Re: [tied] Re: Balkan Serpents (was: alb. gji (breast))

----- Original Message -----
From: "alex_lycos" <altamix@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 6:52 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Balkan Serpents (was: alb. gji (breast))


> The rest what follows deosnt have anymor with nasal to do but with this
> "E" from PBR. This remembers me of point 9 from the rules:
> 9)/iea/ > /ia/
> And more: fervere > fierbe, but conj. 'fiarbã'; in conjunctive form you
> cannot say " lasã sã fierbe" but "lasã sã fiarbã"

You HAVE saved the rules, haven't you?

e > E > ie > iea > ia (if an -ã follows), ie (if an -e follows). Same for <piardã, pierde>, <piatrã, pietre>, etc.

> BTW, try please to derive from Latin vitellus & vitella to see if you
> get Romanian Vitsel & Vitsea.I guess you will get everything else but
> not vitsel and not vitsea.

And why the hell not? How about trying yourself?

> 1) I understand that neo romance took the accusative form from Latin but
> why the diminutive form too?
> Why should take hard working /hard living people take these diminutival
> forms from Latin for calling the things like this?

The use of diminutives has little to do with how hard the speakers work. If anything, hard-working farmers are likely to use emphatic forms, if any are available, when referring to their critters.

> In Rom vitsel, purc^el, vitsea, cãtsel, cãtsea ( vitellus, vitella,
> purcellus, purcella, catellus, catella) are _not_ diminutival but
> principal forms which have their own diminutival forms.For everyone is
> clear the words are very closed to each other but with phonetical rules
> it doesnt works very properly. Just for comparation of forms with non
> diminutival forms in both languages:
> non diminutival diminutive
> porcus = porc
> porculus = purcel (purc^el) porcellus > purcelus (purc^eluS)
> porca = purcea (purc^ea) porcella > purcelusa (purc^eluSa)
>
> vita(live)= vita ( cow)
> vitulus = vitsel vitellus > vitseluS
> vitula = vitsea vitella > vitseluSa or vitsica
>
> canis (old latin cf. Varro)= cane > rom "câne" > câine
>
> catulus = cãtsel catellus = catseluS
> catula = catsea catella = catseluSa
>
> It seems very interesting that ROm. took the diminutival forms for
> making their own principal forms, but later, they put again suffixes for
> giving siminutival forms in Rom. Lang which are almost the same as in
> the Latin. How is that to explain?

Take Italian or Slavic, where two, and sometimes as many as three diminutive suffixes can be added to the same root.