[tied] it was Re: Moment

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

> >> BTW *romana is given in my dictionary with an "*" and the
> >> expresion "lingua romana" is not at all given.
> >
> > Have you ever thought about changing dictionary?!
> > C. Tacitus: "ut qui modo linguam Romanam abnuebant [...]"
>
> Not this one. This is the etymological dictionary of Latin
> language.

Whose "etymological dictionary"? (author/s, edition).

> It seems more safe to assume the "lingua romana" is not given
> because is not relevant to etymology or maybe because it is a
> late expresion hence the expresions as lingua prisca, lingua
> latina, lingua peregrina are used very usual in clasical latin.

You make too many assumptions which do not cope with facts:
"lingua romana" is a Latin legitimate pattern defining Latin
tongue attested in Classical period. "rustica romana lingua"
is the late creation which refers to (Proto-)Romance. I don't
know why your dictionary doesn't speak about "romana lingua"
or "lingua romana" and frankly, this is far from being a point
of major concern for myself.

Marius Iacomi