On Thu, 29 May 2003 17:18:48 +0200, alex <
alxmoeller@...>
wrote:
>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
>Slavic:-))
>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
>Slavic?
Unlike all the other Romance languages which continue Latin in-, the
negative prefix in Romanian is ne-, which is a loan from Slavic.
You have apparently been looking in Pokorny's indogermanisches
etymologisches Wörterbuch, without understanding what it says (under
*n.-):
"im Bsl. durchaus durch ne- verdrängt; über ksl. ne-jeN-vêrI
,ungläublig', ne-jeN-sytU ,unersattlich = Pelikan' s. Berneker 429"
What Pokorny says is that *n.- does not occur in Balto-Slavic anymore,
a n d h a s b e e n r e p l a c e d b y n e - .
The regular outcome of *n.- in Slavic (*jeN-) does perhaps (more
details in Berneker) occur in the words ne-jeN-vêrI, ne-jeN-sytU.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...