Re: Romance Pequeno, Pequeño, Petit, Piccolo

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

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Abdullah Konushevci" wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...> wrote:
> >
> >> Romanian "pic" `small quantity (of something)` assumed
> onomatopoeic.
> >> Romanian word "mic" (`small`) and Sicilian counterpart "nicu"
> >> (`id.`) related to a Greek word, possibly through a VL

intermediate

> >> *miccus; also Catalan and Italian "mica" `small quantity,

nothing`

> (<
> >> Lat. "mic(c) a") fit in here.
> >> To be noted Romanian "pitic" `dwarf`, correlated by DEX authors
> with
> >> (OC) Slavic "pitikU", word in fit also with Romances.
> >
> > I don't know how much these roots could be onomatopoeic or
> > expressive, but I know for sure that they have PIE form *mei-
> 'small'
> > (Watkins, *mei-2, Pokorny, *mei-5) and *peig^-/peik^- 'to cut,

mark

> > (by incision)'.
>
> "For sure" is slightly presumptuous since most entries in Pokorny
> #1245
> (*mei-5) point towards composite forms with -n-, not with /k/

or /t/.

> A discussion around the m-word has is to be found in cybalist
> archives,
> see e.g.
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/28190
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/28224
> and your own
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/28200
> The m-word has enough credentials for being VL, even without being
> specifically attested.
> The onomatopoeic or expressive formation is obvious for the p-word
> since it reflects the sound of a falling (water)drop; even in

Albanian

> "pikë" means `drop` (compare with Romanian "picãturã" `id.`, noun
> derivative of "a pica" `to fall` < "pic"). A drop of some liquid is
> the
> smallest quantity appearing in usual life, so semantical evolution

is

> straightforward from `drop` to `small quantity` then to `small` and
> by another extension `(sharp) point`.
> Pokorny doesn't mention *peig^/k^. Nor has Demiraj an entry for
> any Albanian "pik-" word.
>
> > According to Watkins, this root is treated in satem languages as
> > not ending in palatal, but like in pure velar.
>
> Latin is not satem but centum, as well as Celtic & Germanic.

[AK]
What are talking about? Is everything OK with you? Do you here about
different treatment of palatals in centum and satem languages?

>
> > I remember that this second root was treated in length in

Cybalist,

>
> Really?! I made a search, the root *peik^ `paint` was mentioned a
> couple of times by Piotr -- see messages:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/21192
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/24396
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/27544
> related to *peik^-sko- `fish`, Slavic *pik^-ro- `pied, mottled,
> variegated`, and *pIsU, possible ordinary *-o stem < *pik^o-s `dog`.
> There is no root with *g^ instead of *k^; maybe you remembered the
> message http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/20806 in
> which Piotr wrote: "(through *pik- 'to be hostile' + *-ula- or

*piku-

> 'hostile' + *-la-) from PIE *peik(^)- (~ *peig-) 'be hostile,

hate'",

> but this has nothing to do with our word.
> The evolution *peik^> Alb. pikë was exclusively your own proposal:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/21193
> reiterated in:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/25917
> (heralded by none) and has some semantic difficulties in order to

get

> `point, drop, small quantity` from `paint` (one can advocate for a
> path `paint` -> `painted, coloured` -> `with paint spots` ->

`spot` ->

> `drop producing the spot` -> `drop` -> `small quantity`, but a

basical

> meaning `drop` looks much more realistic since a (falling) drop of
> paint (or even water, depending on involved surface) naturally

creates

> a `spot`).

[AK]
Does it matter are you heralded or not by anyone, if you believe that
you have right. After all, from the beginning I find myself strange
in this very unfrankly forum and really I am thinking to leave it
forever. Maybe you and others like you will much enjoy in self-
delusion. But, this force me to not give up.

>
> > until first one I am not sure.
>
> I gave the references for m-word.
>
> > I believe that Rom. <pik> 'small quantity (of something)'s can't
> > be separated from Alb. <pikë> `'point, drop, small quantity'
>
> Probably not, but that doesn't make any of them a far derivative of
> the `paint` root. The onomatopoeic/expressive formation is too easy
> recovered at any moment of the story, and the p-word is too Romance
> to look for strange derivatives of *peik^.
>
> > as well as Rom. <mic> 'small' from Alb. <micërr> 'trifle',

<mickël>

> > 'id.', <micërroj> 'to trifle'. I gues[s] that Alb. forms are

dubble

> > suffixed zero-grade forms *mi-sk-lo > mickël (cf. also <pickoj>
> > 'to pinch, to nib'). etc.
>
> By no means one should separate Romanian word from other Romance
> words, in the first place. Demiraj says nothing about any "mic-"

word,

> the first guess is either VL or Greek, languages known to have had
> some influence on Albanian.

[AK]
I didn't like once to react when you reiterate this claim, but I am
warning you that Alb. /c/ is equal to Rom. /T/ and in no case you
could derive Alb. <micërroj> 'to trifle' or <mickël> from any Greek
or Latin words. Until, Rom. form I think is <mic> not <misk> to avoid
the homonymy with verbal suffix -sc.

> Regards,
> Marius Iacomi

Konushevci