[tied] Re: for Alvin

--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:57:14 -0000, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>

wrote:

>
> >> Rom. <fir> is simply Latin <fi:lum> "thread". Fata (< feata <
> >feta) "girl" is
> >> Latin fe:ta (the feminine of fetus/foetus), and fetelor < fe:tae
> >illorum. No
> >> Dacian there.
> >Fet-us/-a is the past passive participle of PIE *dHei- "suckle".

In

> >the non-transferred sense of "child", ie. "that which is being
> >suckled" it is, according to the dictionaries I consulted, only

known

> >in poetic language or in the "silver age" writers, ie. later than

the

> >conquest of Dacia.
>
> Assuming the objection is meant to be "later than the loss of

Dacia": so what?

> Romanian does not continue the Latin of Roman Dacia.

Oh. I thought from an earlier reference that both Albanian and
Romanian were derived (with more or less Latin admixture) from Daco-
Mysian which I placed for some reason in southern Romania.

Anyway, Alex' proposal was that this Dacian which is then the origin
of Romanian was a language between Slavic and Italic. Let me guess
that Slavic (eg. Russian) det-i "children" is cognate with Latin fet-
? Of course, in historical linguistics languages have their own will,
so to speak, you don't have to come up with an explanation why
Romanian chose to use the Latin root *fet- which before that time was
used only in poetry, but which is used in a neighbouring language.
But it is a bit of a coincidence, don't you think?

>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...

Torsten