Re: Silvaticus

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...> wrote:

> In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex_lycos" wrote:
>
> > P&G wrote:
> >>
> >>> Latin "silvaticus". In Old Latin it was "salvaticus"
> >>
> >> I am not aware of this. Can you give examples which are not

mere

> >> spelling mistakes?
> > [...]
> > silva, -ae f "Wald, Gehölz"; Fülle, Vorrat, Stoff [ vgl.
> > "Silvae"=Materialien]. Seit Naev., Enn., Plaut., Cato, rom.,

ebenso

> > "silvaticus" seit Cato [ vlt. und rom. "salvaticus"=wild unter
> > Ahnlehnung an "salvare"]
>
> The only (big) problem of the initial text is that "salvaticus"
> is _not_ the "Old Latin" form. As one can read [vlt. = Vulgar
> Latein & rom. = Romanisch], the form with "a" is formed under
> the influence of "salvare" from "silvaticus" and has the correct
> meaning `wild` (others say the "a" form is due to assimilation).
> So, "silvaticus" > "salva:ticus" not the contrary. The result is
> to be found also in Romance: "sarvaggiu" (sic.), "sauvage" (fr.),
> "selvaggio/salvatico" (it.), "salvatge" (cat.), "salvadek"

(milan.),

> etc.
>
> > cf DEX= from Vulgar latin salvaticus (=silvaticus)
>
> What's wrong with it?! (not even the *)
>
> Cheers,
> Marius Iacomi

******
My posting 21541 timed 3:27 agrees with Marius' posting timed
2:29 and posted 3:59 (does anyone understand how Yahoo works?) but,
not surprisingly Marius is more informative.
But what's that "salvare" that contaminated 'silvaticus'? Only
thing like it I'm aware of is the 'salvus' "safe" complex, which
doesn't seem to have much to do with forests or savages.
Dan