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

tolgs001 wrote:

>> 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.
>
> This is simply not true. This assertion is plain bunkum.

Belive and do not research or how do you interpret this?:-)

>
> That what you call "re-Latinization" could apply to my
> previous example -> des+desime, to which -> dens+densitate
> were added, namely from a non-Romanian vocabulary.
> There are lots of "doublettes" of this kind.

explained in a previous mail.

>> I am not at all convinced that the "fârtat" derives from
>> fratris.
>
> [fratrem!] Who gives a <censored> on that! :^)

Me. And these small pieces should help one to sort out Latin from non
Latin.

>
>>> And to that end it helps enormously to know how the Latin
>>> element has developed.
>>
>> I can just agree.
>
> How come that you can agree on this?! Since, according
> to your "theory," the Romanian language is by no means
> a continuation of the Latin once spoken in South-Eastern
> Europe.

Where is the problem? The loans from Latin does not affect at all my
theory (ohne Gänsefüsschen) but it helps, the Latin words being an
important piece of control.

>
>> Alex
>
> George
>
> PS: While mama has such diminutival variants as mãmica,
> mamitzu', out of mumã one cannot make similar diminutivals.
> (By "one" I understand a native-speaker of course.)

What do you intend to say with this?

alex