Re: [tied] a help for Piotr

On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 20:35:08 +0200, alexmoeller@... wrote:

>I do not see a ignorance here. I see an introduction where ,
>with examples , Vinereanu shows that certain words aer similar
>to sanscrit but different from latin so in "some" points
>rumanian words aer moer related to sanscrit as too latin. Just
>because of these "some words" the romanian language does not
>appear to be a sanscrit one:-))


>Avem rom. pamant, sansc. bhuman ( < *gh(d)em or ghemon),

This is not ignorance, this is ignorance squared. Rom. pamînt "earth, land,
floor" is from Lat. pavimentu, and has nothing to do with Skt. bhu:mi- "earth"
(root *bhuH- "to be"), which in turn has nothing to do with the root *dhg^hem-.

>dar lat. terra

...szi de asemeni Rom. tzarã (terra > tierra > tieara > tzarã).

>, ori rom. boier, lit. bajoras, alb.bujar, precum si
>sansc. bharu.

I very much doubt the Skt. has anything to do with this, but I don't have the
time to dig into the etymology of these words.

>Altele au corespondent atat in Latina, dar si in
>Sanscrita, dar cel Sanscrit esta mai apropiat sau aproape
>identic cu cel romanesc. De exemplu rom. apa, sansc. ved. apa,
>av. ap, hit. uappe, dar lat. aqua,

Hitt. wappu- means "river bank" ("water" is Hitt. watar) and is not related to
the *h2a(:)p- root of Indo-Iranian or the *h2akW- root of Latin/Romanian.

>ori rom. soare, sansc. surya , lit. saule, lat. sol-is.

Rom. soare is clearly from Latin sole, by the usual soundlaws (-l- > -r-, o > oa
before -e). In Sanskrit we also have -l- > -r-. In Basque too...


I find it funny that Mr. Vinereanu criticizes Mr. Duridanov for making
"intelligent guesses", while the only thing I see here are unintelligent ones.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...