Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> ----- 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?
I have them . I just don't have the rules with unstressed vowels.
>
> 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?
I tried:
/i/, /e/, > /E/
vitella > vEtElla
2) /E/>/e/ before /m/, /mC/, /nC/
2b) except before /m/ or /mn/, /e/ (original or from /E/) is further
closed to /i/ (timp, dinte , plin , limba, gem, lemn)
Here can be a problem with my capacity of understanding. I am not really
sure if I understood right. Therefore I tried to take both possibility:
a1) if followed by /m/ or /mn/ [em, emn] the /e/ original or from /E/
remains /e/ --> gem, lemn
a2) if not followed by /m/ or /mn/ the /e/ original or from /E/ closed
to /i/ -- dinte,plin
for a1) it doesn't applies to 'timp'(tempus), 'limba'( lingua)
for a2) it doesn't applies to 'des'(densus), 'cerb' (cervus)
Therefore I thought I understood bad so I said, OK, there it should be
other ways:
b1) if followed by /m/ or /mn/ [em, emn] the /e/ original or from /E/
closed to /i/ --> 'timp', 'limba'
b2) if not followed by /m/ or /mn/ the /e/ original or from /E/ remains
/e/ -- gem, lemn
for b1) it doesn't applies to 'gem' (gemere), lemn (lignum, BTW
'li:gnum' should remains in /i/ not /e/)
for b2) ir doesn't applies to 'timp' (tempus), limba (lingua)
So far I have indeed trouble to understand if /e/ or /E/ is now an /e/
or an /i/.
Coming to our 'vitella' we have first a simple derivation vitella >
vEtElla. But further?
From a2 ( when no /m/ or /mn/ , /e/ > /i/) we can have vEtElla > vitilla
From b2 ( when no /m/ or /mn/ , /e/ > /e/) we can have vEtElla > vetella
Of course, trying to derive from these both forms, there will be
different results. This is why I asked you to try to derive. I have the
feeling I am blind now, somewhere I did not understood something right.
This is why I don't want you to be angry on me, but simply I fail to see
what we have now. I tried on other way. I said, ok Alex, forget about
here since is no nasal in your next words, so you have to think just in
this way:
/e:/,/oe/, /i/ >/e/ and
/e/, /ae/>/E/.
So from Latin words we have in PBR such new words:
vitella > vetElla
videre > vedere
In these two examples is interesting just the form 'ver-'.The further
development from PBR to Romanian should be:
vetElla > vitiella
vedere > vedere
Why once the /e/ from 'vetElla' became /i/ and the /e/ from 'vedere'
became /e/ ?
This was the next stop where I have no idea how to go further. It seems
with the rules in the hand I fail to see how I have to work with them.
>
>> 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
Are likely? Ok, they are likely to use them then.
>> It seems very interesting that Rom. took the diminutive 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
You said right "same root". But which is the root here?
Until you find an answer let me tell you my opinion regarding vitulus,
catulus and purcelus
I tried to give you a point regarding these forms. In Latin you have
'vitulus' and 'vitula' with what an etymology? Where from are they
deriving? Which is the root?
In Romanian I can say they derive from 'vita'= the cow.
vita + sufix "el" or maybe "iel" > vitsel
vita + suffix "ea" or maybe "iea" > vitsea
In Latin we do not have the form "vita"= cow, but the word 'vita'= life.
In so far you cannot explain vitulus and vitula trough a Latin root ( or
you can, I don't know)
For 'porc'= pig the 'porc' is the root in Rom. and Latin:
porc +suffix "el" or maybe "iel"= purcel
porc +suffix "ea" or maybe "iea"= purcea
But you can try to get me closed when you come to dog.In Latin where
from derives "catulus" and "catula"? From "canis"?
The same question is in Romanian. From "câine"? It seems that not.
I don't know a root in Rom. which should mean "dog" and to look like
"catã". But I know an root which seems to fit and this is "catsã". From
the phonological aspect:
catsa+ suffix "el" or maybe "iel" > catsel
catsa+ suffix "ea" or maybe "iea" > catsea
So my problem should be resolved for ALL 3 Romanians words, but in Latin
the 2 of 3 are with no root for being deriving from. I said "should be"
because we still have a problem. What does mean in Romanian "catsã"? We
take DEX and read:
1)catsã= long still with an hook used by shepherds for catching the
sheeps from 'acãtsa'
2)catsã= bad woman, shrew
3)catsã= onomatopoeia
So the word 'catsa' is derived from "a acãtsa"? What means "acatsa"
then? We take a look:
acãtsa=agãtsa
agãtsa= to hang (up); to accost (somebody); to catch (at); to catch on,
to hitch; (fig) to cavil at=from Latin *accaptiare
Wooow, it works. , to fang, to catch, it seems they are properly
attributes for a dog:-)In so far it should be very possible that 'catsel
' and 'catsea' to be explained like 'vitsel' and 'vitsea' and like
'purcel' and 'purcea' just trough Romanian. And we cannot say the same
about Latin.
Beside "porcus" there, in Latin, we do not have a root for vitulus &
vitula or for catulus & catula.
But I am not very happy with this. It must be in Latin roots for these
words to. Let us see.
If the Romanian word is a derivation of to catch , let us see in Latin
for "to catch" What can we find there?
capto= to catch, it doesn't work since there is an "pt" in 'capto'
But PIE *kat2 gave in Latin 'catena' meaning handcuffs and to tie, to
bind aka= to catch.
In this way we have:
cat + suffix e(s)na > catena
cat + suffix "ulus" > catulus
cat + suffix "ella" > catella
It seems plausible or not? I have to search some more for a root of
"vitulus" . There must be something like vit- or vet-, but it seems I
have to wait until I get my etymologic dictionary of Latin.
Alex