Re: Laryngeal theory as an unnatural

From: tolgs001
Message: 25100
Date: 2003-08-16

>In the two examples I gave I wanted to show out the
>re-latinisation of the languages which begun in the XVIII-XIX
>century and such paars like frate/fãrtat, sorã/suratã which
gives
>one to think a bit more about.

This is simply not true. This assertion is plain bunkum.

That what you call "re-Latinization" could apply to my
previous example -> des+desime, to which -> dens+densitate
were added, namely from a non-Romanian vocabulary.
There are lots of "doublettes" of this kind.

>The word "mumã" has no etymology. DEX let us to
>compare with "mamã" with no explanation for /a/ > /u/. Of
>course there is no mama > muma.
>The word "mumã" is used even in mithology.

What explanations, boy-o-boy! :)) Muma is a pan-Romanian
(I mean throughout the "Daco-Romanian" dialect, i.e. the
Romanian language proper) regional variant for mama.
I.e., it is in use, in various areas - instead of mama or in
parallel with it, and with... maica & muica.

Although it seems archaic in 2003, it also belongs to the
official/standard Romanian; e.g. tzara-muma is also accepted
instead of tzara-mama ("mother country").

Then, even if your dictionary doesn't show you how the
relationship mama <> muma came into existence, you, as
a Romanian native-speaker, should immediately have
thought of the similar aspect maica <> muica (both words
also meaning "mother," and being of South-Slavic descent:
cf. with Serbian majku). Especially since you're from South
Romania, which implys that the subdialect of the Oltenians
(who say "muica" instead of "maica") is much closer to
your subdialect, than, say, to mine. ;^)

[After all, if we don't say "muma", then we won't obtain
the rhyme in the saying "pentru unii mumã, pentru altii
ciumã" -> approx. "one man's meat is another man's
poison."]

>I am not at all convinced that the "fârtat" derives from
>fratris.

[fratrem!] Who gives a <censored> on that! :^)

>>And to that end it helps enormously to know how the Latin
>>element has developed.
>
>I can just agree.

How come that you can agree on this?! Since, according
to your "theory," the Romanian language is by no means
a continuation of the Latin once spoken in South-Eastern
Europe.

>Alex

George

PS: While mama has such diminutival variants as mãmica,
mamitzu', out of mumã one cannot make similar diminutivals.
(By "one" I understand a native-speaker of course.)