Re: [tied] spylian (romance part)

From: m_iacomi
Message: 17520
Date: 2003-01-11

--- In, "alex_lycos" <altamix@...> wrote:

>>> 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
> Dear Mr Iacomi,
> since most linguists allow derivation of Romanian "picior"= foot
> from the scientific medieval Latin, misspelled word "petiolum",

Either you were misinformed, or you didn't understood some of the
explanations. My guess would be the second possibility.
Nevertheless, my message was not directed to you, but merely to
the others in order to limit the confusion generated by your own
allegations. The statement about most linguists not sharing your
views stays crystal clear.

> allow me please to see in my way these linguists and even their
> fans.

Feel free to have any opinion you want. Other contributors should
be aware, though, that it's neither the specialists' point of view,
nor an educated guess.

> There was a time where I have had no idea about the phenomena of
> dissimulation, assimilation, epenthesis, methatheseis, haplogogie
> & co,

I agree, at least now you can write them down as strings of
characters (up to some spelling errors and typos).

> And the historical context you are speaking about is in my mind
> too, clear enough.

Well, you'll have to read several times a phrase before finding
out I did not wrote "historical context" and you are completely

> 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".

Your point being?!

> It is enough to see that "n"= "r"

By no means. The late sub-dialectal phenomenon /n/ > /nr/ > /r/
which started after the first dialectal split (Aromanian & Megleno-
Romanian) but before the last one (Istro-Romanian) doesn't imply
that all /n/ should be equated to /r/. Just some intervocalic /n/
developed in /r/. That's all.

> but in words like "cela", "urula", "alaltu" there is no rhotacism
> of "l".

Late Romance formations ("alaltu") or with added final "-a" and/or
-ll- origin, to be found with /l/ in all Romanian dialects. What's
your point?

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

Very interesting, indeed.
I fail to see the connection between a misspelling of some late
Middle Age scribe and the topic of cybalist. I think you should
limit this kind of examples (unless you can identify a PIE root
closer to the misspelled word than to Latin form). :-)

Marius Iacomi