Re: Try

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@> wrote:
>
> >
> > The late Catalan Chicago etymologist Joan Coromines found `triar' in
> > 13th-century Catalan and considered the word problematic. He put
> forward
> > the hypothesis that it might come from vulgar Latin *destriare, a
> > presumably farming term meaning to `to keep grooves separate', from
> > Latin stria (= groove --and also crack, cleft, line) and that the
> > initial des- might have been misanalyzed as a prefix. Whence the
> `triar'
> > we find in Catalan and Provençal (also French trier) at about the

same

> > time, with the common meaning of `(to) distinguish / separate [or
> rather
> > `keep separate'] / select'.
> >
> > The idea might be true, considering that `triar' is very much

alive in

> > present-day Catalan as a perfect synonym for `elegir',

`seleccionar' or

> > `escollir', in all contexts.
> > All the same, the postverbal `tria' is interchangeably used (with an
> > emphasis on the distinguishing operation being done accurately) for
> > `selecció' and, in book contexts, `antologia'.
> >
> > That Coromines's idea might be true is reinforced by the existence

and

> > common everyday use of `destriar' (corresponding to Coromines's
> > hypothesised vulgar Latin word) in today's Catalan, where it means
> `(to)
> > find or make precise, careful distinctions', the implication being

that

> > there are two things/concepts that are hard to distinguish or

separate

> > and the `(des)triar' operation, always requiring some
> > attentional/intellectual effort, takes them apart for separate
> > manipulation/consideration.
> >
> > In restricted contexts (e.g. farming) `triar' also means `(to)

separate

> > grain from chaff' (as in threshing) or, more generally, `(to) sift'.
> > What is clearly lacking in Catalan (and also in Provençal) is the
> `test'
> > or `judge' sense it acquired in Anglo-Norman `trier' and,

subsequently,

> > in English `try'. (This latter development parallels the shift of

Greek

> > krinein ---and also Latin (dis)cernere--- from meaning `(to)

separate,

> > distinguish, ponder carefully about' to meaning, more formally, `(to)
> > judge'.)
> >
> > Coromines's hypothesis seems to make sense both in semantic and
> > phonological terms. It reconciles the basic senses of the word and
> > avoids phonetical difficulties as a Latin tritare morphing

implausibly,

> > in all three languages, into `triar'.
> >
> > Ton Sales
>
> Interesting, but I'd like to know more about the supposed "vulgar
> Latin *destriare, a presumably farming term meaning to `to keep
> grooves separate'". The only grooves that I can think of in this
> context are furrows. Is there any evidence they were ever called
> 'striae'?
> Varro's "qua aratrum vomere striam facit, sulcus vocatur" (Varr. R.
> R. 1, 29, 3) reflects the obvious fact that furrows are groovelike,
> but seems to imply they were NOT called 'striae' in classical Latin
> at least.
> Dan
>

To my [i.e. Ton Sales's] previous comment on Coromines's etymology of
`try' from a postulated agricultural term (not exactly in what is
currently known as "vulgar Latin" but I'd rather say in the commoner's
Latin of the classical period) *de:stria:re (from stria = groove,
furrow, channel, hollow), I'd like to add that in my opinion many
abstract Classical Latin terms come farming metaphors. Suffice it to
mention di:lapida:re (literally "remove the stones out of one's field
(or house)", e:limina:re ("take something --or somebody-- off limits
of one's property), or de:li:ra:re ("deviate from the line one is
following when ploughing" or, more generally, "go astray"), from li:ra
= ridge between two furrows (also the furrow itself).

This last example serves me to speculate that its antonym could well
be *de:stria:re, meaning "to keep oneself on the groove/furrow,
presumably by distinguishing precisely where the groove is and where
is one heading, in order not to, well, go astray".

As to the fine point whether stria was the common word (or not) for
furrow or groove or whatever, I'm no expert in Classical Latin, so I
went to Lewis & Short and there I found

strĭa , ae, f.,
I. a furrow, channel, hollow: quā aratrum vomere striam facit, sulcus
vocatur, Varr. R. R. 1, 29, 3 ; the flute of a column, Vitr. 3, 4, 14

and also, just for the record, since I mentioned de:li:ra:re and li:ra,

līra , ae, f. [perh. fr. lisa; O. H. Germ. Leisa; Germ. Geleise, a
track or rut; cf. delirus] ,
I. the earth thrown up between two furrows, a ridge: liras rustici
vocant easdem porcas, cum sic aratum est, ut inter duos latius
distantes sulcos medius cumulus siccam sedem frumentis praebeat, Col.
2, 4, 8 : patentes liras facere, id. 2, 8, 3 : proscissa lira, id. 2, 10
II. Transf., a furrow, acc. to Non. 17, 32; cf. lira, aulax, Gloss.
Philox.

so it would seem that, according to L&S, stria was a furrow
(presumably not a concept greatly distinct from that of a sulcus or a
groove) and li:ra was the "medius cumulus" (between "distantes sulcos").

As to the ambivalency (and subsequent transit in both directions)
between Latin cernere and discernere and between Catalan triar and
destriar, both with large semantic overlaps, it can be reasonably
thought to be due to the speaker's perception that dis- or des- are
mere widely-known suffixes emphasizing, rather than changing, the
basic meaning of "separate" (or rather "keep separate"), "discern",
"distinguish", "discriminate finely between potentially diverging
paths" ---which takes us again back to the natural agricultural
interpretation.

Ton Sales