[tied] Re: The Tongue

From: Richard Wordingham Message: 17360
Date: 2003-01-03

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, alexmoeller@... wrote:
> richard.wordingham@... wrote:
> > This is a belated reply to Message 17254..
> > . Alex suggested that Latin
> > sanguinare should have yielded Romanian *sa^mbinare,not si^ngera.
> > However, Latin gue, gui yield Romanian ge, gi, just as que, qui
> > ce, ci. - Richard.
> I quote here the explanation from Rosetti:
> "sanguine > sânge shows a different treatment as expected ; the
lost of
> labial element could be explained through the presence of "e" which
> palatalised the precedent consonant. The Sardic language doesn't
> this phenomena: log. sambine (cf. and log. "ambizua",
campid. "abizui" <
> sanguisuga"). "
> Of course Rosetti doest loose a word about the tribe of "singi" and
> toponym Singidava. Too there is no comparation with the actual
> "sângerul", the arbre "sânger" where "it seems" there are pure
> coincidences as usual.

I got the rule from Bourciez via Miguel's posting at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/15002 q.v. I would
have referred you to that, but I did not have my index to hand. As I
expressed it, I intended vowel development to be addressed
separately. The rule is remarkable, but the change /kwe/ > /cwe/ is
not unknown. That rule is either pre-Sanskrit or Slavic, but I can't
remember which.

> For "gui > gi"
> lat inguine > rom. îmbina = to put together, you see the exception
> since there should have been expected "îngina"

Perhaps it derives from Latin combinare by prefix substitution. I
don't know how much that happened, but FWIW Old French had a lot of
_suffix_ substitution.

> For "gue > gi" here is no example of a Latin "gue" yielding a
Rom "ge".

> At least I could not find any and I tried to find some words but it
> seems there is no one.

Depends how sanguis 'blood' was inflected. Did you find any reflexes
of Latin 'gue'?

> For "que > ce " . I don't want to bring here the interrogative
> since they have a special treatment. But even here we see that Latin
> "quid" > Rom. "ce" where i>e .

I'm happy to class this under the combined que > ce and qui > ci rule.

> Rom "ci" is given as a coming from Rom.
> "ce" not from lat. "quid" and has an another semantism . "ci"= kind
> "bat": " nu aSa ci aSa"= not this way, but this way".
> The word "încet, încetinel"= quiet or slow, which is supposed to
> from Latin qu(i)etus is a composition of "in" +"cetinel" and has its
> counterpart in "cãtinel" which is supposed to come from
lat. "cautelo"
> where the semantism as usual doesn't match.
> "înceta"=to stop an action, to die, given from a lat.
> *quetare(quietare).
> In fact it seems there is too , nothing with exception of the
> interrogative pronouns which appear to come from Latin Since almost
> "ce" in romanian are supposed to come from a Latin "cae or ce" (
> smog= lat. ceacia= blind; ceapa= onion or bulb from latin caepa:
> lat caelus= sky, etc)" I am pretty curious where from you got these
> rules, but I guess you was thinking just at the interrogative

Well, Miguel does cite quaero > cer.