Re: [tied] Romanian Swadesh list -> 10% substratual

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

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>>> 3. Romanian 'burt~a' ('belly') :
>> [...]
>> Is it more common than pântec?
>
> more common. Pantec at least in my region is as well as unused.

On the overall, no. See ALR.

>>> 4. Romanian 'mare' ('big')
>>
>> Discussed here. The most likely etymology is Latin mas, mare.
>
> Hmm.. I would like to remember that "mas" meand if I don't confuse
> now, "man".

`male`, `masculine`, `of the male`. That is the physically bigger
of the two sexes for most animals on Earth.

>>> 6. Rom. 'a zbura' - to fly, is explained from Latin by 'ex-
>>> volare' that seems to be a forced link : to put 'ex + volare'
>>> in order to explain 'zb'
>>
>> There's nothing forced about it. exvolare > zbura.
>
> Nope. A zbura is not Latin.

Of course it is. You are not qualified to judge about likeliness
of a derivation. Period.

> the function of "ex-" in Latin _is not_ the function of the prefix
> "s" in Romanian.

Prefix "s" in Romanian? There ain't such a thing.
Anyway, the discussion about "zbura" has nothing to do with any
Romanian prefix, but with phonetical exitus of Latin "ex-" (which
is commonly /s/, getting voiced before another voiced consonant).

> the word is definitely from o-grade of *wer- , werfen,

You know what a 0 grade is? You know what "definitely" means?
Do you have any scientifical criteria to decide whether is the
case or not to use these words in a phrase? Can you expose them?

>> These are all clearly from Latin.
>
> I don't put stil in question the noi & voi (but there are of course
> problems because of nouã, vouã). But to sustain that "doi" and apoi
> is from Latin is far away from saying this is "clearly".

"Far away" for someone having not read enough on the issue. Or
having eventually read, but without understanding. That fits your
case.

>>> 'oi' - 'sheep (pl.) - 'ovis'
>>
>> oae < ovem. The Classical Latin word has only been maintained
>> in Romanian.
>
> Banane, meaning that is false.

Again, you have no qualification to judge false an etimology which
obviously you don't understand (even if it should have been already
clear from the tons of explanations given also on this list). There
is nothing else than normal diphthongation of stressed /o/.

> The "w" kept its traces in Romanian there where it has been in PIE
> an "w".(see douã, ziuã). The topsy-turvy with b&v=w is very much
> abused and should be analysed very carefully.

It has been analysed by competent people.

>>> 'voi' - 'will' - 'volere'
>>
>> voleo "I want" > vol^u > voiu > voi. Cf. Catalan vull (/bui/).
>
> ah.. that nice combination of Slavic with Latin: "a vrea" versus
> "a voi".
> just for fun: Slavic volja > voie; from voie > a voi. cf. Slavic
> and not cf. Catallan.

In fact, it should be seen as shared etymology, even if DEX gives
only the Slavic "voliti". The Latin verb has to have been preserved
in some way since its paradigm is present in future construction.

> And know why? Conjucation with -esc instead of weak "-u".:
> eu voiesc, tu voieSti.

BS. For the 4th conjugation, incoative form is just a perfectly
legitimate way to form some verbal tenses in Romanian (the weak
one, instead of a strong "voiu"). Better say you did not get any
clue about the meaning of incoatives. After all, as you indirectly
recognize, "voiesc" is a late analogical form, a construct replacing
the etymological "voi(u)":

> Anyway, this is not used since it sounds too astrange. The used
> form is for future voi, vei, va, vom, veTi, (v)or.

... and the short "voi(u)" (not used as auxiliary verb) is the most
frequent in old texts.

> For " I want" the average Rom. use " a vrea",

... from Lat. "volere".

Marius Iacomi