On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 22:17:47 +0100,
alexmoeller@... wrote:
>2) "vorbã" and " a vorbi" cannot be evolution of "verbum" or
>"ad verbum". How I said, the romanina linguists assumed the
>slavic word "dvorIba" has maybe something to do here, but the
>semantism is far.
>
>3) do you have a better ideea regarding the ethymology of
>romanian "vorba"?
C.D. Buck says:
"Rum. <vorbi>, with sb. <vorbã> 'saying, talk', prob. a loanword of
uncertain source. Densusianu 1.74 (not fr. Lat. <verbum>). Tiktin 1771
(fr. Slavic). Diculescu, Z. rom. Ph. 41.427 (fr. Gmc.)."
I don't have any other sources, and I haven't given the matter any
thought. I always kind of assumed it was from verbum, but the
expected Romanian form would have been, if I'm not mistaken, *varbã,
*a vãrbi (from the collective <verba> -> *vierba (diphthongisation) ->
*viearba (breaking) -> *viarba (simplification) -> *varbã (after
labial)). Whether a > o in this context is really such an
unsurmountable obstacle, I don't know. What's the Aromanian form, if
any?
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...