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

----- Original Message -----
From: "alex" <alxmoeller@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Rum. prefix în- [Re: Androphobia]


> 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.

Wrong. Latin has _two_ prefixes (meaning 'in' and 'not, un-') that are
coincidentally realised in the same way (as <in->), but remain
etymologically and semantically distinct. In other languages *h1en- and
*n.- did not necessarily fall together: cf. Germanic in- vs. un-, or Greek
en- vs. a-.

Let me try again, s--l--o--w--l--y and DISTINCTLY:

1. PIE *h1en- 'in' (also, e.g., locative *h1en-i 'inside') > Latin in-,
Greek en-, Germanic in-

2. PIE *n.- 'un-' (the nil grade of *ne 'not') > Latin in-, Greek a-,
Germanic un-

Entities 1. and 2. are two DIFFERENT MORPHEMES of DIFFERENT ORIGIN. Neither
of them derives from anything like "an" in the protolanguage. The fact that
they happen to sound the same in Latin (the learned call it HOMOPHONY) is no
more significant than the fact that <sole> (of the foot), <sole> (= 'only')
and <soul> sound the same in Modern English.

I have said my say.

Piotr