Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
> 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@...
>
Well, what I could say? Very funny these peasants. I mean the old
peasants. The peasants of our days and of my childhood have had not used
such diminutives for their work . The instruments used by them, the
tools are not delicate and sensible for calling them poetically and
diminutivally and how ever. Well, that should be maybe the difference
between the Latin peasants and their "sons", the peasants of today. Life
seems has been more easy in the past.
But this is not important here. If for the words of Catus which are
considered to be diminutivals I don't care too much, I care more about
the toponyms. Here too a lot of diminutivals from Dacia until Iberia.
Are they indeed to explain trough a diminutival form?
Tusculum, Nerulum, Trossulum, Vesulus, Batulum, Brundulus, etc.
Seriously now, is there just a simple coincidence this suffix "-ul"+
"um/us"?
Alex