[tied] Re: "vatër" vs "vatra"; "veter-" vs "batran"

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

>> So what? Existence of a word for designing a `one-year-old-calb`
>> doesn't exclude using for `baby animal` the word "vãtui".
>
> It doesn't exclude in your rationament. The languages show the
> contrary. There is no used. There is no vãtui= vitelus. From DEX:
>
> vãtui=ied sau pui de iepure ( _pâna la un an_). Pielea ( prelucrata)
> a puiului _de caprioara_.

I know exactly what's written in DEX (BTW, no trace of your `old`
meaning in the main source). Has it happen to you to think I had
also other sources than DEX to find out more about that word?!

>> Not being able to spell a word, you should use copy/paste (compare
>> *vituleus with *vetuleus and judge by yourself). Since we have in
>> Aromanian "vitul'u" (meaning `one year old baby goat`) and in
>> Meglenoromanian "vitul'/vitui" (meaning `young baby goat`), one
>> can safely infer that there was originally a word with palatalized
>> /l'/ and with meaning related to `young animal`, not to `old(er)`,
>> in Common Romanian. That rules out your "regional meaning" (which
>> I'll surely check out); also the second meaning (`leather`) points
>> out clearly reference to young, not old animals.
>
> Fortunately Master Rosetti showed you there that in Aromanian _in
> many times_ there is an palatal "l" from "i" and not an "i" from
> "l". Do you remember about?

I don't understand your English. Rosetti says clearly: "Latin /l/,
followed by (short) /e/, /i:/, or (short) /e/, i in hiatus, was
palatalized, softened and vanished from Dacoromanian, while being
maintained in Aromanian". So Latin /li/ > Common Romanian /l'(y)/ >
Aromanian /l'/ and Dacoromanian /y/.
Existence of /l'(y)/ in Common Romanian in this word is decisively
proved by Meglenoromanian form. Case closed.

>>> The fact the word is not related to any "calb" since for calb
>>> there is mânzat, [...]
>>
>> That's Alex "reasoning". In fact, a specialized word can make
>> another one with overlapping semantism to change its meaning.
>> That is: concurrence between "*mãndzatu" and "*vãtul'u" (probable
>> Common Romanian forms) caused the semantic drift of the latter.
>> Of course, existence of a word for `one-year-old-calb` has no
>> probing relevance in which concerns relationship of another word
>> with `calb`.
>
> Fact is: seeing there is no vãtui= calb, then there is no basis for
> linking it to a pseudolatin word

The simple fact that Alex doesn't see a relationship means only he
isn't able to see it, not that the relationship doesn't exist.

> And the existence of albanian "vjetak"= one year old baby for
> animals _should be enough_ to explain the sense here.

Existence of an Albanian _derivative_ with no phonetical link to
Romanian (Aromanian, Meglenoromanian) shows nothing.

>>> So there is no basis for making any connection between vãtui
>>> and "vitulus" but a more stronger basis for "vãtui" with "vetus"
>>
>> According to meanings and phonetism, that's simply false.
>
> According to Mr Iacomi maybe.

No, according to phonetical rules and semantism of words. I have
no involvement in that.

> Acording to fonetism is true,

Funny. Give then a realistical timeline of your supposed evolution
not forgetting to explain Aromanian and Meglenoromanian forms. Give
the languages, forget about that useless "=" sign which still is
appearing in your posts, check the rules.

> acording to meaning too is true.

This is the "every-counterargument-can-be-integrated-in-my-theory"
disease. There is no known cure.

> You showed that words "specialise" . And "vetus" became special
> in Rom. " old, but not too old. Just one year old".

Proofs are missing, out of that you may suppose anything you want.

>> Of course there is no "vitelus" > "viTel". See for reference the
>> message you missed a long time ago:
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/18761
>> Also check:
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/21939
>> There is indeed no need to spread confused nonsense on the list.
>> There is no need to fight against supposed etymologies invented
>> by yourself and attributed to others. The remaining part is just
>> willful ignoring of what has already been said on this list: it
>> would be very nice if you'd eliminate it from your posts.
>
> Haide frate, lasa-ma., from vitelus you _must_ have "vãTel". In
> Latin "vitelus" is a short "i" and out.

I'm not your brother. Read again the explanation and cut-off
spamming the list.

Marius Iacomi