From: alex
Message: 25118
Date: 2003-08-16
> alex wrote:It seems you are stil very far away from what I intend to do and what I
>
>> nope. I guess the suffix has played no role here.
>
> That's right: you guess.
>
>> How would you like to see from the old religious texts that
>> "fârtat" and "suratã" do not preced frate and sora?
>
> Do not ask me, ask the original texts. OTOH, as a Romanian
> native-speaker you should have known that the *main*
> words are "frate" & "sora", and that "fârtat" and "surata"
> are only marginal words, i.e. derivates of the former, used
> in restricted situations. Moreover, you should have known
> that, as synonyms, the latter cannot replace the former
> in various situations of the highest importance. For instance,
> you cannot say "iata, acesta este fârtatul tatalui meu", or
> your father would retaliate with some slapt, so that
> his son, i.e. you would exclame "Vãleu, vãleleu!" ;^)
> Nor would you dare say of your aunt that she were
> "surata tatalui" or "a mamei."
>> George, it should be clear that one makes the distinction between< big snip>
>> ancient terms and the later loans.
>
> It's you who doesn't differentiate here. Even your word
> choice shows illustrates your bias toward the phantastic
> theory "Romanian = continuation of an other language
> than Latin (or Italic dialects)", since you refrain from using
> "inherited words."