Re: [tied] Re: Cattle Trouble

Richard Wordingham wrote:

>> 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.

The definition is not only in DEX but is accepted in all linguistic
discutions as being the word "bubalus". It doesnt matter it is not a
native Latin word. If the word entered somehow in Latin and it is to
find somewhere in Latin texts, then this is considered as being Latin
word and entered Rom. Lang just trough Latin Lang. That is the view.

>
>> 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.

Here the same thing. There is no typographical error or fault in the
printing.This is the accepted definition.

>
>>> 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.

It seems as soon as the year change the archive is searched just within
the actual year. At least I couldnt find the discution about agnis/ognis
where -so far I remember- was discussed about the gn > mn in "amnar" and
there we discussed about "miel" too.

Alex