m_iacomi wrote:
> That's not the point. Fact is that Latin "in" (meaning `in`) has
> the same meaning as Romanian "în", there are Latin words derived
> with "in" with similar semantic relationship as in Romanian, some
> of them being even inherited as such in Romanian (with /i/ > /î/,
> see "închina", "închide", "înghiTi", "în(n)ota", "întinde", etc.).
> You cannot make assumptions of similar phonetical and semantical
> evolution for PIE root *h1en- in an independent unknown language.
Here is the point where I guess you miss the link.
The Romanian "inherited" from Latin just words with the prefix "in" but
none with the negation prefix "in"? Before making any research by my own
( I say research because in my "database" which is iside of me, I find
nothing negative of "in"+something), are you aware about inherited words
from Latin where the words is constructed with in+something and means
something negative?If not, that will point for a "selective" way to
inherit the words, as the one of exC, but none with exV ( from the real
compound words in Latin).If there is too none with in+somethin= negative
meaning, then it points indeed to a selective way to inherite which is
simply wrong.On another way, the fact Rom. negate with "ne-" is of no
value until it can be showed the particle "ne-" is not from
Slavic.
>
>> And my obsesion with "an/ân" is comming from Angusta > ingust as
>> weel as "întâi" which has its counterpart in Latin "ante".
>
> So what?! As productive prefix, Romanian "în-" continuates Latin
> prefix "in-".
>
> Marius Iacomi
This is what makes me crazy. You are absolutely sure and you put every
where the "latin in" which simply is overcharged if not absolutely
wrong. The examples where we have aromanina "ãn" and dacoromanian "în"
speaks for not being "latin in" there since from "in" you cannot have an
"ãn".For examples of that , take ke a look in my posting from r-lang.