Re: Let's forget *pu:tium

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:

>
> --- 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
>

As regarding PIE feminin nouns from the root *peuk^/*puk^
-----------------------------------------------------------
we have:

"Greek : /peuke:/ 'pine' f. can be understood as a subst. adj.
f. "the sharp, the stinging" from *ðåõêόò `sharp, stinging'"
(Beekes)


I think that Romanian Feminin put,a < *puk^-eh2 is quite a similar
formation.

Marius