Re: [tied] Re: cardinal points

tolgs001 wrote:

> Unfortunately, many have gone too far in Romania
> for many decades, so that generations have been induced
> into thinking that there are links to this and that Dacian
> thing, but where there is no proof whatsoever because
> it can't be, any and there's nothing we can do about it
> (So no wonder that such daring [read: weird] speculations
> such as Greuceanu & many other items occur.) Of course,
> Romanian folklore also consists of numerous pre-Christian
> and pre-historic elements, but it's no intellectual
> honest feat to automatically ascribe them to Dacian
> culture (or Thracian, for that matter). To do so simply
> means, as the German saying goes, an "Armutszeugnis."
> As well as keeping up a certain... business (out of
> wordly desires: money & influence & ...circenses)

for a scientific demonstration I agree this is simply nothing and indeed
an Armutszeugnis. But these expresions exist and they are comming from
somewhere. This is what I mean with the direct link because I simply
don't see who could give these names and stories until nowaday. And of
course I put here all the names which we find ( special the nicknames
"poreclele")
which simply fits to perfectly in the glosses we have. The habbit of
calling the people after animals (Lupu, Ursu, Cerbul, Corbu) is this a
Latin habbit too?

>
> For such dreamers, the old Romans had the adage: "Ne
> sutor supra crepidam."

It would be nice if you translate it for understanding.

>
>> italian "commo te chiammo"
>
> comme
>
>> and Rom. "cum te chiamã", but the substrate sintactic
>> "cum iTi spune" or "cum iTi zice"
>> the second one is not looking anymore as Romance
>> ("cum iTi zic^e" or "cum iTi spune")
>
> Who says that this construction is based on a
> substrate pattern (although the 'material' used
> is Latin)? (I'm just asking, for I dunno.)

Since this is not Latin and not Slavic and not Greek maybe you find out
if this is a avaric, cumanic, hungarian or what ever:-))
In fact this is as in the verbs with the 0-grade of the root conjugation
the same story showing a very old formation. For singular there are
these "îmi, âTi, âi" and for plural there is the usual " ne, vã,le".

> __________________________
> [*] until Apr 1, 1954, the official/standard
> spelling was "chiama" (which, actually, better fits
> the pronunciation)

Actually I don't know on which you are counting when you say that it
fits better the pronounciation.
The derivatives are with "ke": chem, chemi, chemare, chemãtor and not
*chim , *chiamare/*chimare, *chiamãtor/chimãtor
You ought to remember that /e/ > /ea/ when fallowed by /ã/
chem > cheamã. There is no /i/ there. This was one question of Latin
"cl" > Rom. "ke" and losing the /i/. In Italian and Spanish the
palatalisation mentains the /i/ there as expected /l/>/li/>/l'/>/i/
which is not to find in Ro.