Re: [tied] OE "afor"

m_iacomi wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:
>
>> alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>>
>>> For the stem 'apr', I tried to put in relation :
> ^^^^^^^^^ ?

I have no idea, I did not wrote that.

>> The semantic aspect of apricus appears to fit -regarding the sun,
>> lights- the Rom. "aprins" which is a derivative of "aprinde".
>
> Not quite. It would fit better "pârjolit", "prãjit" or "încins".
> Romanian "aprins" is semantically a partial fit. Anyway it is a
> clear verbal participle, it's senseless to link it with another
> word separately as you do.

"aprins" yes, this is a verbal adjective which shows us more better the
semantism of the verb if one has some doubts or phantesise too much
about semantic mutations from Latin apprehendere.

>
>> [...] rom. "a aprinde" ( to light (up); to kindle; (lumina) to
>> switch on, to put on, to turn on; to set fire to; (fig) to rouse, to
>> arouse; (tehn) ignite
>> vr to take fire; (la fata) to blush, to turn red; (a se enerva) to
> grow
>> angry) is seen as vbeing derivate from Latin "appre[he]ndere".
>
> It _is_ deriving from Latin "appre[he]ndere".

You know what? If you won't be that young, I could swear you are an
followers of O. Densusianu and Puscariu. They have been "magis magister"
in inventing such explanation for semantical changes. More, they have
been ridiculous in inventing Latin words which never existed for
explaing Rom. words. Even "scula" and "ridica/ardica" have been seen as
"*ecubulare", and "*ri(gi)diare" and a lot more.

>
>> The semantic aspect of "aprinde" fits with "apricus"; the semantic
>> aspect of Latin "apprehendere" _is not_ the semantic aspect of rom.
>> "aprinde"; but I know many people see more strange semantic
>> evolution as being OK if they did happen via Latin > Rom.
>
> It is rather that phonetical fit + explainable semantic shift + bunch
> of related words & morphology knowledge are making this etymology far
> better than any other. It is not specially related to tongue of
> origin.
>
> Marius Iacomi

Aaaham. I knew it. Even "how" the semantic change happened. That is all
nice explained for one who is ready to accept them. If you are
convinced, be convinced by such ilusorial linguistic explanations.

Alex