Re: Anser [was: ka and k^a [was: [tied] *kW- "?"]]

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <magwich78@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>

wrote:

> > >
> > > There seems to be an accordance between Italicist that rural
> > > vocabulary in Latin is taken from dialects and shows

unexpected

> > > development.
> >
> > More accurately: Italicists are in accordance that rural

vocabulary

> > in Latin shows unexpected development and is therefore taken

from

> > Italic dialects. Logically they might leave out 'Italic', but

then

> > they wouldn't be Italicists, of course.
>
> Certainly. After all, Latin started out as one tiny little

dialect

> surrounded by many others. It's no surprise, then, that it would
> borrow from other nearby dialects.

Actually it is a surprise. Rome started out no less agricultural
than its neighbors. Why should Cincinatus use words from non-Roman
dialects to refers to the inventory of his farm? Personally I think
the double origin might have to with the old patrician/plebeiian
division in the Roman people.


Torsten