--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@> wrote:
> >
> > On 2008-01-21 19:57, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> >
> > > Regarding the sematism of the abstraction it could work: but
> why "pre-"
> > > was lost? This is difficult to explain: I don't remember any
> Latin word
> > > in Romanian that lost his Latin prefix
> >
> > Most words with prefixes occur also without them. <praepu:tium>
> > contained a bound morpheme which, however, made perfect sense. If
> the
> > foreskin constitutes the front (prae-) of the -pu:tium, What can
> this
> > -pu:tium be? Let me think...
Piotr, Let's forget *pu:tium :
See below:
=========================================
ad de verum > Rom. NEUTER adev&r
altarium > Rom. NEUTER altar
allevatum > Rom. NEUTER aluat
argentum > Rom. NEUTER argint
aurum > Rom. NEUTER aur
brachium > Rom. NEUTER brat,
calcaneum > Rom. NEUTER c&lc^ai
capistrum > Rom. NEUTER c&p&stru
etc...
=========================================
THERE IS NO LATIN -UM noun that became FEMINIM in Romanian
=========================================
'Your' supposed *pu:tium will be the SINGLE EXCEPTION:
=========================================
Latin *pu:tium > Rom. FEMININ put,&
=========================================
So, let's forget *pu:tium :)
Marius