Re: [tied] Rum. prefix în- [Re: Androphobia]

From: alex
Message: 22377
Date: 2003-05-29

Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "alex" <alxmoeller@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 3:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Rum. prefix în- [Re: Androphobia]
>> Piotr, in my dictionary for Latin "in-" with older form "en" I have
>> here the PIE *n ( under "n" is a little circle, I don't know how I
>> have to write it here).
>> The other PIe languages shows an "an".
>> toch. an-, en-, em-
>> Avest. & Sansk & Old Prussian "a-" and before "i" and "u" is "an-"
>> Armenian: an-
>> Greek a- but before vowel becomes too an "an-"
>> kymr, korn, bre = an-
> That's a different Latin in- (excuse the typo in my previous posting;
> I meant Class.Lat. in-, not en-) -- the _negative_ prefix from OLat.
> en- < PIE *n.- (the reduced form of *ne 'not'). As you see, it does
> not go back to *an- either. Armenian and Celtic an-, as well as Greek
> and Indo-Iranian a- (with the nasal retained only before vowels) are
> _regular reflexes of PIE syllabic *[n.]_. Germanic has un-, also a
> regular reflex of that.
> Piotr

Both seems to derive from the same *n, don't they? At least so I have
the explanation here.

"Lat. "in" kann an sich sowohl auf idg. *en wie auf *n ( vgl. Lith. "i",
Greek "a") zurückgehen.

As for negative_ particle Rom has "ne" as negative particle which is
given as coming from Slavic "ne". Take a big look how not only the
vocative in "o", but even the negation particle is comming from
So far I know, the BaltoSlavic lost this reflex of PIE *n and there is a
thrace of it in the Russian ne-jeverU, ne-jesytU. How you see then the
loan from Slavic "ne" now into Rom? Or better said, if the Baltosdlavic
lost it, how did they got it again, if the Rom. "ne" is a loan from