Re: [tied] OE "afor"

--- 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.

Of course you didn't. The question was _not_ meant for you.

>>> 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

Rephrase it. I fail to see your point.

> if one has some doubts or phantesise too much about semantic
> mutations from Latin apprehendere.

If you have doubts, read Dante: it's always a source of wisdom:
"Amor, ch'al cor gentil ratto s'apprende". Italian word derives
from the very same "appre[he]ndere" (< ad + prehendere) and one
of its (old) meanings appears similar to Romanian word (that is:
`to start to burn`, 'to be communicated` - used about fire, passion
and in other similar contexts). Now, you have to choose between...
1. Italian etymologists are also dull and stupid relating the word
"apprendere" `to start to burn` by means of phantasy with Latin
"appre[he]ndere" instead of making a contorted derivation from
your favorite etymon; and...
2. It's you who doesn't understand the difference between method
and "phantasy" in linguistics, making you to propose tons of very
unlikely etymologies, convinced the others are wrong.

My pick is #2.

> You know what? [...] If you are convinced, be convinced by
> such ilusorial linguistic explanations.

Your point being?

Marius Iacomi