Re: [tied] Androphobia [...]

m_iacomi wrote:

>> aripa,
>
> Nope. See DEX. "înaripa" means `to get wings` not `to get wing`
> so the right formation is from "în-" + "aripi" as you can see by
> your own eyes.

loooooooooool, that was good:-))

>> sete,
>
> That's the funniest of all. Where do you see an "a" in this word?

I cut here since the whole thing was related to " there" is an "e" not
an "a" and the feminine form of the adjective.
I guess the endings in /e/ and /a/ have been threated in the same way as
they derivated.
The aspect of feminine. I won't want to ask you " why it should be
related to masculine form of it" but I don't see an another explanation
for the conj I which ends in "a". Do you see any?

>
>> Search some more... you will find.
>
> Being blind is a lame excuse. None of the verbs I quoted has "a"
> in the stem (and, as usual, you conveniently forgot those verbs
> for which you couldn't invent the supposed "a").

There is no "inaripi" from in+aripi ( to get wings) but inaripa fom
în+aripã

> To (linguistic) science. It's obviously a domain for which your
> training is far from being at least basically operational.

We are just driving with different cars one the highway. This is why you
get this impresion.

>
>>> One cannot seriously claim that a well-attested Panslavic word
>>> should be considered a Balkan-born creation. Specially when it
>>> exists also in Old Prussian (cf. Derksen: "trupis" `log`).
>>
>> A well attested pan slavic word can be a loan too. A panslavic
>> word is "brânza" too actually.
>
> Again you are conveniently forgetting Baltic words (presented
> here more extendedly by Piotr, I spoke only about Old Prussian)
> and the fact that "trupU" is already attested in OCS. OTOH, the
> word you have mentioned is _not_ Panslavic.

Piotr showed no Baltic means. Just the Slavic or I did lost something?

> For example, I use my brain before writing down a reasoning. That
> really helps. It's useful also for understanding it.
>
> Cheers,
> Marius Iacomi

If you use your brain, how is possible to say "in-" is from Latin when
all IE languages has this particle?
How is possible to assume in the old idiom have had not this particle?
You use your brain, you should not negate ab initio
just because "we don't know". Very easy adopted the valahs the "in" from
Latin but the another one "in", the one with negation, they did not
prefere anymore to loan. They took the slavic one.
And my obsesion with "an/ân" is comming from Angusta > ingust as weel as
"întâi" which has its counterpart in Latin "ante".