Re: [tied] Re: Your historical timeline

At 12:22:52 PM on Thursday, December 2, 2004, tgpedersen
wrote:

>> I'd say rather that they borrowed a Gaulish suffix
>> signifying 'belonging to' or the like, Latinized it as
>> <-acum>, and used it rather extensively. Mind you, I don't
>> see why Alexandru finds Roman use of <-dava> so improbable,
>> but the cases aren't altogether parallel unless there was
>> more general Roman use of <-dava>.

> But the Roman use of <-dava> was exactly the question,
> which is why one can't use it as a premise as if the
> question had already been answered.

I'm not. I'm agreeing with you that Alexandru's assertion
is problematic but pointing out that your counterexample is
probably not apt.

Brian