--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:
> m_iacomi wrote:
>
>> Rephrase it. I fail to see your point.
>>
>>> "aprins" yes, this is a verbal adjective which shows us more
>>> better the semantism of the verb
>
> I mean the semantism of the verb "aprinde" is
I still fail to see your point.
>> 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). [...]
>
> So what? Would you mean that "learn" , aprentice, apprendre, changed
> its meaning in Italian and Rom. in "start to burn"?
No. The Latin "apprehendere" was not meaning basically `to learn`,
this is merely a late development in Western Romance. The word meant
`seize (upon)`, `grasp`, `cling to`, `lay hold of`; `apprehend`;
`embrace`; `overtake` and one underlying idea is the rapid change
of a (previous) state into something "improved". If someone changes
its state of ignorance by being told some news, he would "apprehend"
those news; over the centuries, "apprehendere" `getting informed on
something` was no longer perceived only as a fast process but also
as `learning` over some amount of time. Meanwhile, the "flash" part
of the meaning is still conserved: "t'as appris la nouvelle?" is a
perfectly valid French construction. The evolution of meaning from
`to seize` up to `to have a revelation` is also perfectly illustrated
by modern colloquial Romanian formula "te-ai prins?" which translates
`have you realized (the point)?`.
The same underlying idea, _along with_ the `overtake` meaning are
responsible for the semantic evolution up to `start to burn`. When a
fire starts, the state of combustible material changes, and the fire
"overtakes" every part of it. There is nothing strange in calling
ignition process "apprehendere focum", that is: to make the fire
sudennly overtake some pieces of wood.
> I see the Rom. word as derivative of "prinde"
So you changed your mind after all, since you were advocating for
"apricus" > "aprins" > "aprinde". Still better than nothing.
> [...] and not as inherited from "apprehendere";
You have a problem with inherited words.
> The initial "a" is like in "acata", "alinta", etc...
That is?!... (hint: Romanian "a-" < Latin "ad")
> I have nothing against of seing it as a intern derivation of
"prinde"
> which will make sense.
It makes perfect sense from "apprehendere", it's just you have a
wrong idea on what Latin word meant and instead of taking a look in
the dictionary, you decrete that its meaning should be exactly the
only one you remember from modern Western Romances. That's obviously
a fallacious method of getting valid information about anything.
> It seems absurd to me to try to ignore the semantism just for seing
> "an another inherited word". What does not feets in your concept
> for seeing "aprinde" as being derived from "prinde"?
Well, at a first sight one could have to decide between
1. Latin "ad + prehendere" > Latin "apprehende(re)" > Rom. "aprinde"
and
2. Latin "ad" > Rom. "a" + Latin "prehende(re)" > Rom. "prinde",
that is: between {simple inherited word} and {Romanian creation from
two inherited words}.
Taking into account that `overtake` meaning is more specifical
to Latin word "apprehendere" than to "prehendere" and that Italian
used the same construction (maybe not totally independent) from
Latin "apprehendere" for a verb meaning `to start to burn`, the
most likely hypothesis (by far!) is #1.
Marius Iacomi