petegray wrote:
>>> There is
>>> therefore no need to find a direct link with PIE or with Sanskrit.
>> what does "the need " means here?
>
> The original post implied, but did not state, that Romanian had
> "preserved" an original meaning, also found in Sanskrit. By saying
> "there is no need", I mean that the logic is flawed, and nothing
> compels us to believe that such preservation is the only way the
> current situation could have arisen. The usual, normal, simple
> explanation works fine: Romanian (mostly) derives from Latin.
>
> Peter
this is what I understood too and I wanted to be sure this is what you mean.
There is the very clear idea that Romanian is Latin thus everything what
_could_ be explained more or less satisfactory via Latin _should_ be
explained that way.
I consider a such starting point is nowadays not more usable; one is not
allowed anymore nowadays "auf biegen und brechen" to try to explain more or
less satisfactory just because of the obsolete idea of _it must be Latin_
and that not because so I like, but because scientifically correctness asks
for that. The times of romanticism in linguistic should be over, I guess.
OK, now, let us take a look at "verto" & co.
Latin "verto" has its counterpart in Rom. "�nv�rti" which means as in Latin
"to turn over" u.o.
One sees, there is a compound of "in"+ "v�rti". Of this verb, there is
nothing which has any derivative in "s" but even the participial form is in
"t" (v�rtit). Cf. DEX the word "v�rt-" should be compared with Slavic
"vrUtEti" and there is no word about Latin "verto". Remarque please, the
word "inv�rti" _could not_ derive from Slavic "vrUtEti" but it should be
compared with this form.
The meaning of "v�rsa" refers mostly to water, to liquids, it means in fact
"getting a liquid out of something", thus from here is the meaning "to
vomit" as well. With the prefix "re-" (rev�rsa) is used for "�berlaufen" and
means simply "inundations".
The Latin "turn over one idea in mind" is reflected in the same expresion
but not with "v�rsa" and with "inv�rti" as -in my opinion- expecte "�nv�rt o
idee in minte" means " to turn over one idea in mind, to thik about".
I guess the connection of Latin "verso" with Rom. "v�rsa" is wrong
(semantism does not fit, it is just forced). NOw, please take a look at
Albanian where the verb "v�rshim, v�rshon" has the same meaning as Romanian,
making once again (there are too many such semantic "evolutions" which are
in fact isogloses one should look more carefully at )a common corpus out of
"latin" word.
I know that kind of explanation with "BalkanLatin" but it appears its role
as joker is limited then when such simmilar meanings appears in other IE
languages. Agree?
Alex