--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:
>>>> lepus, leporis in connection with Rum. iepure.
>>>> but lãbuS and labã in connection with Hungarian
>>>> láb [la:b] "leg, foot"
>>>
>>> can it be the Hungarian word is a loan from Romanian ?
>>
>> No. Intervocalic /b/ dissapears from Latin to Romanian. The
>> same holds for substrate words.
>
> abur ?
A possible substratal word for which we do not know for sure
which was the source and its' phonetics. A reconstructed origin
word "*avule" (keeping in mind Albanian word) does fit for /l/ >
/r/ between vowels but does not fit for intervocalic /b/ (/v/)
which should disappear. Whether several explanations have been
tried (existence of a supplementary consonant to make there a
cluster, conserved in a first phase; the word being composite
at the very beginning thus not having really intervocalic /b/;
a possible disturbing homonymy with "aur", the word not being
substratal but a late loan, etc.), there is no clear indication
for any of these. At this stage it's better to accept that one
does not know exactly the source and to aknowledge the existence
of this conservation problem.
> Mr Iacomi as usual knows just Latin
It happends that I know slightly more than that.
> and here he "forget[s]" the exceptions which even in its favorite
> relationship Latin > Rom happens.
Which exceptions?! The only (apparent) exception in Latin
words is for the (irregular deriving in all Romances) verb "a
avea" (`to have`) which can be explained otherwise.
>>> I ask because the le:p- is a IE root which fets damm good the
>>> Rom. meanings
>>
>> So what?!
>
> Right, so what? It is just an observation. In your opinion, for
> sure a simple "aburealã" since in your opinion the substratual
> words does not contain intervocalic "b" and you are accomodate
> not with mentaining of the old semantism but with "explanable"
> semantical changes
BS. Hungarian word has the good semantism and a good bunch of
derivatives proving it's old. Out of that, the phonetic fits with
a late loan from Hungarian while PIE *le:p- has major difficulties
to be linked with Romanian (again, there is only a common sound).
As a general matter, it is methodologically wrong to look for
vague similarities between a modern language and reconstructed
PIE roots and inferring without any transformation rules there
must be a relationship between the so-called similar words. That
explains my "so what?!".
Marius Iacomi