>--- In email@example.com, "alex" wrote:got
>>>>> What speaks against of a form like "*sain"?
>>>> P.S.: *ai > e in Albanian
>>> you are funny Piotr:-))
>>> Somewhere seems this "sain" should not be so bad:-))
>> And a Latin +saenus (+ means non-existent) would have yielded
>> Romanian *$in! So would Latin _si:nus_ 'large cup'. On the other
>> hand, Latin sa:nus 'healthy' should yield Romanian sân. Have we
>> some weird vowel 'feature' in the Romance front vowels at workhere?
>> si:nus > *sinu > $in
>> sinus > *senu > sîn = sân
>> senus > *sEnu > $in
>> sanus > *sanu > sân = sîn
> why bother about the vocalism when the word has not the semantism of
> Latin word ? It is a wish to see Latin "sinus" being the Rom. "sân"Of course the Latin word _is not_ a Romanian one. The correct phrase
> which does not meant bosom; the meaning "bosom" is a new one,Yeah, right. See the expression "a scuipa în sân", equally valid for
> a meaning of the "educated" society which felt the word "TâTã" as"TâTã" means `breast`, not `bosom`.
> vulgare, thus they prefered using "sân".
> Now one will see why there is no semantical connection between "sân"Keep telling that to yourself.
> and "sinus"
> The word "sân" means "breast" and not "bosom"False. It means also `bosom`, by all means.
> which is not the same thing.Of course there is a slight difference between `bosom` and `breast`,
> I guess otiginary the word "sân" meant something else, an objectwhere
> one could put somethin in like a bag and the extension to themeaning
> "breast" come from the fact that a good plase to put something in is"Wise" guess. Based on... ?!
> your chemise as in a bag.
> There are good reasons to belive this meaning from the expresionswhich
> are stil alive in the langauge and from the object of clothes whichare
> used with the meaning of bag.Can you be more specific?!