Re: [tied] apprehendere

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:

>>> 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?
>
> Me.

= 0.0d0 Were you quoting a scientifical autority, that would have
been different.

>> 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.
>
> I suggest you read one of the post of Glen regarding arrogance.

Arrogance has strictly nothing to do with your chronical lack of
understanding. You failed even to read and understand the arguments
from the above paragraph. Try it now.

>>> That was the ancient meaning ,
>>
>> BS.
>
> Oh..:-)

Since you quoted no source and you produced no argument, it remains
simply BS.

>>> 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`.
>
> They are all derivative of the initial meaning "fire".

"bright" does not mean "fire". Your English or your reasoning is
at fault, I won't check which one.

> See for your self, damm!!

Watch your language.

> What does it then means in your meaning? Means this what Miguel
> showed you beside point 6&7 in Romance?
>
> 1) to take, to grab
> 2) to apprehend, arrest, put s.o. in jail
> 3) to fasten s.t. (to clothing)
> 4) to dress a woman
> 5) to get stuck, glued, anchored to something
> 6) of fire: to pass from one object to another; to catch fire
> 7) to light a fire
> 8) (obs.) to take or receive
> 9) of the male: to cover the female

You failed to understand Miguel's point. "to catch fire" is to
be translated in Romanian "a se aprinde" and "to light a fire"
is "a aprinde". Miguel hinted out that in Spanish (another Romance)
it is the basical word "prehendere" (whose meaning is not too far
from derived "apprehendere") having generated also the basical
meanings of Romanian "aprinde" (both reflexive and transitive).
That is: the semantical path from Latin "(ap)prehendere" to
"aprinde" `to catch fire`; `to light a fire` is straightforward
and has been made not only in Romanian and Italian, but also in
Spanish (at this point one could quote also usual idiomatic French
expression "prendre feu" `to catch fire` coming from the very same
Latin "prehendere"). You are the only one who does not understand
this semantical path and despite overwhelming evidence from modern
Romances, still claim it as "semantic exquilibristic" (your spelling
from message I'm answering to).

>> 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.
>
> BS. There is a simply phonetical coincidence because of "-inde".

You do not qualify for according "BS" labels on anything which
relates linguistics.

> The "*bher6-" is by itself the root which is showed in the other
> words too related to fire as I showed in the thread "egni/ogni"

You showed nothing except being stubborn and learn-resistent.

>>> 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.
>
> It is related to geting the fire, the begining the very point from
> "scanteie" to "foc".

Exactly the state change overtaking the combustible material I was
speaking about.

> It is a pitty to try to make a such semantic exquilibristic for
> explaiong it undeniably trough Latin just because "it sounds so
> alike".

Latin "(ap)prehendere" is at the origin of some Spanish, Italian
and French words with similar meanings. Nobody denies that.
One may insist that a Romanian word with similar phonetical shape
and meaning does not come from Latin, but no serious linguist can
consider that even as work hypothesis.

>> 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.
>
> So what, young man?

The difference in age and scientifical background between us does
not allow you such addressing formulas. Being consistently impolite
it's a measure of one's low level.

> Do you intend to apply punitive measures for not saying what you
> like?

For you being impolite, my unique measure is PLONK-o-MATIC. Others
may decide for themselves.

> You don't need it anymore. You already done it some time before.

I did nothing. The owner did and for his good reasons.

Marius Iacomi