Re: [tied] Re: IE *pe-mn

On Tue, 06 May 2003 22:19:22 +0200, alex_lycos <altamix@...>
wrote:

>After the fall of "v" ( accepting it went) we have the form
>"*paimentum".

Not at all. Latin paviméntum should have given pavméntu (> pãmînt),
just like monuméntu gives mormînt and veteránu gives bãtrân. The "v"
(/B/) was assimilated to the /m/ in this case.

> The word "faimã" is a very good example since it is explained as
>comming from latin "fama" but somehow modiffied after
> "defãima" ( to defame) supposed to come from Latin *difammiare.
> The problem is even this /ai/. The root wherefrom the Rom. word can
>come must be "feme" or "fema".
> Being stressed the first /e/ then it became as usual an /ie/. An
>unstressed /e/ or /a/ became /ã/.
> This /ei/ from /e/, being followed by /ã/ became an /ai/. So, the
>regular transformation is:
> *feme/*fema > feima > feimã > faimã.

Bullshit. The correct derivation is:

*fEma > *fiema > *fieama > *fiamã, (like piatrã < pEtra) or:
*fema > *feama > *famã (like fatã < fe:ta)

> Do we have a such word somewhere? Yes, but this is not a Latin one,
>is a Greek one.
> The cognate of Latin "fama" is the Greek "feme" which has the form I
>need. In this way it seems more a loan from Greek as from Latin.

Greek phe:me: (> Mod.Gr. fimi) is in all respects unsuitable. An
impossibly early loan (*phe:me:) would have given Rom. *pamã, later
loans would have given *famã or *fimi. Never faimã, for which the
explanation given (in DEX, I suppose) as influenced by defãima is
obviously the most reasonable.


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