Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> A straightforward etymology is always preferable to an exotic one,
> other things being equal. You know that Alex likes to reject Romance
> etymologies of lots of perfectly Romance-looking words in Romanian,
> and he smells Thracian and Dacian influence all about the place. Is
> he right :-)?
>
> Piotr
Is this right to see everywhere just Latin as when the other balcanic
dialects should have been somewhere in the Sarrassavati valey? I just
want to be honest and to let the things be as they are; I never excluded
the Latin influence in Romanian, there is in fact in every language in
the European area, but please, do not overlicitate. We know the meaning
of "gula" in Dacian was "mouth" but we explain the Rom. word "gura"
(mouth) trough Latin "gula"= throat. Is this right?
We have attested too the glosse "patru" ( acctually the glosse is
"patrou") but we explain the Rom. "patru" trough Latin "quattor", is
this correct? WE have a lot of "apa" in Dacian, but we explain actualy
Rom. "apa" trough Latin "aqua". Is this correct? Yes it is. Because we
do not know what _exactly_ in Dacian it means, thus we have the right to
explain it trough Latin, and of course, we can let our phantasy free for
explaining the semantical diferences. 'Cuz so is right:-)
Alex