Re: [tied] Re: Laryngeal theory as an unnatural

tolgs001 wrote:

> alex wrote:
>
>> I gave these examples just for showing that you cannot derive
>> in a regular way the "fãrtat" from "fratris" and "suratã" from
>> "sororis"
>
> fârtat (also spelled fîrtat; fãrtat, i.e. with [&] instead
> of [I] is a mere variant) and surata aren't directly derived
> from the Latin counterparts (BTW accusative fratrem).
> These are derived from the Romanian frate (1 frate,
> 2 fratzi) and sorã (1 sorã, 2 surori) by suffixation
> with "-at". It is this suffixation that imposes the slight
> modifications (frat- > fVrt; as for sora- > sura-, you see
> that even in the plural [o] of sora gets [u]: surori).

nope. I guess the suffix has played no role here.
For "frate": frãTie, infrãTire, frãTesc
For "sorã"= no derivative; the diminutival form seems to derive from
*sura- not from sora-
For "nora"= no derivative;

>
> To convince yourself that fârtat and surata don't precede
> frate & sora, just read some of the oldest texts in Romanian
> to see which of them pop up first and which is more frequent
> than the other. Various Bible translations into Romanian
> will also show you whether "fârtat" and "surata" were used
> or not instead of "frate" and "sora", say, prior to 1800.

How would you like to see from the old religious texts that "fârtat" and
"suratã" do not preced frate and sora?

>> this is why I am talking about loans from Latin
>
> Do make a distinction between loans from Latin and
> words that are *inherited* from Latin. For example:
> des + desime are inherited, while dens + densitate are
> neologisms. [dense, density; the 1st one, "des", also
> means "frequent/ly, often"]

George, it should be clear that one makes the distinction between
ancient terms and the later loans.Critical view will say that the lost
of "n" in densus appears not only in Rom. but in Greek too and that
_again_ just the root is preserved with "late" internal derivatives.
Words as densare, densere, densitas, are not preserved but there are
other internal creations in Rom. as desime, desiS, indesa, adesea,
adeseori
The Albanian has "dent, denderm, dendurem" which show the "n" as the
Latin word. There are some toughts that Greek "dasus" is not from the
same root ( PIE *dn.sus) as the Latin word and it should be the
possibility the Rom. word is from the same root as the Greek one.
Against the lost of "n" speaks toponims as "Densus" and words as Dânsa,
Dânsul, ins= individuum (given as deriving from latin ipsus, what a
pitty), etc. Normaly we expect an dins ( e > i before nC) like
"dinadins". One has to keep in mind the "n" is lost just when followed
by "i" trough assimilation , but not when followed by "u": thus de:nsus
can hardly give "des".

>
> George
>
> PS: Not everything you find in the vocabulary of the Romanian
> peasant can be seen as ancient. Do not neglect the derivation
> and word creation mechanisms that are specific to the
> Romanian language only -- namely those that virtually have
> nothing to do with the Latin language proper.

True. And not everything which appear to be Latin is Latin. One will
wonder why after 300 years of study there are still a lot of works which
try to explain why Rom. is in a special way , in "another way" romance
but stil Romance. See the work of the Univerisity of Bucharest, the
Linguistic Department about " Vocabularul representativ al Limbilor
Romanice" ( The authoritative vocabulary of romanic languages)

Alex