no relevance in the discussion on the Germanization of Middle
Europe south of the Danube and east of the Rhine.
Or, there is an alternative possibility: you left the main area
for topix (linguistics), in order to for a while discuss history.
>Crawford doesn't mention Sarmizegetusa, those hoards were found
>all over Dacia.
Does Crawford include/cite all finds previously described/published
by Hungarian and Romanian archeologists? In other terms: does he
present a complete list?
>The hoards are from 73-65 BCE.
But in several previous posts you referred not only to Burebista's
years and not only to the years between 100-60 BCE, yet also to
later decades (mentioning Diurpaneus, Deceneus and Decebalus; i.e.
a time period of about 160 later; suggesting to me that the selling
of slaves to Rome was relevant for the whole timeframe).
>Your nausea over linguistic definitions is not relevant to the >question of their validity.
But don't repeat generalities that are accepted and self-understood.
Stick to what's being discussed. I for one, when I underline
defining thing, I do that because you declaredly ignore them,
despise them, reject them - and you do that in such a stubborn
and insolent way, that anyone in the scientific world would laugh
even with the buttocks at your mumblings. So schaut's aus.
>I would be, if I made such sweeping statements of the Albanians.
Who the heck made something like that? You're nuts. I only said
a population that remained in the phase of the beginning of its
Romanization process must have had some reason: either a "late
comer" (perhaps living in remote/peripheral regions or perhaps
your own assumption might be justified: Carpi) or else. Or some
"ideology" (which is not the case) or some lack of talent (which
is not the case: no population can resist for 3-8 centuries
and be as stubborn as speak only creolized or pidgin-Latin as
you imagine they did).
These reactions and misperceptions or yours are typical and
annoying - as well as the extremely stupid thing that you
imagine I would deem you a pro-Dacist Dane only because of
that historic confusion (which for centuries misled Transylvania
Germans too). I made a simple joke, and you take
it seriously like a sucker. How could you be that? You have
nothing in common with the stuff, nor have you been conditioned
thru' education, school and environment to be influenced by
that - unlike us, who grew up there and who really carry
parts of that substrate genes as well as are using day by day
some of the substrate vocabulary relics.
>Is that advice from your own perspective, George?
Ask the opinion of other cybalist-members on this: to see how
they deem your "discussion" approach. (Forget about my replies.)
>Yes, 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.
I understand that you, as a member of a small nation between
the former European powers Sweden and Germany have some problems;
I can feel compassion but it is a terra incognita to me. With
the mentioning that Germany, i.e. the state Schleswig-Holstein,
has a Danisch *ethnical* political party that has taken part in
the regional government over there, and implicitly at the federal
level. So that being neglected or being oppressed look a bit
different than that...
tschüs
George