>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?
Your speculation feminine a & e -> "-are"-verbs
won't open inroads, won't give us new insights.
That "sete" (thirst) has given "a înseta" and not
"a inseti" is nothing else but hazard. (OTOH, look
at phenomena like this: "a cur&tzi" & "a cur&tza,"
i.e. the verb is both "-are" and "-ire;" it doesn't
matter which of them you choose.)
>There is no "inaripi" from in+aripi (to get wings)
>but inaripa fom în+aripã
Yeah, but, if you're in for hair-splittings, then
be a sport and point out that the ending of this
word is [&] and not [a], and that [a] replacing
[&] means *attaching the definite article to it*,
the translation into English being then not
"wing," but "the wing." So, strictly speaking,
we don't have an "-a" here either for starting nego-
tiations with the preposition în- in order to
get a place in the "-are" or in the "-(u)ire"
box.
>We are just driving with different cars one
>the highway. This is why you get this impresion.
Some cars, some bicycles. :))
>How is possible to assume in the old idiom
>have had not this particle?
Nobody assumes this. But the overwhelming
majority of the... Autobahnfahrers as well as
simple onlookers deem Romanian as a Romance
language, and not as a Thracian or Dacian one.
Hence your question marks, since you are
convinced that Romanian has virtually zilch
to do with Latin, but is some kinda distorsion
of Thracian or Dacian (or, meinetwegen, Illyrian
as well). Go figure.
>Very easy adopted the valahs the "in" from
>Latin but the another one "in"
Anyway, even having no grammar clue, one easily
sees that Romanian constructions [în- + word +
infinitive endings or participle endings] follow
rather Latin/Romance patterns than those of
other related IE languages.
Or do you perhaps imply that einschliessen
and eingeschlossen are as close to Rum. a închide,
închidere, închis as their equivalents in the
Romance languages or the English to include,
included for that matter?
>And my obsesion with "an/ân" is comming from
>Angusta > ingust as weel as "întâi" which has
>its counterpart in Latin "ante".
But this is something different from the
prefix -in > -în. Of course, etymologically,
the spelling should have been "ângust" and
"ântâi," but spelling conventions have been
such that they don't tolerate but initial
"î-."
Actually, I don't understand why is it so
complicated for you to distinguish the
prefix în- (along with într'). It's so
transparent/easy, and so productive
still today (just browse your DEX to see the
variegated environments in which words are
created based on the formula în-+subst/adj/etc.
+infinitival or participle desinences).
What you actually try to convey is this:
"Although I see the parallel between
Latin in- and Romanian în-, I'm not convinced
that Romanian în- couldn't have evolved from
a [Vn-] of one Balkan substrate idiom or
another (e.g. Dacian)." But you'll be able
to make a point only when there's a proof
that Romanian continues the substrate idiom
and not South-East-European Latina Vulgata.
I'm afraid that this will have to be postponed
ad calendas graecas; or until there's a...
time machine at our disposal. :)
George