Re: Cattle Trouble

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

> 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",

Books contain misprints, and in some handwriting styles "a" and "u"
can be confused. With stress on the first syllable, <bubalus> does
not look like a native Latin word - it would naturally have been
slurred to <bubulus> or *<bubilus>. Both Latin dictionaries
(Perseus at one extreme; a Collins Pocket dictionary at the other)
that I have consulted have <bubulus>; neither has <bubalus>. And,
as Alex pointed out, *bubalus > _bour_ needs a lot of explaining.

> for "bou" the Latin word "bovus"

A doubtful word - I leave it to others to judge how plausible it is
as a Proto-Romance regularisation of <bos>. As a Romanian
development it is plausible.

> > Eye trouble here - the Latin is _agnella_ (is it attested?),
> > feminine of _agnellus_.
>
> DEX gives here "agnelia", not "agnella"

Does anyone believe this was intended? Wouldn't it rather result in
something like *miaie? It could be anything from a typographical
error to a fault in the printing.

> > 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:

Thanks, but I'd have preferred a message number.

Richard.