barba, farfeche, bãiat
outgoing point: *bhardha < lat. barba , yes or not?
I supposed the latin barba and implicitely barbatus cannot
derive from IE *bhardha because -bh- and -dh - went both -f-
Piotr and Miguell argued there is another rule so I have to
forget my supposition .
Regarding the word barba, let us have an explanation:
Ernout-Meillet -Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue latine,
Paris, 1959, page 66 supposes that initialy there must have
been an italic "farfa" which became in latin "farba" and after
this became "barba".
If my source of information agrees with the first part, with
the second part "farba" changes to "barba" has some troubles.
There is no need in latin from iteslf to change from farba to
barba so there it must be an influence from somewhere else .
If we will have to look at the today gallic where for barba
they use "barfau" which has to come froma "barba" because PIE
dh could not chenge directly to f but trough an intermediate
proto-celtic form which must be "barba", the change of "d" (
from PIE dh in gallic) in "b" must have took change for
avoiding the omonimy with the word *barde ( ax for fighting)
which was in use in the old french until the XV century.
Outgoing puint: farfechie
Miguell & Piotr did not say they do not belive , but they
could not find this word . Let us see:
In the Grand Dizionario della Lingua Italiana of Salvatore
Bataglia ( in 20 volums) published begining with 1961, in the
5-th volume pag 685 we will see:
farfechia ( ant. ) - baffo ( moustache)
outgoing point: rom. bãiat, bãrbat,bãtrân
if for Miguell souns OK that bãiat could be from imbalneatus,
there is in no romance this word , but we cann agree, maybe
the ancient romaninas have had much phantesie. Of course we
can agree something else. For instance the english "boy" is
the samy dacian form of bãiat if we things about some dacian
cohortes which are to find in British insels at that time. I
do not have an etymologycal dictionarie of english, so I will
like to beg someone to take a look at english "boy" which
looks very like to rom. "bãi" and with "bãiat" for seeing what
an ethymology is there. I know it sounds crazy but it doesnt
cost too much to take a look. Maybe is a celtic form or so
which gives another dimension of all stuff
supposed to be very clear to every romanist from lat.
I am still not happy with this one but how I said, I dont have
a very good explanation. The only point where I am is this:
bãtrân is to find in:
vegliot=vetrun, old venetian=vetrano, old sardic=betran,
albanian vjetruar.Veteranus comes from vetus in latin and all
come from an PIE *uet- "an". It is excluded the albanian have
their word from latin because they have vit ( pl. vijet)
This is all I know at this time about