Re: [tied] das Wort

----- Original Message -----
From: alexmoeller@...
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 6:46 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] das Wort

> In rom. the group "tv" is a fonetical restriction , but not the group "dv", meaning there should have not been any trouble of taking it from slavic so how it is , meaning with "dv","dvorb"+romanian suffix for naturalisation of the word in the rom.lang. and having today not "vorba" but "dvorba."

I don't know what the evidence for dvorIba --> vorbã is, which is why I'd like to hear the opinion of our Romanian experts. Clusters that are admissible word-medially may well be impossible word-initially, and as far as I can see initial <dv-> does not occur in Romanian.

> On the another side, there is latin verbum which has too the "b" inside and means wort, like in romanian:verbum=vorba (remember dacian habbit of "-a" terminations for nom. sg.) ...

Dacian short -a in nominatives sg. would have been Latinised as -us/-um and eventually dropped in Romanian.

> I suppose a transformation verba>vãrba>vorba.

This is completely ad hoc, and the starting point is a word existing only in your imagination. Where is a shred of evidence that there was anything like your "verba" in dacian?

> And the both words where I see this explained are:
> *bhardha>barba
> *werdh>varba>vorba.
> In both cases we have "r" fallowed by "dh" with the result "b". I need to verify in more examples that this *dh after a liquid gave and "b" instead of normaly "d", the two mentionated example beeing in my opinion, too few for having some power of acceptation.

Sorry, Alex, but you are imagining things and making up your own Dacian verba. That's beyond my "power of acceptation".

Piotr