Re: [tied] Re: Latin consoc(e)rus

On Sun, 16 Mar 2003 19:08:49 +0100, "alex_lycos" <altamix@...>
wrote:

>A syncopated form as "consocrus" wouldn't give " cuscru" in Rom. but an
>"cusocru/cusucru".

cónsocrus isn't syncopated, it's the normal Classical Latin form,
accentuated on the first syllable in accordance with the Classical
acentuation rules. There is nothing strange about the Romanian
development to cuscru.

>Interesting is the PIE form *suekuros.
>I thought I must take it as a Latin word since it seemed to me just
>Latin in the late period has this "cr" there from socerus > socrus
>Searcing around, I found that the Celtic forms shows too the scr:
>kymrish: "chwegr", chwegrun,

chw- is the normal development of sw- in Brythonic.

>and even the Germanic form is for "Mother
>in low" identically with the Romanian one: gothic "swaihra" where "h"=
>"c"

Nope. h = h

>versus rom. soacra. And even the slavic forms are too in the same
>manner: svekr_ = father in low, svekry= mother in low.

And your point is?

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...