m_iacomi wrote:
> BS. Hungarian word has the good semantism and a good bunch of
> derivatives proving it's old. Out of that, the phonetic fits with
> a late loan from Hungarian while PIE *le:p- has major difficulties
> to be linked with Romanian (again, there is only a common sound).
> As a general matter, it is methodologically wrong to look for
> vague similarities between a modern language and reconstructed
> PIE roots and inferring without any transformation rules there
> must be a relationship between the so-called similar words. That
> explains my "so what?!".
>
> Marius Iacomi
My answer was based just on the meaning of "lãbãrTa". One should be
aware: if one got the word from Hungarian, then this word entered the
language with the precise meaning of hand or foot. But from hand and
foot, one never get a verb like " to go out of shape". To be more
precisely, the verb "labãrTa" means "to become wide"; thus it has in its
composition the meaning "wide" which simply could not be understood as
such from a foreign loan . That means that the people have been aware of
"become wide" (lãbãrTa). If one will ask for the semantical special
sense of "foot" and "hand" it appears simply to explain. These are the
most "wide" parts of these members. "Laba" is the widest part of the arm
or of the foot.
To me it appears very clear. If I make any failure in my argument,
please show what seems rotten in my argumentation.
Alex