Re: [tied] para

From: alex_lycos
Message: 17762
Date: 2003-01-18

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] para

Nonsense. Latin intro -> E.Rom *entru -> Rom. întru. Latin in ->
E.Rom *en -> Rom. în-

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal

For the phonetic aspect , I recommend you "Fonologia istorica a
dialectelor daco-române" of Mr. Emanuel Vasiliu , Bucharest 1968. For
the semantism of rom. word, I guess you have for sure one explanation
even the corelation of "întru" versus " a intra". Just as curiosity, the
latin word "intro" survived just in the romanian, I am wrong? So
far,doesn't seem curious to you this relation here? Take a look:

PIE *en > Latin en. Latin "en" develop to "in" which > Proto-Romanian
*en , which > Romanian > ãn/ân

I shouldn't say nonsense. I should just be very intrigued.The only one
with no sense here in the chain is the "in" which IS in latin an "in"
from an "en".Let us think a bit. The original "en" was modified in
Vitelia. There is the geographical place where trough the influence of
other languages or by due itself the Latin "en" became "in".
Take a look now all around:
French en
Romanian än/ân
Spanish "en"
Portugal "en"
but italian "in"
It seems this "in" survived _just there_ where it was modified, in the
Italian space.
Does it look as nonsense ? I will take it at least as a possibility of
indigenous speaking like they always spooked the Latin words and not as
a late evolution of "vulgar Latin".