Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
>> 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@...
my question is why accepting the elidation of the second "o" in
consocrus since in "socrus" is no elidation.
Beside this I just discussed with Mr Iacomi the "whole" words
"inherited" in rom from Latin words which begin with "com" or "con" when
followed by a consonant. From some hundreds words in Latin there are
just 10 with reconstructed words. And the semantism, maybe you prefer to
take a look by yourself. I will give just the Romanian semantism since
it is expected the semantism of the Latin word is known. (these words
are just in DacoRomanian)
*conquerire ( = conquirere) > cuceri = to conquer
confundare > cufunda = to submerge
comparare > cumpãra = to buy
*compitare ( = computare)= cumpãta = to be moderate
comprendere > cuprinde = to inculde, to embrace
consoc(e)rum > cuscru = in-laws
contribulare > cutreiera = to scour, to wander, to tramp
*contremulare > cutremura = to shudder, to quacke
conventus > cuvânt = the word
convenire > cuveni = to ought.
I love these semantic changes. They are my favourites. Of course, you
don't have to worry. Mr. Iacomy and me, we discussed these but everyone
remained to his opinion. An his opinion is, these are regular changes
( phonological) and acceptable semantic shifts. If in reconstruction of
the PIE roots the semantism should have played the minimal role which
plays ( it seems to me so) in the relation Latin<> Romanian, I wonder
what for PIE roots we should have now.