Re: ficken

From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 51756
Date: 2008-01-22

--- In, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> On 2008-01-22 00:28, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> > Thanks. So the root is puts isn't it?
> > What was the Original Onomatopeea in this case and where is the
> > verbal suffix?
> A bilabial initial and an affricate/fricative final consonant. Both
> frequent enought in words meaning 'kiss'. What "verbal suffix" do
> mean? We have a verb root to which the normal personal endings were
> added. What else do you need?

a VERBal formation from an ONOMATOPEEA IS usually CONSTRUCTED based
on that Onomatopeea plus a suffix

> > g) Next, You cannot use only the taste here,
> > you need arguments to reject Alb. puth < PIE *puk^-
> You haven't answered any of my semantic objections (which aren't a
> matter of taste). As long as you have no convincing case, I don't
> have to bother to reject anything.

I answer in a distinct post. Please to read it.

> > Of course we are talking inside a defined model that could be
> > finally wrong, or more or less accurate...
> >
> > But if, inside this model:
> > burta 'belly' (< barukta:) is not from *bHer- 'carry',
> > brandza 'cheese' is not from *bHer- 'boil, ferment'
> > malai 'kind of flour' is not from *melh-,
> > pandza 'fabric' is not from *peh2n-,
> > bardza 'stork' is not from *bHerg^h1-,
> >
> > Let's forget all the Indo-European reconstructions, not only
> > Romanian-Substratum but, in general, I mean ....
> >
> > because we both know that the words above have a probability
> > different from zero to be Chinese words, isn't it?
> Of course I agree they are MOST LIKELY substratal, since no other
> hypothesis explains them better (let's ignore the fact that the
> accompanying reconstructions aren't all so good).
> That doesn't mean that
> a substratal solution works for each and every Romanian word that
> exhibits a slight irregularity or has an uncertain etymology.
> OK, Dacian
> was a real language and it (or something related to Albanian, at
> rate) provided early Romanian with plenty of loanwords. But you go
> such great lengths to prove that Romanian is Dacian just sprinkled
> with some Latin that you end up blurring the distinction between
> genuinely identifiable substrate words and all sorts of
> might-have-beens, down to outright fantasy. In this way you can
> replace the substrate of Romanian with a conlang of your own
> compromising your purpose and doing a disservice to substrate
> Piotr

I prefer that you show some specific issues, if any, than to
assert 'in general' something that I don't consider that has any link
with me.

Here is what I'm thinking:

1. Romanian is a Latin Language => I never said something else

If necessary, I could list here about 1200 Romanian Latin Words
(almost the complete list)
Even without them the language structure is a Latin one

2. This is not in contradiction with the great probability that putsa
is not a Latin Word
=> and I cannot understand why you make such a generalization
suddenly, started from a single word : putsa

3. This is not in contradiction with the great probability that
are Substratual-Words

NOT BECAUSE "since no other hypothesis explains them better" as you
wrote so often here


4. Greek has a lot of substratual words; German too, and they are
still PIE languages ...if Romanian has a great number of Substratual
words as a Latin Language, where is the issue?

5. this also doesn't mean that I need to accept the false
theory 'that the Daco-Romanian' formation is a Myth: because from a
linguistic point of view I can demonstrate today that is Not.

6. this also doesn't mean that I need to accept the false theory that
all the Romanian Substratual Words are "Albanian loans in Romanian"

7. this also doesn't mean that I need to accept the false theory that
ONLY the Romanian words that have acounterpart in Albanian could be
Substratual Words : pandza (peh2n- fabric) and brandza (bHer-
'ferment') has no counterparts to give you only 2 examples

8. I assert that Romanian-Substratum was genetically linked with the
Proto-Albanian (in Roman Times: Romanian-Substratum and Proto-
Albanian was 2 distinct dialects)

9. I assert that both Romanian-Substratum and Proto-Albanian were
closed linked with Dacian Language (very probable 2 distinct Dacian
dialects) based on the fact that I couldn't detect till today ANY
PHONETICAL CONTRADICTION between Romanian-Susbtratum, PAlbanian and

10. I assert that The PAlbanians 'arrived' in the Greece' vicinity
long time before Roman arrival in Balkans

11. I assert that the split bewteen the Romanian-Susbtratum and
PAlbanian took place too, long before Roman Arrival in Balkans
(somewhere around 500-300BC)

Comparing with I saw that was written on this forum regarding
Romanian, Albanian and Dacian my position is one of the most
coherent here..regarding his argumentation : the 1 to 11 explained in
a coherent way the linguistical situation of Romanian, Albanian,
Dacian and Balkan Latin

So if we are talking about generalities : my position is the above one


P.S. : I could easy assert for you too, some Latinist exagerations
like this never attested *putia 'penis' (and if Latin is not a well
attested Language, there is no Attested Language in this case),

but I think that this would be faraway from the spirit of our
previous discussions