m_iacomi wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:
>
>> You just took the wrong root in Pokorny. Try with #1233 for
>> "mare" & "mai"
>
> 1. You still avoid to discuss the main issue, that is "mereu" not
> being related at all with "mare" or with "mai";
> 2. "mare" & "mai" are still unrelated in Romanian, the latter is
> the comparative, coming from Latin "magis" (`more`, `to a greater
> extent`) as well as Italian "mai", Cat., Occ. "més", Fr. "mais",
> Sp. "más", Port. "mais"; Romanian "mare" could have a mixed story
> out of "mas/marem" but not interfering with Latin "magis".
>
> Marius Iacomi
>
I do not avoid to discusse. I simply don't see the hungarian word as
being the basis for the Rom. word from the semanticaly aspect here. The
word "mereu" does not mean anything as rigide or fix but :
1)-it shows a continuity at several time intervals, something which
become more and more
2)-it shows an action which grows slowly, without haste
How we draw it the meaning is of something which become "more" and not
something which is rigide or fixed.
Beside Hungarian "ö" is not reflected as "eu" in Rom. but simply "o".
Every Rom. renders the Germanic or Hungarian "ö" as "o"
Thus it appears to me to be in the same family with "mare" and "mai"
since is related to "making more, keeping more"
Your comparation with italian "mai" has by no means any probant value as
being from Latin "magis" since the semantic aspect of the Rom. word is
_another_ as the Italian one; In fact, for making the comparative, Rom.
has again a special place in this Romance system since it is different
as the comparative of Romance languages ( the genitive too, is
different)
One assumption can be that "mai" is in fact the reduced form of "mãri"
and "mai mult" is "mãri mult"; for "ã" > "a" is a regular change in
iotacisant verbs when "r", "l", "n" became assibilated by "i"(see a sãri
> sãri > sai)
As for "magis" I have a lot against lost of intervocalic "g" in Rom.
since the velar is keept in both forms (plain and affricate) in words
from substrate and Latin loans. The lost of intervocaly "g" is not usual
in Rom. thus the only acceptable hypothessis is that the "g" was lost
already in Late Latin and the words entered the Rom. Lang without "g".
Take a look at all latin words where "g" was there and where the "g" is
stil there in Rom. And nowhere the "g" get lost, even when followed by
"e" or "i" ( fuge, curge, mulge, fugi, curgi, mulgi, etc, etc)
In fact this explains these "curiosities". One cannot see the reflexes
of initial "h" or intervocalic "g" because they never have been known by
Romanians. They got the word "as it is" and none can ask them "why there
is no initial "h" or an intervocalic "g" in Latin words".
Alex