Re: [tied] Re: vulgar Latin ?

On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 07:35:10 +0000, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex_lycos" <altamix@...> wrote:
>
>> I found some writings which means in the lingua prisca was a kind of
>> post posed article like in Rom. "-ul". Since here are more experts in
>> Latin I should like to give some texts here and to let them see what
>> about.
>
>> [Lots and lots of examples of Latin words in -ul- follow ...]
>
>Latin -ul-/-cul- is not a postposed article but a derivative suffix
>(*-(e)lo-/*-k-lo-), usually forming diminutives, like porculus from
>porcus 'piglet', fu:nicul-a from fu:nis 'rope', oculus from *h3okW-
>'eye'. It was also common in proper names. It has nothing to do with
>the Romanian article, either functionally or etymologically. Similar
>suffixes still occur widely in various Romance languages, e.g. It.
>porco : porcello, Sp. vaca 'cow': vaquilla 'heifer', etc.

He *knows* that ("The Latin gramatics considered these forms as
dminutives"), so there is little point in pointing this out again. If
he doesn't believe it if people who had Latin as their effing mother
tongue say so, he won't accept it from either you or George. Maybe it
would be better to concentrate on explaining why the addition "which
is pretty strange for a raw life of the peasants" takes the prize as
this month's Funniest Line in Cybalist.

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