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

Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> 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.

Right. And that means , under the assumtion they once negated with "in-"
as in Latin, they replaced "everywherwe" the "in" with the slavic "ne-".
In all dialects. What one can understand here? Have they been aware of
the particle "in" as negative particle at that time and replaced (why?)
it with Slavic ? I guess you agree with me a selective way to inherit
wards is not a reliable statment and there should be at least some with
"in-" as negative part. But it is not. Here we have again a selective
"inheriting2 as in "exC" but no "exV" and none will belive in this way
to "select" the words.

>
> You have apparently been looking in Pokorny's indogermanisches
> etymologisches Wörterbuch, without understanding what it says (under
> *n.-):

Miguel, is a standard to write with point thie circle there under *n ?
If yes this will be great since I tought how I can write this .

>
> "im Bsl. durchaus durch ne- verdrängt; über ksl. ne-jeN-vêrI
> ,ungläublig', ne-jeN-sytU ,unersattlich = Pelikan' s. Berneker 429"

ksl. in Baltic when the Balts became very late chrsits =

>
> 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@...

1)Yes, that is what he means. the *n was replaced by ne via OCS. And
OCS is to find in Balcan not in North Russian.It loos more as local
influence on the Slavic dialects where from OCS developed.

There in Poorny is given the Albanian "in"= bis, until. There for I ask
myself if the words "incoa", "incolo" are in fact in+coa, +in colo
meaning until here, until there where "in" here is the meaning of
Albanian "in". But I guess a such analysis is imposible to made.

2)in the same page it is said that *n. is the urroot of PIE *ne-. This
particle was in Latin too (ne ips unum)= no one
and the counterpart in Avestan "nae-cis"= no one. See Rom. "nici unul"
which looks more as Avestan "nae-cis" as Latin
"ne ips".