From: alexmoeller@...
Message: 15014
Date: 2002-09-03
----- Original Message -----
From: "George S t a n a" <gs001ns@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 7:13 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: a help for Piotr
>[Moeller] hmmm.. looooooool.. I could not help but I laugh
>now. Mr. Vinereanu say that The Form of certainly romanian
>words are MORE closely to sanscrit forms as to latin forms.
Sorry, Alex, he doesn't say that:
<<Nu este o exagerare sa spunem ca cel putin in anumite
privinte
Romana se apropie de Sanscrita la fel de mult ca si de
Latina.>>
<<There is no exaggeration for us to say that, at least from
certain
points of view, the Romanian language is as close to Sanskrit
as to Latin.>>
>Pavimentum. It is a wonderfull example. The romanized
>population, as the salvs camme, they ran away in the
>mountains, they forgot averything , even the word for "earth"
>but they said. "OK once in our lifes we have seen a pavage=
>pavimentum" so we do not forget it never ever. This will be
>from now our word for "earth".That is grotesque, sorry :-((
But pay heed to the initial meanings of it ("festgestampfte
Erde + Estrich", remember? :)
[Moeller] no way. there for you have bãtãtura = festgestampfte
Erde. No pavimentum. And pãmânt does not mean festgestampfte
erde and just Erde and the second sens , specialy is "land".
Not pavimentum, not something in this way. Pãmânt is land and
seens on the bigger scala, this is erde. And the semantic from
latin ehre shows just a tired try to aproache pavimentum to
romanian pãmânt. The PIE *root works for pãmânt and it does
not mean pavimentum:-)
>And about terra I should like to
>tell you about the composed word Tara-bostes
Oh, c'mon, Alex, you're better than that! What on earth
should Jordanes's "tarabostes" (or thorabostes or strabostes)
have in common with "terra" (or Rum. "tzara" for that matter)?
[Moeller]nothing. It was just an absurd thing for showing how
bad could these supposition be. For some people just because
Dacia was for 12 years FULL with legions, they think all the
165 years was the same thing. They have no ideea that at 118
Hadrian took back the latin legions and that from 118 he
modified the roman army, where every legion took new recruits
from the place where this legion has been. In this case, the
legions from Thracia people from thrace, the legion from
Brittania, people from brittania. Thwere is no roman stuff
from 118 . But I go too deep in these stories for linguistics
aspects.From latin "terra" Mr. Paul Alesu gave a lot of
rumanins derivations. I have no ideea if the other romance
language show too a such richness of derivation for this word.
>You say thracian "Zalmos"= helmet.
Pardon? Who said that? Is that for sure? Have "Zamol-" and
"zemelen-"
meanwhile been discarded, along with "Zelmo- & -zelmis"? :-)
>Have you thought that Zal is not a helmet but, it means
"God"?
How come?
[Moeller] go please in Museum in Vienna and take a look at the
coins from the series Sarmis and Inka. The Sarmis coins are
unicate, and there are inscripted "Zal "and "Armis" on.What
should look a "helm" on a coin? And in romanian you have zãu,
zeu . From latin deus?
>Do you ever tought about Zal + mos=zalmos could be in
>romanian = Zãul Mosh=
Yeah, sure. :)
>The rumanians linguists argue here with the "big culture and
prestige"
>for learning latin. This is why the thracian romanized.
This is not true. And this is even tantamount to offending
all those who've practised no-nonsense studying of all that
Thracian-Dacian stuff.
>a. moelller
[Moelle] George. As I said a romanization was not posible with
people because of historical considerations, the explanation
was given that the culture was the one who made the dacians
and thracians to forget their langauge. The culture of Roman
Empire and the prestige to be a roman. These ar enot my words.
Do I need to put here texts from romanian lingvists as
Rosetti, Philipide, Pushcariu & Co for showing their own
words? I dont think we need it. This is wellknown in the
romanistic world.