Re: [tied] Basilica

m_iacomi wrote:

>> and I don't belive in a separate invoation in Dacoromanian and
>> Aromanian , both of them making individualy in /i/ there.
>
> So you believe rather that there was a Dacian word "*besilica"
> (`ruler's house`, since there were no churches in old Dacian times),
> took by Greeks with /a/ instead of /e/ and regressively derivating
> "basileos" (`king, prince, ruler`), got into Latin meaning a special
> kind of building, then (still in Latin) it acquired the meaning of
> `God's house` at some historical moment when the same semantical
> shift occured by miracle in still spoken Dacian, and afterwards
> the phonetics got to forms with /e/ > /&/ in all four Romanian
> dialects, but the /e/ you infer as original curiously evolved also
> to /i/ in just two of them.
> Well, I'd say your vision is [censored word].

I don't think at that. Wake up Mr Iacomi, I did not suggested anything
of what you say here. I just asked if Greek can change a PIE /i/ or /e/
to /a/ and nothing more. If yes then is something else. You did not got
any answer on this question, but you made your usual comentar when you
have nothing to say.

>
>> And you try to put the inverse way /a/ > /ã/ > /e/ > /i/ which
>> seems pure speculative.
>
> It is not speculative, it's the only logical assumption agreeing
> with linguistical facts.

with linguistical _known_ facts.

> By contrast, your inference on the basis
> of just two dialects of four and disregarding other Romance data,
> made without any clue about analysis methodology and instruments,
> _that_ is pure speculation.
>
> Marius Iacomi

I don't see what has some romance data to do with the form of the word
"biserica". As a person who is interested in linguistic as you, you
should have had to argue with other facts like ancient forms versus
actual forms:

fãmeie = femeie
blãstema = blestema

Thus, such forms shows just an alternance /ã/ with /e/ and my opinon is
that the /e/>/ã/. This alternance does not show any /ã/ versus /i/. But
we have an example given there. There is "rãdica" versus "ridica". If
the example is good I am not sure since we have the substratual "ardica,
aburca" where "rãdica" appear to be the methatised form of "ardica".
This was a manner of arguing expected fom you and not this another
useles nonprofesional stuff.

For speculation:
you are right speaking this should not be a speculation. It is just the
helplessness of connecting to anything else, thus it must be accepted
what we have. In this case, until there is something better we have to
let it so as basilica > biserica even if this is not in concordance with
the vocalism of Rom. Lang.
About the inscription found in Dacia regading the king Tiamaros, I have
to search since I am not sure on the way how the word "king" is written
there, if "basileus" or "besileus" or how ever.

alex