2012/5/13, Tavi <
oalexandre@...>:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>> I've translated Alinei's "Italid" / "Italoid" (in his words,
>> "Italoide" and "Ibero-Adriatico" / "Ibero-Dalmatico" as labels have
>> been all replaced by "Italide") into "Italic", which at the
>> phonological level is its perfect equivalent and is more widely known.
>> Tavi:
> I strongly disagree. As an IE language, "Italoid" is synonym to
> "Sorothaptic" and "Illyro-Lusitanian", thus a very different thing than
> Italic, which is specifically the group of Latin and Sabellic
> (Osco-Umbrian).
>
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
You may disagree with Alineis' idea - I too - but you can in no
way disagree with the fact that Alinei thinks precisely that way:
Italoid *is* Italic, more specifically Latin, with */bh/ */dh/ */gh/ >
/f/ resp. /h/, internal vowel-raising and so on. I know and I disagree
it's absurd, but he thinks so. I know him and I've read all what he
has written, I've discussed so many times with him. Ital(o)id is
completely (completely) different from Sorothaptic and, I suppose,
from Illyro-Lusitanian, as well as from Kretschmer's Venetic in
Central and Western Europe. This is doxography, i.e. contemporary
literature. Facts (albeit individual ones), not guesses.
We can't do anything against that (and why should we?). In any
case, to deny this fact would be extremly childish. Surely you won't
do that.