Re: [tied] Re: "vatër" vs "vatra"; "veter-" vs "batran"

gs001ns@... wrote:

>> Romanian has not kept the Latin sufix "-anus".


> OTOT, in my humblest opinion, the diphtongized suffix "-ean" is
> virtually the same thing: moldovean, oltean, ardelean, vrancean,
> muscelean, tarnavean, tismanean, brailean, barladean, abrudean,
> muresean, somesean, cri$ean, orãdean, arãdean, bârsean, fãgãrã$ean,
> nemtzean, ungurean; negrean, giule$tean.

You are almost right. There has been an "en" which diphtongated to
"ean". The forms shoed by you with "an" are just regionalisms ( btw, why
do you not present them as regionalsims?) and they are to explain trough
the ea > a.
Accepting the Latin "-annus" as the root for Rom. "ean" is a
immposiblity because there is no Latin a > e.
The second argument why rom "ean" is not from Latin ( even if has the
same function as the latin suffix) is as people showed here, the words
which ends in "-ân" as in rumân, stãpân, jupân.

> A pratfall, my dear Alex, will be warranted only when Abdullah
> will present to you on a silver platter the proof that vietër is the
> "child" of vatrë (this seems to me absurd), and that vjetër has
> never performed... foreign trade, across the Adriatic, with the
> three Graces: vetus, veteris, veteranus.
>
>> alex
>
> George

There is no filiation relation between vjetër and vatër. They are from
different roots.
One from *vát- and one from *vét-
As for proof there is still no need. It can be very possible Abdullah
does not agree with nothing from what I presented here.