Re: [tied] apprehendere

m_iacomi wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:
>
>>> Well, at a first sight one could have to decide between
>>> 1. Latin "ad + prehendere" > Latin "apprehende(re)" > Rom.
> "aprinde"
>>> and
>>> 2. Latin "ad" > Rom. "a" + Latin "prehende(re)" > Rom. "prinde",
>>> that is: between {simple inherited word} and {Romanian creation
> from
>>> two inherited words}.
>>> Taking into account that `overtake` meaning is more specifical
>>> to Latin word "apprehendere" than to "prehendere" and that Italian
>>> used the same construction (maybe not totally independent) from
>>> Latin "apprehendere" for a verb meaning `to start to burn`, the
>>> most likely hypothesis (by far!) is #1.
>>
>> I appreciate your strain to co-relate it to Latin and Romance
>> development but I am afraid you are on the wrong path.
>
> Am I?! Says who?

Me.

>
>> In the same manner related to Italian, one can say that starting
>> the fire means open the fire, though, Rom. "aprinde" is in fact
>> Italian "aprire" (to open).
>
> Of course not. You did not try to understand the explanation and
> I am not willing to rephrase it once more because of your laziness.
> The Italian correspondent was not chosen by random picking: it is
> the direct phonetical counterpart of Romanian word (unlike "aprire"
> which could not have had a similar phonetical history), it is
> unanimously explained as deriving from Latin "apprehendere", and
> (most important) it shows up the very same semantical shift as
> Romanian word (among other meanings), unlike "aprire". Your proposal
> is nonsensical and shows up your basical lack of understanding for
> linguistics and its methods.

I suggest you read one of the post of Glen regarding arrogance. I can
even help you find it sooner:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/27996

>
>> It seems Latin does not help too much here, and let me tell you why.
>> I begin with the definiton you are missing:
>> a aprinde= to put fire; nothing more.
>
> I am not missing anything. The transitive form means: `to light (up)`
> `to kindle`, `to turn on (light)`, `to set fire to`, `to ignite`, `to
> rouse` (fig.). Slightly different on your "nothing more". You are of
> course forgetting the reflexive form meaning `to start to burn`, `to
> blush`, `to grow angry`, `to grow enthusiastic` (fig.), maybe you have
> some irrational prejudice against reflexives.
>
>> That was the ancient meaning ,
>
> BS.

Oh..:-)

>
>> this is the principal meaning today.
>
> One of the meanings.
>
>> Adj. "aprins" = made from paricipal form o "aprinde" means just
>> "bright".
>
> Aren't you forgetting a lot of other meanings?! "aprins" means
> also `burning (object)`, `heated` (also fig.), `red-faced`.

They are all derivative of the initial meaning "fire". See for your
self, damm!! There is nothing as in other Romance . there is everything
related just to fire and the colour of the fire. Even the the Germanic
"bright" here should make you sound the rings. You see by yourself all
here: aprins= burning; heated, red-faced as fire. What does it then
means in your meaning? Means this what Miguel showed you beside point
6&7 in Romance?

1) to take, to grab
2) to apprehend, arrest, put s.o. in jail
3) to fasten s.t. (to clothing)
4) to dress a woman
5) to get stuck, glued, anchored to something
6) of fire: to pass from one object to another; to catch fire
7) to light a fire
8) (obs.) to take or receive
9) of the male: to cover the female

>
>> Even if I asked you if you seen any relationship between prinde
>> & aprinde, it seems there is just a coincidentaly pfonetical
>> intercalation and nothing more.
>
> There is a relationship:
> "prehende(re)" > "prinde"
> "ad + prehendere" > "apprehende(re)" > "aprinde"
> that is at the level of Latin language. One might add:
> "cum + prehendere" > "comprehende(re)" > "cuprinde"
> "de + prehendere" > "deprehendere" > "deprinde"
> Phonetical similarity is not coincidental since all these words
> are compounds of the same basical verb.

BS. There is a simply phonetical coincidence because of "-inde". The
"*bher6-" is by itself the root which is showed in the other words too
related to fire as I showed in the thread "egni/ogni"

>
>> The word is simply related to fire;
>
> No. It's related to ignition process (a state change). Continuous
> process of burning is "ardere", not "aprindere". Since you haven't
> understood my explanation, you should read it the necessary number
> of times. Focus on "state change" and "overtake" part.

It is related to geting the fire, the begining the very point from
"scanteie" to "foc".It is a pitty to try to make a such semantic
exquilibristic for explaiong it undeniably trough Latin just because "it
sounds so alike".

>
>> without the meaning of fire, there is n-o "aprindere"
>
> See above.
>
>> te-ai prins?
>
> Keep the distance, young man. I already wasted too much time with
> your repeated nonsense; to allow you the use of singular would be
> way excessive.

So what, young man? Do you intend to apply punitive measures for not
saying what you like? You don't need it anymore. You already done it
some time before.

Alex