Re: [tied] Re: Indo-Iranian

On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:08:52 +0200, alex <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>I just
>want to be honest and to let the things be as they are; I never excluded
>the Latin influence in Romanian, there is in fact in every language in
>the European area

To restate the obvious once again....

Complete and utter bullshit. Only someone profoundly ignorant about
language can look at Romanian and fail to notice that it's a Romance
language through and through. The morphology is practically 100% Romance,
basic vocabulary is overwhelmingly Latin-derived, etc. etc.

>, but please, do not overlicitate. We know the meaning
>of "gula" in Dacian was "mouth"

How do you know?

>but we explain the Rom. word "gura"
>(mouth) trough Latin "gula"= throat. Is this right?

Yes.

>We have attested too the glosse "patru" ( acctually the glosse is
>"patrou")

Which surely doesn't mean "4".

>but we explain the Rom. "patru" trough Latin "quattor", is
>this correct?

Of bloody course.

>WE have a lot of "apa" in Dacian, but we explain actualy
>Rom. "apa" trough Latin "aqua". Is this correct? Yes it is. Because we
>do not know what _exactly_ in Dacian it means, thus we have the right to
>explain it trough Latin, and of course, we can let our phantasy free for
>explaining the semantical diferences.

What semantic differences? Latin aqua = Rom. apã = Sard. abba.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...