Re: [tied] para

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 17768
Date: 2003-01-18

On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 20:39:11 +0100, "alex_lycos" <altamix@...>

>Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 18:24:37 +0100, "alex_lycos" <altamix@...>
>> wrote:
>>> 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?
>> Yes: for instance Old Catalan intre (modern dintre). Catalan also has
>> the verbs entrar and intrar (arch.) < ENTRARE
>are you sure we speak about the same word ? Please remember romanian has
>too "dintre" like modern Catalan.
>So we have in romanian printre, dintre, pentru, între,întru all beeing
>given as being from latin "intro" but "intra" = to enter from latin
>Catalan "intre/dintre" is from Latin intro, intrare or inter?

From intro. Intrare > entrar (intrar), inter > entre.

>> Nobody spooked Latin words outside Latium until ca. 300 BC.
>Dear Miguel. There are linguistic scenarios and ancient testimonies. The
>advantage of these testimonies ( even if we have to read them very
>carefully ) are , the people who wrote them lived in that times.
>I see obliged here to give you these testimonies whereby I must specify
>I haven't checked them in a second source for being sure there is no
>"manipulation" of the texts here. Please take them as "unverified"
>In the time of Ennius (239-169) the language of the Iberian population
>was considered as a corrupted Latin language
>( Enniu la Charisiu , Inst. Gramm. II (Keil, Gr. Lat. I. 200)
>Cesar wrote about the language of the Gauls to be appropriate to Latin.

We know better now...

>Quintillian ( Inst. I. 5.)has his way to see the way how the barbarians
>"barbarismum pluribus accipimus. Unum, in gente, quale sit, si quis
>Afrum vel Hispanum Latinae orationi nomen inserat...Tertium est illud
>vitium barbarisimi...ut verbo, cuilibebit, adjiciat litteram syllabamve
>vel detrahat; aut aliam pro alia, aut eamdem alio, quam rectum est, loco
>Issidorus (Orig. I 31.1.):
>"Appelatur autem barbarismus a barbaria gentibus, dum orationis latinae
>integritam nescirent."
>Ibidem I 31.3
>"Barbarismus autem fit scripto et pronunciatione. Scripto... si quis in
>verbo litteram vel syllabam adiicit, mutet, transmutet vel minat.
>Pronunciatione autem fit in temporibus, tonis, aspriationibus,etc."

Sure, when non-Romans spoke Latin they had an accent and made
mistakes. Why is this relevant?

>There are more such texts but I resume myself just here.
>It is interesting to follow this phenomenon. The Latins go everywhere
>and conquest. The people who are conquested adopted the language of the
>Latins by different reasons.
>The same people some centuries later under the invasion of Germanic
>tribes, under the invasion of Slavic tribes, under the invasion of
>Arabian, Turkish people, under same kind of invasions if not worse ,
>refuse to adopt a new language

Firstly, you're greatly underestimating the significance of the
Empire. Secondly, it's not true: Latin gave way to Arabic and Slavic
in North Africa and most of the Balkan peninsula.

>> Indo-Europoean *en became Latin in (e > i before nasal). Latin short
>> /i/ (and long /e:/) became Vulgar Latin close /e/. This again became
>> /i/ before a nasal in a closed syllable in some Romance languages, and
>> that's why we have Italian in, Romanian în/întru and Catalan dintre
>Well, really about PIE *en > directly latin "in"? I know that in oscic
>and old Latin there was an "en" not an "*en". So there was not a PIE
>"*en" > latin "in" but a latin en ( from PIe *en) > in within Latin
>language. At least so I have here in my dictionary. And I guess this is
>an evidence for a singular transformation just in Italia of en > in.

Just in Latium. Oscan was spoken in Italy too.

>But for your assumption, is there any glosse , any inscription which
>will show that there was an "in" > "en" in latin again? Or this is just
>the resonable way of thinking because romances today have "en" but not

The change of /i/ to /e/ is abundantly documented from the 3rd century

>If there is nothing for showing an transformation from latin "in" to
>proto-romances "en" then this supposition is weaker as a continuum PIE
>*en which was kept by speakers outside of area where latin changed "en"
>to "in".

There was no Latin outside the area where Latin was spoken (Latium).

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal