Re: [tied] Re: Indo-Iranian

Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

>> , but please, do not overlicitate. We know the meaning
>> of "gula" in Dacian was "mouth"
>
> How do you know?

would it change something in your mind if you will know it? Just simple
curiosity. I doubt it would.

>> 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.
>
> What semantic differences? Latin aqua = Rom. apã = Sard. abba.
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...

I did not showed any words with semantic difference here in this
posting. You know them as well as me if not better. From the panromanic
stock of words Romanian has over 160 with a semantic shift. And this is
more as 1/3 of this panromanic thesaurus. Halal inheritance from Latin.
And your morfology is just too overlicited.
BTW how you would derive the demonstrative pronoun from Latin ?