Re: [tied] Rum. prefix în- [Re: Androphobia]

Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "alex" <alxmoeller@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 2:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Rum. prefix în- [Re: Androphobia]
>
>
>>> [George:] To no avail: it doesn't fit. The issue is not whether
>>> there
> are "in > ân" cases, but whether the *prefix* in- [in] gets the
> Romanian prefix în- [In]. It does -- without exception: în- in all
> these circumstances is a prefix having the same function as in- in
> Latin and English, en- in French, ein- in German, be- in Hungarian
> etc.
>
>> [Alex:] All these prefixes come from an earlier /an / which became
>> /en/ as
> Germanic, Latin Greek and stuff.
>
> *an- would not have become /en-/ in any of these languages. All these
> prefixes reflect the PIE adprep (adverb/preposition) *h1en- which,
> when employed in compounds, regularly developed into PGmc. *in-, Lat.
> en-, Gk. en-. And stuff (whatever it means).
>
> Piotr

Piotr, in my dictionary for Latin "in-" with older form "en" I have here
the PIE *n ( under "n" is a little circle, I don't know how I have to
write it here).
The other PIe languages shows an "an".
toch. an-, en-, em-
Avest. & Sansk & Old Prussian "a-" and before "i" and "u" is "an-"
Armenian: an-
Greek a- but before vowel becomes too an "an-"
kymr, korn, bre = an-