From: Abdullah Konushevci
Message: 29086
Date: 2004-01-04
> Richard Wordingham wrote:stop
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
> >
> >> vacã (cow)= boalã (cf DEX < Slavic bolI "sickness")
> >
> > Am I missing something? All the meanings of _boalã_ that I could
> > find relate to 'sickness'.
>
> If one consider that an animal is a sickness , I don't intend to
> him think so, but I wish his food will depend of this animal forinformation
> allowing to call it "sickness". Just for the completing the
> cf DEX:naravase.
>
> boalã: 2) Epitet dat vitelor (sau altor animale)slabe, lenese,
>expresion "Nii,
> So far I know and remember from my childhood there is no
> vacã" but "Nii, boalã" or "Nii, vitã".Even the word for domesticanimals
> is the one of "vitã" not the recently "animal".the
> About "sickness", it appears of course explanable, since the skinny,
> lazy, balky restive animal can be just a sickness. At least in the
> opinion of some cosmopolit citiziens which know the cow just from
> books.the
> Supplimentary info: the suffix "-lã" apears for "mia" too. There is
> form "mialã".not
>
> >> wild ox= bour (cf. DEX < Latin "bubalus",
> >> here phonetic trouble IMO)
> >
> > Probably an eye or finger problem (at DEX - on line, at least -
> > Alex's). The Latin word is _bu:bulus_, which would give *búur as_bo:bus_
> > opposed to bóur. I'd believe dissimilation as an explanation.
> > Lewis & Short as given by Perseus says a very ancient form was
> > _bovillus_, but I think they should say 'synonym', not 'form'. If
> > we want to push things back to Latin, the alternative forms
> > and _bu:bus_ of the dative & ablative plural of _bo:s_ come tomind.
>Latin
> DEX 1998 gives for "bour" the Latin word "bubalus", for "bou" the
> word "bovus", for "bivol" Slavic "byvolU"Latin "agnelia"
>
> >
> >> oaie= there is not a properly synonim but the use of "mioarã" is
> > the
> >> only one I can remember about now. "mioarã" appears in my eyes to
> > be
> >> diminutival of "mia" (young sheep); "mia" cf DEX <
> >> (phonetic troubles too IMO)word
> >
> > Eye trouble here - the Latin is _agnella_ (is it attested?),
> > feminine of _agnellus_.
>
> DEX gives here "agnelia", not "agnella"
>
> > Didn't we discuss the derivation of miel
> > from _agnellus_ once? (I can't find the discussion.) If _miel_
> > derives from _agnellus_, _mia_ derives from _agnella_. (For
> > details, try using gnellus and gnella as inputs in my 'toy'.)
> >
> > Richard.
>
> We discussed it. The observation has been as follow:
> -Rom. has the happbit to places an protetic "a" at the begin of the
> but not to reduce it.Aromanian more as DR has a protetic a, theforms
> "*amniel, *amiel" are not existent in Arom. too.but
> -gn > mn appears in the doric texts already. ( gain, the time line)
> -the reduction of "mne" > "me" appears unusul , for it se
> "Dumnezeu,pumni, etc."
> -the palatalised pronounciation of "m" is to see in several
> examples;exemples which begin with /ne-/, /ni-/ and which could be
> pronounced palatal seems to be not existent.
> Some examples: mea= n^ea, micã= n^icã, mie= n^ie (1)
>
> 1) the notation usualy used for this sound is with "n^" or with "ñ"
> they are misleading. If I will use a term of Rosetti I will call itvelar
> "apendix". In this case there is a smal _velar appendix_ where the
> group is not "gy" but "ky". One must hear once this pronounciationto
> make the differnece since the mostly Spanish(?) "ñ" is misleadinghere.
>************
> Alex