Re: [tied] Re:short (it was -ella)

m_iacomi@... wrote:

> In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex_lycos" <altamix@...> wrote:

> Yes, one derives like that. The alternance (-ea/-ele) in Latin
> words is the obvious source for analogies in Romanian. You may
> try for instance to derive the plural form for "peruzeá" or
> "ciSmeá", two late (Daco-Romanian) loanwords with no Latin link
> They form an analogical plural in -ele, as the Latin inherited
> words ending in "-eá". The /l/ is still alive when deriving: if
> one would be to make a diminutive from "ci$meá", it would be by
> all means "ciSmeluTã", and definitely not "ciSme(a)uTã".

that is almost right. None use "peruzeala" but "peruzicã" and you can
derive "ciSmelutsa" which is gramatically abolutely OK , tough no used
by none.

>> But let us take a look:
>> macellarius has nothing to do with margea since you have in
>> romanian "mãcelar"

I could not find this "margella" and macellarius doesnt has something to
do with "bean", but be my way. It seesm the existence of "l" in
derivative was an erroneous ideea.

>> People, it should be enough for a demonstration don't you find?
>> Do I have to come with more examples?
>
> No, we all realised that you don't know that derivation is not
> always A + -B -> AB, but sometimes goes like A + -B -> A'B 'coz
> of language's internal rules
>
> Marius Iacomi

OK I will short for a while my presence here, It seems I have to find an
another hobby, how Miguel suspected it would be better for me. BTW
"short":
short - O.E. sceort, scort, probably from P.Gmc. *skurta-, from PIE base
*sker- "cut,"

Rom= 'scurt' from Latin *exxcurtus
verb= 'a scurta', cf DEX from Latin excorta

How I said, it doesn't make sense so create an periplum absurdum with
phonetical changes which begin with a form "A", they make a long trip
for ending too in form "A" as nothing should have happen.
It was a very intersing and instructive time here folk. All the best for
the future.

Alex