[tied] Re: cutulare

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

>> Of course not, they're just related through the original Latin
>> "excutere" `to shake` gaving birth to two specialized VL words
>> mentioned above. So?
>
> [...] The discusion was with Miguel where at time I wondered
> that such "latin" compositum with *ex are to find in Rom. just
> in verbs which begin with "exC" where we have a PIE root with
> "s" already, thus there is no need to put any Latin help there.

BS aside, you have still to explain Sardinian and South Italian
forms with "s-", like in Romanian.

> For the shake of clearance,

That's the most interesting formula of the morning.

> again _just the "Latin" root_ will be to find but nothing of
> the derivatives.

Too confuse to be worthwile.
From all these derivatives you have nothing

>> So, according to your infinite wisdom, the infinitive form cannot
>> be related with the I-st person of the present tense?!
>
> that was not the point

That was your point:
<begin quote from Alex>
The word "quatere" is not to find too in my etym. dict. and if it
would be it will be related to "quater"=the fourth, but not to
"quatio:"
<end quote from Alex>

You might have forgotten since it was in your previous message --
that is already a looong time ago.

>>> I don't guess one will can begin anything with a root in
>>> latin as "quat-", maybe an "quatt-" n asymilation of "quatr-".
>>
>> That's pure nonsense.
>
> see "quatto"=quadrassis

Repeated nonsense remains nonsense.

> I hope we can close the thread now.

Better never opened it.

Marius Iacomi