On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:39:43 +0000, altamix <
alxmoeller@...> wrote:
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>
>> I can say with Rosetti:
>>
>> Timbrul /i/ al vocalei nu poate fi justificat decât dacã plecãm de
>> la formele în care /â/ era neaccentuat: schimbá(re), schimbát,
>> schimbã'm, etc.
>>
>assuming that everything derive from a Latin form, yes there is no
>other justification.
>And this assumtion can be wrong as well. Agree?
>
>P.S. what do you have against *(s)kemb-
For starters, I doubt it exists. Pokorny's IEW lists a root *(s)kamb-
"krümmen, biegen". Only three of the forms given there can be derived from
a variant *skemb-, namely Norwegian hempa "Kleiderstrippe, Schlinge,
Henkel", Swedish skimpa "hüpfen, tanzen" and OHG scimpfen "schimpfen". All
the others come from *(s)kamb-, *(s)komb- or *(s)km.b-.
Now what is more likely: that Romanian schimba "change, exchange" is
related to the fellow Romance words Ita. scambiare, Fr. échanger, with
exactly the same meaning, or that it's cognate with three obscure Germanic
words meaning "rag", "to hop, to dance" and "to ridicule"?
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...