In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 20:11:09 +0000, altamix <altamix@...> wrote:
>
>>>>a seca= to cut
>>>
>>> In Romanian? (You might have thought
>>> of a secera, secerare.)
>>
>>
>> I wonder you don't know that. Is not a regionalism. I gues[s]
>> everyone understand[s] "m-a secat o durere" in the sense of
>> "m-a taiat o durere". DEX does not show the form " to cut".
>> It is used there "to paralyse, to athrophiate, to kill["].
>> To kill is given as "old" which is indeed true, I am not
>> aware of using it still in the sense of " to kill".
>
> I don't understand this discussion.
Of course you don't. The source of confusion is Alex' "reasoning":
he knows that in the expression "ma seaca o durere", the verb (used
in a figurate sense) can be replaced by another verb obtaining the
analogous expression "ma taie o durere" (with the verb still used
in a figurate sense). Then Alex looks in the dictionary at the
second verb and finds out that it's translated in English as "to
cut" [this being *not* the figurate sense but the basical meaning
of "a tãia", as well as for Catalan "tallar"]. At the end of this
"reasoning" process, convinced he discovered a new failure sign of
the Latin > Romanian theory, he writes down a post on cybalist in
which he emphatically states that "a seca" means `to cut`.
Actually, both expressions would be rendered in English as `I'm
tortured by a pain` or something equivalent.
> Surely you're not suggesting that siccus > Cat. sec "dry" has
> anything to do with seca:re "to cut" > Cat. segar "to mow"?
No, that was George trying to find out how on earth Alex reached
such a _painful_ conclusion that "a seca" means `to cut`. Methinks
one essential source of errors in Alex' "reasonings" is careless
use of "=" sign depicting an equivalence relation in which r.h.s.
can be always replaced by l.h.s. and vice versa.
> "to cut" = Cat. tallar [m-a taiat = m'ha tallat]
Bon cop de falç, defensors de la terra... :-)
Fins aviat,
Marius Iacomi