Richard Wordingham wrote:
>> brother = frate, but the Rom. word is "fãrtat"
>> sister = sorã, but the ancient word is "suratã"
>
> The problem being, I suppose, the surprising use of the Latin
> suffix -a:tus (m.), -a:ta (f.), giving *fra:tra:tus and *soro:ra:ta,
> which would have yielded *frãtrat and *sururatã. I always find it
> disappointing to have to invoke dissimilation or haplology.
Me too. It is a easy way to explain using the hapology, dissimilations
or assimilations, infixation and such stuff but I am not pretty
convinced about the corectness of the results which one has using this
way to explain.
In the two examples I gave I wanted to show out the re-latinisation of
the languages which begun in the XVIII-XIX century and such paars like
frate/fãrtat, sorã/suratã which gives one to think a bit more about.
>
> I must admit "sorã" puzzles me. Thank goodness you can assure me
> it's a loan.
I assume this is a loan from Latin. Interesting here, even the /o/ does
not dyphtongate as expected, even if in the next syllable is an /ã/. One
would expet "soarã" but not "sorã". See the substrate word for crow
"cioarã", with Alb. counterpart "sorrë" where the old /o/ became /oa/
when followed by /ã/ or the word "moarã" ( mill) from Latin "mola" where
/o/ became as expected /oa/. Even the plural form is strange here.
Sg. = sorã, pl. = surori, not "sori", the another form "suratã" has the
very regular plural, the form being "surate".
The same aplies for daugether in law which is "norã" not "*noarã", with
the plural "nurori". I see related to "surata" the verb "a insura"= to
marry for man ( for women is " a mãrita", which points to Latin
"maritare").the Rom. word "însura" is given as probably Latin
*inuxurare(< uxor) which is pure phantesy of course.
>
>> mother and father is "mamã" and "tatã" nothing from mater and pater
> English 'mummy' and 'daddy' aren't exactly Germanic.
> Latin
> for 'mummy' is _mamma_, which also means 'teat'. What are the
> Romanian words for 'mother' and 'mummy'? My _English_ Etymlogical
> dictionary give the Romanian as "muma". When I applied the rules,
> Rule 3 at message 18147 gives mâmã. If -mm- were another exception
> to the environment, I would get mamã.
Your Dictionary is OK. There is indeed the word "mumã" with plural
"mume" for "mother". The word "mumã" has no etymology. DEX let us to
compare with "mamã" with no explanation for /a/ > /u/. Of course there
is no mama > muma.
The word "mumã" is used even in mithology. There, for every class of
animals or vegetals are such "mums" called as they are. Muma Pãdurii=
Mother of the Forest, Muma Fiarelor= The Mother of Animals. It seems the
word has a negative connotation since these "mums" are allways malefical
creatures which are ready to make something bad to humans which disturb
them. For the "good mums" are the "zâne" with sg. form "zânã" (see Alb.
word for fee, "zanë")Zâna Apelor,(the godess of the waters), Zâna
Zânelor ( the godess of the godess), etc.Seems interesting the "u" which
is to find in Germanic Languages and the Rom. word too.Regional there is
an another word "mumânã" which means "mother of the bees".
>
>> child is simply "copil" which I put in the same top with Latin
>
> 'Kid' isn't exactly English; it's Norse.
> And English 'child' rather
> isolated in Germanic. In the same grade (the e-grade) there are
> Gothic kilþei 'womb' and zero-grade Scandinavian forms primarily
> meaning the young of animals rather than human child. There don't
> appear to be any South Germanic cognates.
is this word not meaning a baby of a goat too? I connect it with Rom.
"câts" which means reg. "baby goat". DEX gives just the usual onomatopea
which is a word for scaring the kat and explain it as "unexplained" but
DEX wants to compare it with germanic "katze". I don't have an aromanin
dictionary at the hand here, somehow I guess I have seen in Arom. too
the word "câts" with the meaning of baby goat, but I am not very sure
now. The onomatopeic "câts" is unknown in my region, the interjection
which is used for scaring the gat to run away is there "ptrutz" with a
long labial ( wonder ?) rolling "r" "ptrrrruuuutz"
>
>> "copulare" and one like it or not the penis is simply "pulã" which
>> seems to fit the relation copulare but of course cannot derive from
>> Latin,
>
> Back formation being ruled out. I presume there's no connection
> with Latin pellere 'push' or pullus 'young animal'.
No, there is no connection. The Rom. linguists have thought at a latin
"*pubula" for explaining "pula". The latin "pullus" is supposed has
given "pui" = every kind of baby for animals or vegetals and usual "pui"
is the word for young chicken.
The latin pellere seems is not known in Rom. The word for "push" is
"impinge" which is assumed to come from Latin "impingo". The Latin
"copulare" is not well explained. Take a look:
co:pula ( copla Sofer Isid. 166), -ae f. "Band, Strick" (Seit Plaut.,
rom. [ auch -um bzw *clopum n. seit Optat.], ebenso "co:pula:re" meaning
"verbinden"; *co-apula, tu *apio, apere
I doubt this is from *apio, apere. It can be a loan in Latin.
the same more older root, IE or
>> "mediteraneean".
>
>> Thus in the very close family relationship there is no Latin stuff
>> there.
>
> As you can see, I'm not convinced.
:-)
The Latin "fr" remains "fr" in Rom. I should give an another example but
this is an outdatted one since even in the XIX century scholars as
Cipariu or I.H. Radulescu recognised that Rom. "frunzã" is the form
found in Old. Latin "frundis" and not the "new" latin "frondis". Miguel
or Mr Iacomi will argue with /o/ becoming /u/ before /nC/ here:-) Thus,
I am not at all convinced that the "fârtat" derives from fratris. For
this speak the meaning of the word which is larger and considered to be
a calc after the slavic way to use of "bratu" and of course the mytology
which use for the Creation of the world two persons, the old South
European dualsimus like Apollo/ Artemis , Remus/Romulus, The Cabirian
Brothers, the Danubian Ritter. In this mytology the dual persons who
made the world are Fârtatul and Nefârtatul.
>
>> Interesant, there seems to be indeed directly from Latin the
>> other words which means the extension of the family like
> father/mother
>> in law, etc. The whole point here is to delimitate indeed the Latin
>> loans from the inherited words. But this is the very difficult
> thing
>> when some languages are close related.
>
>>
>> I gave these examples just for showing that you cannot derive in a
>> regular way the "fãrtat" from "fratris" and "suratã"
> from "sororis",
>
> I'll concede that they're not regular. But then, English 'father'
> from Old English _fæder_ isn't regular either. And the stress of
> PIE *ma:te:r varies from branch to branch.
I guess that there is no PIe *ma:te:r here but simply lal-words thus
there is no need for any etymology for words like "mama" or "tata".
>
>> this is why I am talking about loans from Latin and inherited lexic
>> which must be sorted out. And after one sorts it out, it remains
> enough
>> Latin there:-))
>
> And to that end it helps enormously to know how the Latin element
> has developed.
>
> Richard.
I can just agree.
Alex