Re: [tied] Androphobia [...]

In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:

>> 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:-))

Before any pointless LOL, you should first look in the DEX.

> 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.

What are you talking about? You stated a "rule of thumb" about
new verbal derivatives with "în-" belonging only to the IV-th
conjugation. There are a bunch of counter-examples from the I-st
conjugation ruling out your hypothesis. There is no such a rule.

> 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?

In Romanian, verbs at infinitive always end with stressed vowels
/a/, /i/, stressed diphthong -ea, or unstressed /e/. Since stress
on last open syllable is specific to verbs (only a few nouns of
Turkish origin end with stressed /a/ or /i/), this characteristic
is perceived by Romanian speakers as verbal morpheme. Deriving
verbs from nouns is realized thus through standard procedure, by
adding some stressed vowel to the (sometimes adapted) form of the
stem. Since the ending "-ea" is not very regular and stable (has
the tendency to be replaced by unstressed "-e") the conjugations
of practical interest are the I-st, in "-a" and the IV-th, in "-i":
verbal derivatives will belong to one of these. Why the verb went
merely to the first than to the fourth?! This is the result of
native speakers' feeling of their own language. A IV-th conjugation
"would have been" infinitive form as "*întrup(u)i" probably hurt
the ears of Romanian speakers for it sounded "bad". There is no
a priori rule for one or other of the two available conjugations.

>>> 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"

Right.

> from in+aripi ( to get wings) but inaripa

Right.

> fom în+aripã

Wrong, according to DEX.

>>>> 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?

From http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/22356 :

>> Outside Slavic, Old Prussian has <trupis> 'stump, block of wood'.
>> Lithuanian shows <trupu`s> 'crumbly, friable' and (according to
>> Pokorny) <traupus> 'brittle', plus <trupé.ti> 'crumble',
>> <trupiny~s> 'crumb, piece' and other similar derivatives.
>>
>> It seems possible to reconstruct, for Balto-Slavic, a root *treup-
>> with a meaning that had to do with 'decaying' or 'falling apart'
>> and the derived noun *traupas 'dead wood' > PSl. *trupU.

Old Prussian & Lithuanian are Baltic languages.
More than that: the semantical story of the word shows the sense
of `body/corpse` developed only at some late stage in Slavic. The
probability of having the very same semantic evolution in another
independent language is practically zero. Even if one supposes
the Balto-Slavic root *treup- was to be found also in some Balkan
tongue, accepting also the phonetical evolution was similar, it
is very hard to think the word would have had had in this Balkan
tongue the same meaning as in late Slavic.

>> For example, I use my brain before writing down a reasoning. That
>> really helps. It's useful also for understanding it.
>
> If you use your brain, how is possible to say "in-" is from Latin
> when all IE languages has this particle?

You are in deep confusion, see Piotr's answer. In fact you are
tirelessly generating confusion.

> How is possible to assume in the old idiom have had not this
> particle?

That's not the point. Fact is that Latin "in" (meaning `in`) has
the same meaning as Romanian "în", there are Latin words derived
with "in" with similar semantic relationship as in Romanian, some
of them being even inherited as such in Romanian (with /i/ > /î/,
see "închina", "închide", "înghiTi", "în(n)ota", "întinde", etc.).
You cannot make assumptions of similar phonetical and semantical
evolution for PIE root *h1en- in an independent unknown language.

> And my obsesion with "an/ân" is comming from Angusta > ingust as
> weel as "întâi" which has its counterpart in Latin "ante".

So what?! As productive prefix, Romanian "în-" continuates Latin
prefix "in-".

Marius Iacomi