--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "altamix" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel J. Milton" <dmilt1896@>
> > wrote:
> > > Dacian *DZald-apa (attested Zaldapa) < *gHolh3-dH- + *h2ep-
> > > eh2 'golden water(s)'
> > > Romanian: apa 'water'
> > > Cognates: in Sanskrit, Baltic, Tocharian etc...
> > *******
> > Isn't 'apa' the expected outcome in Rum. of the
Latin 'aquam', even
> > if it accidentally mimics another I.-E. root?
> > Dan
> >
>
> The right question should be: how exactly can be prooved if
Rum. "apa"
> is the output of Latin "aquam" and in the same time can be prooven
> Rum. "apa" is not the Dacian "apa"? That is IMHO the very big
problem
> of sorting some things up.
>
> Alex
>
For the Dacian phonetic rule PIE h2e/a > Dacian a => if the
Romanian 'apa' is from IE>Dacian or from Latin is not so Important :
The attested Dacian *Akmo:nia & *Arg^esia are 'strong enough' to
indicate PIE h2e > PIE a > Dacian a
Now For IE origin of Romanian apa 'water' I have applied the
following logic:
- if a IE word 'exists almost everywhere in an IE Areal' where that
Language 'belong to' is better to consider that word as 'inherited'
and not 'a loan' from an IE-Sister language (of course if the
phonetic rules allow you to make a regular derivation too)
Example:
Albanian: ter 'taurus' could well be from Latin too (au>a/umlaut>e
are 'post-Latin' Albanian evolutions).
However the word is present in almost any IE languages ...So why to
exclude Albanian from this list if the word is present 'everywhere'
around ? For sure to consider 'such an Albanian gap' would have 'no
logic' => so the Albanian ter is very probable an inherited Albanian
word
Same thing with 'apa' => the IE word *h2ep- is present in
1. Indo-Iranian
2. Tocharian
3. Baltic
4. Greek (A:pia 'Peloponesus')
Also the extension h2ep-h3(o)n is present in
5. Latin (amnis < *abnis)
6. Celtic abon
7. Anatolian (Hittite, Luwian)
8. and also in Dacians: Rabon (Jiul) ~ Arabon (Pannonia) (even a
Celtic loan in Dacian cannot be excluded the formation h2ep-h3on is
present in Anatolian too)
Next In Dacia we have the atttested
1. Apus (attested Apos) (quoted by Pokorny too) (river in Banat,
considered today Caras) -> this is the 'strongest case' because it
contains only apa and couldn't be something else.
2. DZaldapa (attested Zaldapa) (in Dobrudjia) attested
Zaldapa 'golden waters'
In Balkans we have also
3. Burdapa
4. Salapia 'Salt waters'
(even Rodopes is considered to contain -apa inside)
Based on all these: Could we exclude the presence of the apa - word
in Dacia and in Balkans ?
The above toponyms and the spreading of the word in all the IE
Language exclude this possibility.
Now for Romanian:
1. ('until now' based on Dacian je > Romanian je) Romanian has a
Dacian Substratum
2. The presence of *apa in Dacian based on above toponyms and the
spreading of the word in all IE areal is almost sure
3. Romanian has a word apa that means (only) 'water'
Finally knowing the above Facts, why somebody can consider:
1. that the Romanized Dacians 'forget' their own word 'apa'
2. next 'loan' the word 'aqua' from Latin
3. and next based on kw/a > p/a they 'transform' the Latin
word 'aqua' back to their originar word 'apa' ?
Strange coincidence ...Too strange to be true....
Because finally we would have a very allambicated scenario, isn't
it? (=> even some Latinist here (see Miguel) will bet for it => but
he bets also on different forums that Romanian has no link with
Dacian => 'and now' the Dacian je and Romanian je < PIE e 'clearly
shows him that he's wrong' )
Marius
P>S> I will come back with a short analysis of Romanian kw/a > p/a
too.
For dacian