Richard Wordingham wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
>
>> vacã (cow)= boalã (cf DEX < Slavic bolI "sickness")
>
> Am I missing something? All the meanings of _boalã_ that I could
> find relate to 'sickness'.
If one consider that an animal is a sickness , I don't intend to stop
him think so, but I wish his food will depend of this animal for
allowing to call it "sickness". Just for the completing the information
cf DEX:
boalã: 2) Epitet dat vitelor (sau altor animale)slabe, lenese, naravase.
So far I know and remember from my childhood there is no expresion "Nii,
vacã" but "Nii, boalã" or "Nii, vitã".Even the word for domestic animals
is the one of "vitã" not the recently "animal".
About "sickness", it appears of course explanable, since the skinny,
lazy, balky restive animal can be just a sickness. At least in the
opinion of some cosmopolit citiziens which know the cow just from the
books.
Supplimentary info: the suffix "-lã" apears for "mia" too. There is the
form "mialã".
>> wild ox= bour (cf. DEX < Latin "bubalus",
>> here phonetic trouble IMO)
>
> Probably an eye or finger problem (at DEX - on line, at least - not
> Alex's). The Latin word is _bu:bulus_, which would give *búur as
> opposed to bóur. I'd believe dissimilation as an explanation.
> Lewis & Short as given by Perseus says a very ancient form was
> _bovillus_, but I think they should say 'synonym', not 'form'. If
> we want to push things back to Latin, the alternative forms _bo:bus_
> and _bu:bus_ of the dative & ablative plural of _bo:s_ come to mind.
DEX 1998 gives for "bour" the Latin word "bubalus", for "bou" the Latin
word "bovus", for "bivol" Slavic "byvolU"
>
>> oaie= there is not a properly synonim but the use of "mioarã" is
> the
>> only one I can remember about now. "mioarã" appears in my eyes to
> be
>> diminutival of "mia" (young sheep); "mia" cf DEX < Latin "agnelia"
>> (phonetic troubles too IMO)
>
> Eye trouble here - the Latin is _agnella_ (is it attested?),
> feminine of _agnellus_.
DEX gives here "agnelia", not "agnella"
> Didn't we discuss the derivation of miel
> from _agnellus_ once? (I can't find the discussion.) If _miel_
> derives from _agnellus_, _mia_ derives from _agnella_. (For
> details, try using gnellus and gnella as inputs in my 'toy'.)
>
> Richard.
We discussed it. The observation has been as follow:
-Rom. has the happbit to places an protetic "a" at the begin of the word
but not to reduce it.Aromanian more as DR has a protetic a, the forms
"*amniel, *amiel" are not existent in Arom. too.
-gn > mn appears in the doric texts already. ( gain, the time line)
-the reduction of "mne" > "me" appears unusul , for it se
"Dumnezeu,pumni, etc."
-the palatalised pronounciation of "m" is to see in several
examples;exemples which begin with /ne-/, /ni-/ and which could be
pronounced palatal seems to be not existent.
Some examples: mea= n^ea, micã= n^icã, mie= n^ie (1)
1) the notation usualy used for this sound is with "n^" or with "ñ" but
they are misleading. If I will use a term of Rosetti I will call it
"apendix". In this case there is a smal _velar appendix_ where the velar
group is not "gy" but "ky". One must hear once this pronounciation to
make the differnece since the mostly Spanish(?) "ñ" is misleading here.
Alex