Re: [tied] Laryngeal theory as an unnatural

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:26:23 +0200, alex <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>Your assumption that "bãiat" ( boy) could derive from Latin is baseless.

The assumption is yours. I never said anything about "derived from Latin".

You said:

> brother = frate, but the Rom. word is "fãrtat"
> sister = sorã, but the ancient word is "suratã"

Then I said:

> Those are just derivatives with -at, -atã < Latin -a:tus, -a:ta.

[Note that I merely sated the obvious fact that _the suffix_ -at is derived
from Latin]

Then you said:

>It seems you forget what a role plays the suffix "-at" in DacoRom.

[Note that here you too are only talking about _the suffix_ -at _in
DacoRom._]

>This
>suffix makes:
>a) adjectives from substantives
>b) adjectives from adjectives
>c) name for animals; toponyms from adjectives

To which I replied:

> And names of persons (bãiat, bãrbat, etc.)

[These are names for persons ending in -at, I did not say a word about the
etymology of the pre-suffixal part]

Then you said:

>Wie bitte? Bãrbat (man) is considered to be direct Latin "barbatus" (
>ok, with semantical change) but there is a joke to see bãiat (boy) as
>any Latin derivatives from something like to bath.

Which is a non-sequitur, to which I merely replied: "It ends in -at,
doesn't it?". Perhaps I should have just ignored it, as I will any further
discussion on this topic.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...