Re: [tied] apprehendere

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" 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.
>
> I appreciate your strain to co-relate it to Latin and Romance
> development but I am afraid you are on the wrong path.

Am I?! Says who?

> 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).

Of course not. You did not try to understand the explanation and
I am not willing to rephrase it once more because of your laziness.
The Italian correspondent was not chosen by random picking: it is
the direct phonetical counterpart of Romanian word (unlike "aprire"
which could not have had a similar phonetical history), it is
unanimously explained as deriving from Latin "apprehendere", and
(most important) it shows up the very same semantical shift as
Romanian word (among other meanings), unlike "aprire". Your proposal
is nonsensical and shows up your basical lack of understanding for
linguistics and its methods.

> 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.

I am not missing anything. The transitive form means: `to light (up)`
`to kindle`, `to turn on (light)`, `to set fire to`, `to ignite`, `to
rouse` (fig.). Slightly different on your "nothing more". You are of
course forgetting the reflexive form meaning `to start to burn`, `to
blush`, `to grow angry`, `to grow enthusiastic` (fig.), maybe you have
some irrational prejudice against reflexives.

> That was the ancient meaning ,

BS.

> this is the principal meaning today.

One of the meanings.

> Adj. "aprins" = made from paricipal form o "aprinde" means just
> "bright".

Aren't you forgetting a lot of other meanings?! "aprins" means
also `burning (object)`, `heated` (also fig.), `red-faced`.

> 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.

There is a relationship:
"prehende(re)" > "prinde"
"ad + prehendere" > "apprehende(re)" > "aprinde"
that is at the level of Latin language. One might add:
"cum + prehendere" > "comprehende(re)" > "cuprinde"
"de + prehendere" > "deprehendere" > "deprinde"
Phonetical similarity is not coincidental since all these words
are compounds of the same basical verb.

> The word is simply related to fire;

No. It's related to ignition process (a state change). Continuous
process of burning is "ardere", not "aprindere". Since you haven't
understood my explanation, you should read it the necessary number
of times. Focus on "state change" and "overtake" part.

> without the meaning of fire, there is n-o "aprindere"

See above.

> te-ai prins?

Keep the distance, young man. I already wasted too much time with
your repeated nonsense; to allow you the use of singular would be
way excessive.

> I am still trying to see how I can explain the end "-nde" for
> having the right explanation of the word.

Try "(ap)preheNDEre". It works just fine.

> The begining seems simple: PIE *ad + bher6 + endV

Using your "wise method" you can reconstruct practically all words
to be of IE origin. I mean also those non-IE. Get a life.

> I cannot justify the -(e)ndV, I am still searching about.

Yawn.
Marius Iacomi