Re: [tied] Basilica

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:

> 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"
>> [...] took by Greeks with /a/ instead of /e/ [...]
>> 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.

Of course you didn't suggested that directly. But all you wrote
points to that interpretation. About Greek turning PIE front
vowels to /a/, about Greek "basileus" being actually of Thracian
inspiration, about Romanian /e/ > /i/, usw.

> If yes then is something else.

There is nothing. As Miguel pointed out, "basileus" < *qWatileus.
Even if there would have been something as such in Greek, that would
bear no meaning in this context. In fact, in Ionic-Attic Greek the
inverse /*a:/ > /e:/ holds.

>>> 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.

Linguistical unknown facts are called speculations.

>> 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.
>
> I don't see what has some romance data to do with the form of the
> word "biserica".

It has to do with comparative linguistics and original phoneme.

[...]

> This was a manner of arguing expected fom you and not this another
> useles nonprofesional stuff.

This was you not understanding what I was talking about.

> [...] 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.

It is. Up to Common Romanian you should follow the rules already
seen on this group. The only question you may rise at this point
is how one derives from Common Romanian "*bãsearicã" Dacoromanian
form "bisericã". One has not to ask himself if this happened since
ancient Dacoromanian forms are peremptory proofs of the evolution.

> 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.

That has nothing to do with present discussion.

Cheers,
Marius Iacomi