Re: [tied] Re: vulgar Latin ?

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
>
> Piotr

Piotr, do you speak about diminutival suffix "-el" here?
The Germanic diminutival "-el", the diminutival "-el" in Romanian, the
diminutival "-ello" in Italian and so on is the one with the latin
"-elus" which made too diminutives.And in the examples of current living
languages we have this "-el" but not the Latin "-ul". And in Latin was
too the "-el" so do I have to understand in Latin "-ul" and "-el" have
been two separate suffixes for making diminutival forms wherefrom teh
current Romance preserved for diminutival just the "-el" one?