Re: [tied] Re: Green

----- Original Message -----
From: "alex_lycos" <altamix@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 11:30 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Green



> But Piotr, there is not a joke. The latin short /i/ remains an /i/ in
Romanian. This abracadabra with diphtongation , triphtongation, breaking & co is too complicated in comparation with PIE forms where some words in romanian are very simple to derive:
> *kerdh > cârd
> *ger-1 > ghearã
> *ueidh > vãduv
> *wid > uita
> *weid >vedea
> *ap-2 > apa
> *gwrendh or bhrendh> brând(uSa), and so on.

Alex, what do these examples have to do with the development of Latin short /i/ in Romanian? Does this rubbish mean anything at all? You are just restating your credo: "Romanian is not descended from Latin." You prefer a simple myth to the complicated truth -- all right, it's your problem. But stop annoying other list members with these fantasies.

> It seems to me that is improbable that on a side you have such archaich forms but on another side you need so complicated changes like from latin to romanian. I just learn and I want to learn.

I don't believe you. You have just demonstrated your absolute unwillingness to learn.

> You dont need to feel angry.

Perhaps you're right. It's better to ignore a troll than to get angry with one.

> But when I see that a short /i/ remains /i/ in Romanian despite the demonstration of Miguel , I must wonder about.

If there were any intellectual curiosity in you, you would at least try to see if the rules given by Miguel work in the environment in which they are supposed to work. Instead, you repeatedly list "exceptions" -- words in which the conditions are not met, so the rule does not work. Your careless attitude shows that you have no respect whatsoever for the knowledge other people are trying to share with you, and you are not ashamed to say so ("abracadabra", etc.). We've been wasting our time.

Piotr