Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 18:24:37 +0100, "alex_lycos" <altamix@...>
> wrote:
>
>> For the phonetic aspect , I recommend you "Fonologia istorica a
>> dialectelor daco-române" of Mr. Emanuel Vasiliu , Bucharest 1968. For
>> the semantism of rom. word, I guess you have for sure one explanation
>> even the corelation of "întru" versus " a intra". Just as curiosity,
>> the latin word "intro" survived just in the romanian, I am wrong?
>
> Yes: for instance Old Catalan intre (modern dintre). Catalan also has
> the verbs entrar and intrar (arch.) < ENTRARE
are you sure we speak about the same word ? Please remember romanian has
too "dintre" like modern Catalan.
So we have in romanian printre, dintre, pentru, între,întru all beeing
given as being from latin "intro" but "intra" = to enter from latin
"intrare"
Catalan "intre/dintre" is from Latin intro, intrare or inter?
> Nobody spooked Latin words outside Latium until ca. 300 BC.
Dear Miguel. There are linguistic scenarios and ancient testimonies. The
advantage of these testimonies ( even if we have to read them very
carefully ) are , the people who wrote them lived in that times.
I see obliged here to give you these testimonies whereby I must specify
I haven't checked them in a second source for being sure there is no
"manipulation" of the texts here. Please take them as "unverified"
In the time of Ennius (239-169) the language of the Iberian population
was considered as a corrupted Latin language
( Enniu la Charisiu , Inst. Gramm. II (Keil, Gr. Lat. I. 200)
Cesar wrote about the language of the Gauls to be appropriate to Latin.
Quintillian ( Inst. I. 5.)has his way to see the way how the barbarians
speak:
"barbarismum pluribus accipimus. Unum, in gente, quale sit, si quis
Afrum vel Hispanum Latinae orationi nomen inserat...Tertium est illud
vitium barbarisimi...ut verbo, cuilibebit, adjiciat litteram syllabamve
vel detrahat; aut aliam pro alia, aut eamdem alio, quam rectum est, loco
ponat."
Issidorus (Orig. I 31.1.):
"Appelatur autem barbarismus a barbaria gentibus, dum orationis latinae
integritam nescirent."
Ibidem I 31.3
"Barbarismus autem fit scripto et pronunciatione. Scripto... si quis in
verbo litteram vel syllabam adiicit, mutet, transmutet vel minat.
Pronunciatione autem fit in temporibus, tonis, aspriationibus,etc."
------------------------------
There are more such texts but I resume myself just here.
It is interesting to follow this phenomenon. The Latins go everywhere
and conquest. The people who are conquested adopted the language of the
Latins by different reasons.
The same people some centuries later under the invasion of Germanic
tribes, under the invasion of Slavic tribes, under the invasion of
Arabian, Turkish people, under same kind of invasions if not worse ,
refuse to adopt a new language
> Indo-Europoean *en became Latin in (e > i before nasal). Latin short
> /i/ (and long /e:/) became Vulgar Latin close /e/. This again became
> /i/ before a nasal in a closed syllable in some Romance languages, and
> that's why we have Italian in, Romanian în/întru and Catalan dintre
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
Well, really about PIE *en > directly latin "in"? I know that in oscic
and old Latin there was an "en" not an "*en". So there was not a PIE
"*en" > latin "in" but a latin en ( from PIe *en) > in within Latin
language. At least so I have here in my dictionary. And I guess this is
an evidence for a singular transformation just in Italia of en > in.
But for your assumption, is there any glosse , any inscription which
will show that there was an "in" > "en" in latin again? Or this is just
the resonable way of thinking because romances today have "en" but not
"in"?
If there is nothing for showing an transformation from latin "in" to
proto-romances "en" then this supposition is weaker as a continuum PIE
*en which was kept by speakers outside of area where latin changed "en"
to "in".
Alex