Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Romanian Verb Endings and Substratum influence (repost)

Expand Messages
  • alexandru_mg3
    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
    Message 1 of 237 , Jun 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      finished.

      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
      that area...

      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"...

      Best Regards,
      Marius Alexandru













      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, 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
      nobody
      > >care
      >
      > 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
      is "an
      > >ad-hoc one", trying to explain with a formal workaround, the fact
      > >that we cannot obtain in Romanian from a Latin (can)-tas > the
      Rom.
      > >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
      order
      > >not to maintain identical endings in other conjugation" is a
      false
      > >one...
      >
      > Not at all. Happens all the time. It just doesn't _always_
      > happen.
      >
      > >Is similar with other ideas like:
      > >
      > >1. "i- in Rom. doi is the mark of plural that was added to Latin
      duo"
      > >=> 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,
      > *accu-ille/u).
      >
      > >add I will add your ideea at the end...
      > >
      > >3. "an i- was spreading from a less important conjugation to the
      most
      > >important one in order not to have the same endings"
      > >=> this in order to obtain Rom. cânTi /-ci/ from Lat. cantas
      > >
      > >etc...
      > >
      > >
      > [...]
      >
      > >So if we have had a Balto-Dacian areal where some verb-endings
      was:
      > >-u
      > >-i
      > >-a
      > >-ame
      > >-ate
      > >-a
      >
      > 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
      > mcv@w...
    • Abdullah Konushevci
      ... Just one think I want to point out. -*g hwa:. If one accept etymologies *legWh- light Alb. , later light and *snoigWh- snow Alb.
      Message 237 of 237 , Sep 24, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        On 6/23/05, Abdullah Konushevci <akonushevci@...> wrote:
        On 6/23/05, Abdullah Konushevci <akonushevci@...> wrote:
        > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@i...>
        > wrote:
        > > alexandru_mg3 wrote:
        > >
        It must be noted that the first linguist that have explained Alb.
        <gjuhë> was Henrik Barich through the reconstruction *gl.undh(wa) <
        *dlong'hwa:.
         
         

        Just one think I want to point out. -*g'hwa:. If one accept etymologies *legWh- 'light' > Alb. <leh>, later <lehtë> 'light' and *snoigWh- 'snow' > Alb. <neh> 'place where the snow melts', I guess that -g'hwa: could be easy treated, by analogy leveling, as *-g'wh > Alb. /h/.
         
        Konushevci

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.