Re: [tied] a help for Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: "richardwordingham" <richard.wordingham@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] a help for Piotr

[Moeller] I interpret this as follows: there are 3 languages
with 3
words with the same sense: latin=terra, romanian = pãmânt ,
sanscrit=
bhuman.

Richard:
So do you think he is merely saying that Romanian no longer
looks
much like Latin, whatever its historical origins?

[moeller] no sir. There was just a very plastic comparation. I
have an ei, a knife and apple. Which of them is looking more
appropiate to each other? That was all the "science" here. The
form of certains words are more apropiat in romanian to
sanskrite. And the form of other certain words are more
apropiate in romanian in latin . This is all. From that point
was nothing to do. just a plastic way to show a difference.



Moeller:
For every child now which form appears to be more related to
each
other? pãmânt= terra=bhuman. What does look more similar to
each
other? pãmânt to terra or pãmânt to bhuman or terra to
bhuman? This
is question for children here.

Richard:
How do you conclude that Vinereanu is addressing children?

[Moeller] I was now adressing myself ,imaginary, to a way of
view of children. Because it seems adult people have lost the
capecity to see the thing _as they are_, and they try to see
what a nuance of black culd be this white one, understand?


Similarity: pãmânt _resembles_ bhuman.
Relatedness: There seems only a vague possibility that this
same pair
might be related. Initial /p/ corresponds to /bh/, so far as
I am
aware, only in extreme High German - e.g. Bavarian - and
Tocharian,
where the voicing contrasts have collapsed. I would then want
to
know whether the Sanskrit form had a -t in its oblique cases,
or
whether it was an addition to pãmânt.

[Moeller] let me tell you something. If i have a jaket with a
only hole on it, i will dont mind. There is a hole and that is
all. It doesnt bother me because maybe is in a place where I
dont care. But if my whole jaket is fully like sieve with such
holes I will biterly feel bad and will try to do something to
see what is wrong with my jaket ( in this casde, my language).
If you take just a word, you can see some "accidents" . If you
see how many accidents there are, you will stope to see just
accidents there.. I hope you understand the comparation. If
not, I have no ideea how to make it clearly:-)


Richard:
Words are notorious for shifting their meanings. In English,
'floor'
is replacing 'ground' as the thing we walk on outside. But
'floor'
should mean something artificial.

[Moeller] yes. some of them. But this is not a rule to put
everything there. You can do it and you will have your garbage
then.



Richard:
This is the substrate theory of sound change. But one does
not need
substrates to cause sound changes. The Polynesians have had
plenty
of sound changes though for the most part their languages have
spread
to _uninhabited_ islands. My personal opinion is that changes
are
attributed to substrates far too often.

[Moeller] well, we cann suppose the wind is the one who change
the sounds.. or maybe the dogs who are barking at the moon..
we have a proverb, I guess is a Ie one. "How many heads, so
many suppositions.."

Moeller:
But equa remained equa and 500 years after the umbrian
"disspiered"

Richard:
Don't bet too much on them not being accidents!
However, 'substandard' forms may suddenly become acceptable at
times
of great upheaval.

[Moeller] you cann say there is an accident. but if I have in
substrate the "p" cluster why I have to assume that is an
accident?


[Moeller] you are invited to check. It is my pleasure to do
it.

Richard:
Is there an easy way to get at the collection? Or do I need
to
search the many postings for 'thraco-dac'?

[Moeller] you can get a query on net about thracian language.
You will find Georgiev-s book for sure. Take please the
glosese there ( are just 23) and do not pay attention to the
"reconstructions"
Fitrst take a look at them and after you made up a imagine of
these, go to reconstructed thracian forms of Georgiev. If you
still dont have enough of the "sastemism" of these things, ask
me. I willbe pleased to give you any information I have.