I. "-nt became -n in Italian and Romanian, and final -n was lost
in Romanian (cf. aeramen > aramã)."
The Romanian timeframes and evolutions that you described above
that are completely wrong. Final -nt dissapeared without any trace
in Romanian. There isn't any intermediary "Ei cântan" in Romanian.
No intermediate stage with -n is attested....so what you wrote above
about Romanian is completely false...
II. "The absurd notion that they should be compared instead to
the wrong set of Lithuanian-in-lieu-of-Dacian endings, is,
I'm afraid, completely laughable to anybody who has any idea
about the Italian, Romanian and Lithuanian languages."
I will not insist here Miguel about what you named here "wrong
set of Lithuanian endings" I have explained you in detail in another
message that your logic is "wrong", and not the endings that "are
good" because these endings were phonetically the closest one to the
Latin Endings....so I will not insist more here...if you want please
re-read my previous posting otherwise ...let's forget.
I will explain you now what "this absurd notion" and "completely
laughable" explanation is a serious and organic one:
Every serious linguist agreed (Rosetti, Densusianu to talk here
about the top Romanian Linguists) that in Balkan Romance (mainly
what is today Romanian) the endings -t at III-sg and -nt at III-
pl. "was lost very early" in comparison with the Western Romance (->
where they still survive until today or at least we saw important
traces of them....)
Everybody agrees on this but nobody have explained why...
My explanation is very simple: when the Romans arrived in
Balkans, there was in the Eastern Europe (from Baltic to Dalmatian
Coast) an almost continuu areal of Balto-Slavic-Daco-Thraco group of
languages that at 0AC shared (and they still share today) an
important number of common features. One of this common feature (to
be honest I didn't check for the Slavic) was an EARLY lost of the
final Indo-European endings -t at III-sg -nt at IIIpl. in this areal
if we compare with the 'Western' Indo-European Group ...
When the Romans arrived this processed was finished or almost
This is the case of Lithuanian where IIIsg merge with IIIpl and
is also the case for Romanian where a similar process happens (in
opposition with the rest of the Latin areal (the Western part) that
was mainly a Celto-Italic areal where these Indo-European present
endings was lost later or susrvive until today)
For this reason the Daco-Moesian Balkan populations that was
Romanized propagated the current status of their local languages
(where these endings where already lost) to the Balkan Latin.
This was the reason for that, the Balkan Latin lost very earlier
the -t and -nt endings too=> because this was the Indo-European
evolution in that part of the globe, when the Roman Empire arrived
there. That status influenced directly the Balkan Latin evolution in
The same organic evolution of the Indo-European language in that
areal explains also the Nom.Acc. and Dat.Gen. common forms in
Romanian and Albanian -> no direct link with the phenomenon above,
there are other endings (noun-endings this time; I didn't check for
Lithuanian so couldn't be quite the same areal this time, I don't
know yet), but also this nouns-endings were lost very earlier in the
Balkan local languages (I mean before the Romans arrival in Balkans)
This is an organic explanation Miguel not "an absurd" one....
"Absurd" is your "spreading theory of i- endings" that "moved
the endings on a paper from one place to another" without
to "explain anything"....like "an X-0 game on your paper"...
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@w...> wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 10:19:52 +0000, alexandru_mg3
> <alexandru_mg3@y...> wrote:
> >> Miguel wrote:
> >>The only conjugation to maintain a difference between 2 and
> >>3 sg. was the i-conjugation, so teh 2sg. ending -i spread to
> >>the other conjugations. This was no doubt aided by the fact
> >>that in monosyllables -s had become -j (It. hai, stai, dai,
> >>fai, (s)ei; Rom. ai, stai, dai).
> >Not true.
> >1. There are other situations when we have same endings and
> Yes, of course. So what?
> >3. Also why nothing happens in Lithuanian from about 2000 years ?
> Where did you get that ridiculous "2000 years" from?
> >I thing that points 1-4 above demonstrate that your argument
> >ad-hoc one", trying to explain with a formal workaround, the fact
> >that we cannot obtain in Romanian from a Latin (can)-tas > the
> >ân-Ti (Lat -tas would gave -ta, -tã in Romanian and Not Ti /ci/)
> >So such an ideea that "a conjugation spreading their endings in
> >not to maintain identical endings in other conjugation" is a
> Not at all. Happens all the time. It just doesn't _always_
> >Is similar with other ideas like:
> >1. "i- in Rom. doi is the mark of plural that was added to Latin
> >=> this in order to obtain doi from duo
> That's not an idea, it's a fact: Latin <dui> is attested
> from the IIIrd century, and we have Ital. (Old Tuscan) dui,
> doi and Romanian doi.
> >2. "an a- was added in front of Rom. Dem. Pronouns that was taken
> >from the a- of the previous word" in order to explain: a-ia , a-
> >ceasta, a-cea, a-sta etc...
> >=> this in order to obtain Rom. asta from Lat. ista
> Who says the a- is "from the previous word"? Acest and acel
> are the same as Catalan aquest and aquell (*accu-iste/u,
> >add I will add your ideea at the end...
> >3. "an i- was spreading from a less important conjugation to the
> >important one in order not to have the same endings"
> >=> this in order to obtain Rom. cânTi /-ci/ from Lat. cantas
> >So if we have had a Balto-Dacian areal where some verb-endings
> Nonsense. Those are the Lithuanian endings. They are not
> Proto-Baltic and even less Proto-Balto-Slavic, so there is
> no chance that they can be proto-Balto-Slavic-Dacian.
> >The theory above explain 3 things, Miguel:
> >1. Why the 2nd sg is -i in Romanian / Balkan Language
> And in Italian?
> >2. Why there is no trace of 3sg. -t in Romanian / Balkan Language
> And in Italian?
> >3. Why there is no trace of 3sg. -nt in Romanian / Balkan Language
> >(but their is one in Western Romance)
> -nt became -n in Italian and Romanian, and final -n was lost
> in Romanian (cf. aeramen > aramã).
> The Romanian verbal endings are essentially the same as the
> Italian verbal endings.
> The absurd notion that they should be compared instead to
> the wrong set of Lithuanian-in-lieu-of-Dacian endings, is,
> I'm afraid, completely laughable to anybody who has any idea
> about the Italian, Romanian and Lithuanian languages.
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal