REMAINS OF PROTO­INDO­EUROPEAN LANGUAGE IN ROMANIAN. Complementary evidences on the primary territory of the Language.

After remember grosso modo, some pro and contra argument of the linguistic reconstruction and semantic density analysis, we expose some controversial issues related to Romanian. The next part is meant to strengthen and structure the approach, by applying some mathematical computation methods with regards to phonological similarity assessment. An edits distance metric is applied to compare phonetic transliterations between PIE reconstructed root terms and meaning like corresponding Romanian words. For those terms that prove to be identical for a number of incipient phonetic symbols, an additional heuristic distance metric is applied. All computations are done using the R programming language, by parameterizing the functions of “stringdist” package. After that we used a list of 200 words of linguist Morris Swadesh, to make a comparison with a hypothetical reconstruction of J. Pokorny to Romanian language. Order to reach it, we found 2222 matches to all references cited, some identity is surprising and to others I rearranged the material. Every Romanian word, which finds correspondence in PIE reconstruction, it seems to have a close phonetic structure, and a semantics more obvious than those maintained in languages that served as a reference. Because phonetic and grammatical changes are unidirectional, once widespread, there would not be justification for a "restocking" lexical base of original area, even if the language is obviously evolving. Due to population movements that occurred in the last 6,000 years, in and out of the territory, the population had initially use this language is radically changed, which brought with it significant changes in cultural habits, but important remains of the PIE language, seem to have been preserved, in Romanian