m_iacomi wrote:
> 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
I appreciate your strain to co-relate it to Latin and Romance
development but I am afraid you are on the wrong path.
In the same manner related to Italian, one can say that starting the
fire means open the fire, though, Rom. "aprinde" is in fact Italian
"aprire" (to open).
It seems Latin does not help too much here, and let me tell you why. I
begin with the definiton you are missing:
a aprinde= to put fire; nothing more. That was the ancient meaning ,
this is the principal meaning today.
Adj. "aprins" = made from paricipal form o "aprinde" means just
"bright".Even if I asked you if you seen any relationship between prinde
& aprinde, it seems there is just a coincidentaly pfonetical
intercalation and nothing more.
The word is simply related to fire; without the meaning of fire, there
is n-o "aprindere", te-ai prins? ( for our colleagues which speaks as
mother language an another language as Rom: te-ai prins= "have you
caught (got) it? where "prinde" is used in its reflexive form"
I am still trying to see how I can explain the end "-nde" for having the
right explanation of the word. The begining seems simple:
PIE *ad + bher6 + endV
I cannot justify the -(e)ndV, I am still searching about.
Alex