alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> Hello All,
> a. In romanian "un-spre-zece" means "one-above-ten"
>
> Rom. "spre" (even it has today a different basic meaning) comes
> from latin "super" and in the numeral system it doesn't reflect its
> today basic meaning ("spre"->"toward").
>
> This could indicates that this construction is quite old because
> it freezed inside it the initial sens of "spre"(->"super").
> Today a romanian speaker cannot explain what logic could
> have "spre" inside "un-spre-zece"..
> This freezing of sens could also indicates that : a "numeral
> system with a well known logic" (I means "better known" that the
> sense of "spre" that further will receive additional meanings...) was
> translated "word by word in latin" by local speakers...
asupra, supra, deasupra inclusive supãrare & asupri & spre are all
reflexes of Latin "super"?
Latin super is a derivative od "sub", see your Rom. "sub" ancient
"supt"(since "bt"= phonetical interdiction , then bt > pt);Latin "super"
meant "peste" and not "spre".
Now, again the old game. From all typical Latin construction there is
nothing in Rom. What I mean here with? These examples:
suscipi, suscito, sustollo, sustineo, suspendo, suspiro, suspicio, sumo,
subinde, subterduco, subtrefugio, subterlabor, desubtus ( see rom.
dedesubt), superior, suprem, etc, etc.(there are 4 pagses of Latin words
which are not to find in Rom. Just the root "sub-" as usual):
The Rom. "spre" _is not_ IMHO a reflex of Latin "super" but the
s-prefixed form of "pre". The prefix "s" play as usual the role of
bolding an action ( smulge-mulge, scurge-curge, sfãrâma-fãrâmã,
(a)suda-uda, etc.)
The "pre" is given too as deriving from Latin "super" OR "per",but I
guess there is nothing to consider this word as Latin since the PIE word
is *per-; see Indic "pari"= over, above for example, OCS "pre", an much
other.
Alex