Re: Substrates in Latin and Germanic [was: The reason for Caesar's o

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@...> wrote:

>
> At 12:53:26 PM on Thursday, March 1, 2012, Torsten wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>> The important fact is that these words are concentrated
> >>> in a few semantic spheres, which indicates (not
> >>> 'proves') that they derived from a particular sociolect
> >>> of Latin, correponding to one of the component people of
> >>> the ethnogenesis of the Roman people.
>
> >> Alas the very existence of such component people is
> >> product of a linguistic hypothesis and therefore cannot
> >> be the base for further arguments: it's simply one and
> >> the same argument - a good hypothesis, but not better
> >> than the hypothesis of the absence of the /a/-substrate
> >> of Latin
>
> > No, see above; we have to assume the existence of that
> > component on historico-sociological grounds anyway,
>
> Nonsense. The existence of a sociolect obviously does not
> require that it derive from a linguistically distinct
> component of the ethnogenesis of the Roman people.

Let me rephrase that: You think a sociolect might develop in an etnically homogenous people. 'kay? But do they exist?

Also: you seem to object to a claim to the contrary. I don't see such a claim in what either Bhr. or I wrote. Please explain.


Torsten