Re: [tied] spylian (romance part)

From: alex_lycos
Message: 17516
Date: 2003-01-11

m_iacomi@... wrote:
> --- In, "alex_lycos" <altamix@...> wrote:
>> In the moment when there is a set of rules to show anything else
>> as Latin evolution we can talk about., Right now, there is a set
>> of rules which show a Latin evolution and from my side just a big
>> amount of words who laugh about these rules. At this level I can
>> just tell you about these words , but not more
> Let's say "supposed big amount" and "alleged irregular words". It
> describes better the situation, as most linguists do not share this
> revolutionary idea
> Cheers,
> Marius Iacomi

Dear Mr Iacomi,
since most linguists allow derivation of Romanian "picior"= foot from
the scientific medieval Latin, misspelled word "petiolum", allow me
please to see in my way these linguists and even their fans.
There was a time where I have had no idea about the phenomena of
dissimulation, assimilation, epenthesis, methatheseis, haplogogie & co,
but today, such " expressions of linguistic wisdom " don't impress me
too much anymore.
And the historical context you are speaking about is in my mind too,
clear enough.
Talking about the rhotacism , in the sub-dialect of people which used
the rhotacism the sound "n" was the one who was rothacised but not the
"l". I allow myself to give you a text from "Codicele Voronetian", wrote
in the middle of XVI century.:

" Supuretsi-va amu lu Dumnedzeu Si protrivitsi-va dracului si fugi-va de
la voi. Chenuitsi si laclamatsi! Plangetsi!Nu va clevetiretsi urulu
alaltu, fratsi ca celace cleveteSte Si lega osândeSte."

It is enough to see that "n"= "r" but in words like "cela", "urula",
"alaltu" there is no rhotacism of "l".

Interesting too, should be the word "laclima"= teardrop where the corect
form is "lacrima" as the Latin form of the words.

Cheers, or if you preffer, " I Bogi te veselit" to reproduce the
close-formula of the letter of NeacSu .