On Fri, 2 Nov 2001 14:18:15 -0200, "João S. Lopes Filho"
<
jodan99@...> wrote:
>You're right. According to Antenor Nascentes' Etymological Dictionary :açor,
>do Latim acceptore, *ac'ptor, *açtor. "Meyer-Lübke rejects Latin accipter
>and astur.
Do you mean he rejects a connection between <accipiter> and <astur>?
>I didnt know astur was Late Latin, the suffix seems the same as vultur.
In Sergejus' message it said: "Mayer: akin to Late Latin astur 'hawk'
< Messap. < PIE *astr, cf. Latin uultur 'kite' [cf. for the ending, I
presume --mcv]."
The (only) attestation I found seems to be from AD 354, which I
suppose qualifies as Late Latin (AD 476 end of the Western Empire).
The question is whether that is late enough for a vulgar form
*aç(ç)t(t)Ure < *ACCEPTO:RE. We have:
1. change of conjugation (-tr->-tor-)
2. assibilation of ci > c^/ç
3. loss of unstressed i
4. assimilation pt > tt
5. vowel timbre change /o:/ and /u/ > /U/ ~ /o./
The Appendix Probi, from the 3rd or 4th century AD, shows examples of
1 (sort of: teter non tetrus), 3. (calida non calda, frigida non
fricda), 4 (sort of: auctor non autor) and 5 (sobrius non suber).
The assibilation of /ki/ is probably attested already AD 179 (terciae
for tertiae, and frequent 2nd./3rd. c. spellings of -tius as -tzus).
I'd say a case could be made for <astur> as a, mutatis mutandis,
prakritism.