--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> In the present tense, Latin verbs were conjugated as follows:
>
> (IV) (II) (I) (III)
> thematic -i:-verbs -a:-verbs -e:-verbs
> (-ere) (-i:re) (-a:re) (-e:re)
>
First of all Miguel, thank you for your try and showing of all these
changes here.
Now to the facts:
Latin " has had" these desinences.
Lithuanian has it
Romanian has it.
We don't know what Latin should have looked up today if Latin
shouldn't died as mother language.
You can explain what you want , what you learned here. You can show
all the rules of the world. It is your rght to do it.
There is a list of Romanian / Lithuanian / Latin words, words which
are explained as deriving from Latin in Romanian but as deriving from
PIE in Lithuanian.
How I said, you can assume everything. But when there is no
exceptions and for each person is the same desinence, to assume, this
is a simply coincidence I guess it is to take with a big grain of
salt.
In fact we observe the same situation here.
there is the Latin word, which is reduce in Rom. and it looks more
like the PIE roots as Latin, but this is a coincidental.
There are Lithuanian/Romanian/Latin words = coincidental
There are sanskrit /romanian words= brought from avars, huns, romans,
greeks, turks, hungarians, all coincidentally in Romanian.
Let them be so as you see them. I have indeed nothing against your
opinion. I even admit your point of view. The only difference is that
I assume there is an _older layer_ as Latin. Thing which you don't
admit. If you want to have some thinf to meditate, remember of our
discution about "cabalus" > cal where I brought some argumetns
against this thesis without showing the sanskrit cognates. I just
want to give you as romanist a subject to meditate. Take a look at
the etymology of the word "marschal" in French and after this think
at all you learned about Romance. And rememeber the words of Edgar
Quinet:
" un Provençal soit allé enseigner sa language aux paysans des
Carpathes".
I will search of course as well as until now, extending my search to
baltic too. For the rest, for the way to see everything trough
Latin , I allow myself to give you a tought of Antoine Meillet in the
preface of the etym. dict. of French lang.:
"En règle générale, il faut se reporter au latin pour comprendre les
rapports que soutiennent entre eux les mots français".
And for have any idea of how to relate to Latin, let use remember of
what Quintillian said in arta Oratorica:
"the inferiority of our language ( reff. to Classical Latin)is
remarcable specialy trough the fact a lot of ideas do not have in our
language own terms so we are obliged to use metaphores and
periphrases. Even when we speak about ideas, our big lexical poorness
obligue us to relate to the same word. Comparatively, the Greeks have
not a very rich lexical thesaurus but a lot of dialects tooo."
Once again , many thanks for your engaggement in showing that /a/ is
not /a/ but an /i/ which became /a/ ( just a methaphore, of course).
Alex