g wrote:
>> One question for our scholars. Which connection should be the Latin
>> "futurus"? Time, existence, movement?
>> Me personally I guess "futurus" is related to "existence"
>
> Have a look again at the link (posted by Miguel):
>
http://iiasnt.leidenuniv.nl/cgi-bin/response.cgi?flags=undnnnl&root=leid
en&basename=\data\ie\pokorny&first=231&sort=lemma
>
> to see this form of out of the string of derivations of
> "fui" (= preserved in Rum. as "fui" or "fusei" and also
> having the meaning of "am fost"):
Just a little correction .So far I know, in latin was no "s" in the
conjugation of *fire. You wanted for sure to say "Umbric" but not Latin.
If you want to say that "fusei, fusesem, fuseram" is a derivative from
Umbric , be my guest, I have nothing against it.
>
> As for the verb "a vietzui" (from "vi(e)atza" = life), of course
> there is the substantive & adjective "vietzuitor" & "vietzuitoare"
> + plural "vietzuitoare" (= roughly "being", "living being")
> You see here a derivation with "-itor" -- not a direct one of
> "viu/vie", but via the intermediaries "viatza" > "a vietzui"
>
>> Alex
There is a syllable which is to find in Slavic, Germanic, Romanic which
is connected with life. And this is in Romanic [fi/vi], in Germanic [be]
in Slavic [bi] too.
[fi]re, [vi]vo
le[be]n, to [be]
[by]ty
I don't try to make any connection among them since I cannot go too deep
. But I see that is maybe a coincidence that everywhere is in connection
with life.
In rom. you have both of them which are in Romanic "fi" and "vi"
fiinta= beeing, fire= art to be, fi= to be
viata= life, invia= make alive ( resurect), vietui= to live, alive=
viu,vietuitor=living
All these words are regarding the life: viu= alive, fiu= I am
(conjuctive).
I do not try to derive "viitor " from "viu". We don't know if before of
Slavic "trajU"= to live ( the Slavic word is more usual as "vietsui"
there have been a verb from "vi-" kind of "viia" or even the Latin verb
"vivo" with a past form like "*viit". From this one you will have how Mr
Iacomi say with the old suffix "-tor" your "viitor" regular from the
participial form.
But these do not mean anything since we do not know about existence of a
such verb before the loan of slavic "trajU" . We can just suppose it
could exist because there was the Latin verb "vivo" and that is all.
For the form with "vi-" see even the Greek words "bios" and "biomai"
where b/v is usually admitted in the inherited forms from Latin words
into rom. lang.
ALEX