From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 30619
Date: 2004-02-03
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 18:49:54 +0000, alexandru_mg3
<alexandru_mg3@...>
> wrote:
>
> > " None of these words derive directly from Latin ra:di:ce(m) and
> >its variants, which would have produced *rãzice.We have to depart
> >from a basis *radece, as also found in Catalan arrel "root" (<
(la)
> >raEl < raDEu < raDez < radece). "
> >
> > Why we have to depart from a root *radece? ....You exclude
from
> >the beginning what you have to proove by excluding the case BASED
on
> >the assumption that we have ALWAYS /3i/ and never /di/.
>
> It's not an assumption. It's a fact that has been established time
after
> time, thousands of times. Sound changes apply without exceptions.
You
> can't just say: "they had problems with /di/ sometimes, and
sometimes not",
> that's not linguistics. If the Romanian form is rãdãcina, then it
simply
> cannot come from ra:di:cina.
>
> >BUT This is what you have to proof here....
> >
> >Lat. radicula -> Rom. ridiche
> >-------------------------------
> >English : little root.
> >
> >Romanian Linguists that derived it from Lat. radicula:
> > PuScariu : radicula
> > Cioranescu : radicula
> > Romanian DEX : radicula
>
> Well, as long as there's no length mark on /i/, I have no problem
with
> that.
>
> >None but you derived rom. ridiche from Lat. *radece (a
reconstructed
> >form, based on some Catalan words...Where this form is attested?)
>
> It was starred. That means unattested.
>
> > We have in italian : radicchio (i - not e).
>
> Right. Except for Catalan and Romanian, all other Romance forms
neatly
> reflect ra:di:ce and its derivatives.
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...