Re: [tied] Re: Green

Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "alex_lycos" <altamix@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 10:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Green
>
>
>
>> George, the Sanskrit form is more interesting: "vardhati"
>
> Alex, this comes dangerously close to trolling. Several people have
> just spent a couple of days trying to explain to you how <varzã> and
> <verde> are related to each other and what their Latin prototypes
> are, and why relationship with *werdH- can be ruled out, and now
> you've come full circle and appear ready to start the whole game
> again. "The Sanskrit form" is a verb which does not mean 'green', or
> 'root', or 'cabbage'. It's the Sanskrit reflex of *werdH-e-ti,
> unrelated to <verde>. <Wurz>, <wort> and other Germanic words for
> 'root' are not related to <verde> either. Please find something else
> to talk about
>
> Piotr

But Piotr, there is not a joke. The latin short /i/ remains an /i/ in
Romanian.
This abracadabra with diphtongation , triphtongation, breaking & co is
too complicated in comparation with
PIE forms where some words in romanian are very simple to derive:
*kerdh > cârd
*ger-1 > ghearã
*ueidh > vãduv
*wid > uita
*weid >vedea
*ap-2 > apa
*gwrendh or bhrendh> brând(uSa), and so on.
It seems to me that is improbable that on a side you have such archaich
forms but on another side you need so complicated changes like from
latin to romanian. I just learn and I want to learn. You dont need to
feel angry. But when I see that a short /i/ remains /i/ in Romanian
despite the demonstration of Miguel , I must wonder about.

Alex