| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Duan Vukoti
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 11:38 am Post subject: Re: Vamos a hablar claro |
 |
|
On Jul 21, 11:15 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]Dušan Vukotić wrote:
On Jul 20, 10:04 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Well, I give up. I>m still going to point out to new
participants when an answer you>ve given them is pure trash,
What do you think you are? The all-knowing Harlan? Do you really think
that nobody knows how to use the brain and that everyone needs your
"guiding" precepts?
Yes, I can tell as readily as anything can be told that you don>t know
how to use your brain, and I can tell that from everything you write,
and so can everyone else with a brain. Just look at your last couple of
contributions to this thread. You>ve contrived mutually independent
explanations for a whole bunch of the Latin/Spanish word pairs I gave
you. Anyone with a brain, upon being presented the dozens of these pairs
that exist, would compare
1. a theory that Latin f became Spanish h, and
[/quote]
The Latin /f/ became Spanish /h/ in a certain number of casis but it
couldn>t be taken as a general rule. I hope you knew that.
How would you explain the fact that the /f/ initial in Latin "forte"
didn>t change to Spanish horte but remained untouched - forte =>
fuerte? What is the relation among Lat. forte, Serb. tvrd (OSl
тврьдъ), Eng. hard (in sens of solid, firm), Slavic trud (endeavour),
trudno (hard, not easy), Serb. čvrst (ORuss чьрствъ, cherstv solid,
hard), Goth. haúrds (door; Serb. dver door; dvor castle) and number
four (fourth = fort?; Serb. četvrt, quarter, Lat. quadra any squared
object)? How it happened that Skt. catur (four), duryona (home; Serb.
dvor home, dvorana hall, tvoriti create).
Let me help you here because I know you wouldn>t be able to resolve
these enigma for the next thousand year. All the above words sprang
from the Hor-Gon basis where the words like Slavic graditi and Latin
creatus (to make, produce; compare Lat. creatus, hard and Slav. g/
raditi work, tvoriti create) originated from. Slavic grad/hrad and
utvrda/tvrđava (Russ. под-тверждать/pod-tverzhdatь; твердеть/tverdyety
fortify) is the same as Serb. ograda (fence; Russ. ограда, Cz.
ohrada).
Nevertheless, it remained unclear why the Latin word forte has an
initial f instead of h or d/t. The sound v in Slavic tvrdo (Lithuanian
tvirtas tvirti hard) has the prosthetic role (cf. Russ. под-держать/
pod-dyerzhatь uphold, fortify, support; Lith. diržti harden, Serbian
kotar (district), zadruga (community), zatvor (enclosure), tor (cote,
sheepfold, corral), toranj (tower).
Above analysis showed that "quarter" jumped from "circle",
interesting, isn>t it?
If nothing else, I hope you>ve understand why and how the Gothic word
fidvor/fidur is related to Lat. quatuor and Serb. kotar (district,
quarter). :-)
DV |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Duan Vukoti
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 3:19 pm Post subject: Re: Vamos a hablar claro |
|
|
On Jul 22, 4:48pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]On 2008-07-21 23:15:50 +0200, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> said:
[ ... ]
1. a theory that Latin f became Spanish h, and
2. a theory consisting of dozens of unrelated
etymologies for dozens of Latin/Spanish
word pairs that meander through hundreds of
other words before getting to their destinations,
through the most tortured of semantic leaps--
all resulting--MIRACULOUSLY--in Spanish having
words that look exactly as they would
IF Latin f had simply become Spanish h
in the first place
and realize that 1 is obviously the case and 2 is a steaming heap of
dung. And then you can add to that the fact that each of your
individual demonstrations, even ignoring what we know about f > h,
doesn>t make any sense anyway.
And do I need to mention AGAIN that centuries and centuries of Spanish
writing SHOWS the gradual change from f to h?
I admire the persistence with which you continue to trying to drum some
sense into this kook, but I>m glad you do, because I enjoy reading your
replies even though I rarely (if ever) any more read what you>re
replying to.
[/quote]
A typical reaction of an idiot or onesided dumb-ass reader!
[quote]Is it not the case that although written Spanish and written Portuguese
are so similar that anyone who can read one can read the other, yet the
f -> h change didn>t happen in Portuguese, so Duan>s "theory" would
also need to explain why one doesn>t see these effects in Portuguese?
Come to think of it, I think Ladino is a better example than Portuguese
-- even closer to Spanish, but without the f -> h change.
--
athel- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
Listen Athlete,
You had better put your apron on and go back to your kitchen.
DV |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Duan Vukoti
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:50 pm Post subject: Re: Vamos a hablar claro |
|
|
On Jul 22, 5:12pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]Good point. All these words in Spanish, according to him, had a
completely separate development from their Portuguese equivalents--and,
miraculously, they all look their Portuguese equivalents with "f"
replaced by "h" *anyway*. Mirabile dictu.
[/quote]
Yes, the point is why that change occurred only in Spanish.
I never said that /f/ to /h/ sound changes didn>t happen in Spanish. I
just expressed my doubts that some words in Latin with the initial /f/
were originally "initiated" as /h/ - words. And I specified those
words (fumus, femina), which appeared to suffer the /h/ to /f/ sound
mutation in Latin (homo, hominis) and it passed on over the "back" of
dentals /d/, /t/ or /th/; similar as it happened to Russian fimiam
(incense; from tamjan, from Slavic dim smoke).
As everyone can see, you are not ready to enter a serious discussion
and, for instance, say, "femina is not related to homo -inis". Simply,
you dared not to say something like that because you know that it
wouldn>t be true (Lat. femella young female, girl; famulus a servant,
slave, attendant); the alleged connection of femina to felo -are
(suck) is nonsensical.
Femina is akin to hominis via domina (homo -inis => domina => femina),
is it not? In this specific Latin example we had velar to dental and
dental to fricative sound mutations (h => d => f).
Instead of a serious counter-argumentation you decided to use the most
primitive methods of disqualification. Of course, it is most easier
eristic approach to the subject of dispute, but any average
intelligent person can see that your strategy is totally fruitless and
intellectually (as well as morally)incoherent and incorrect.
DV |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Harlan Messinger
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:53 pm Post subject: Re: Vamos a hablar claro |
|
|
Dušan Vukotić wrote:
[quote]On Jul 21, 11:15 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
But never mind reality, never mind documentation, never mind the
most obvious of explanations: you have *decreed* f > h didn>t
happen.
Please, don>t twist my words Harlan. I have never said something like
that.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang/msg/b1ae3bfcaeeeacfe?hl=en&
What I really said is that in some cases the f to h sound change
didn>t seem so "obvious",
[/quote]
The *fact* that it happened--because we can see it plainly in the
written record--makes it as obvious as it needs to be.
[quote]and I presented my arguments and reservations "against" the words as
family, (female, feminin) and fumus (both seem to be related to
Germanic home and Slavic dom; cf. Lat. domina /mistress of a
household; wife/; Serb. domaćin master, host; domaćica mistress of a
household). Namely, if you admit that homo/hominis might be related
to dominus than you must also accept that femina might be related to
homo/hominis as well as famulus to homullus (see Ita. uomini men).
[/quote]
The number one argument is that the actual change from f to h is blatant
in the written record, and therefore no rational argument can conclude
otherwise, and therefore no other argument is even worth looking at.
[quote]I can do nothing if your brain isn>t big enough to grasp that in the
all of above mentioned names for man (master, mistress, servant) we
have to deal with the "gonbelgonic" patterns of human head
[/quote]
What I grasp is that you make stuff up and then tell people that your
inventions have to be dealt with as though they were real.
[quote](Gr.
κεφαλή, cephalus, capita, caput, calva). If you reject any
possibility that any of my statements might be true and that
everything I say is nothing but a bullshit, then you are in a
delusional state.
[/quote]
I am in a delusional state because I don>t believe things JUST BECAUSE
YOU SAY THEY>RE TRUE?
[quote]It means if you wasunable to understand such a
relatively simple things,
[/quote]
This is coming from the person who writes long screeds that go off in
all directions, stretching the meanings of words further than anyone can
justify and going off on more tangents than can be found in a
trigonometry textbook and then calls them "relatively simple", but who
also looks at a long list of f > h correspondences and yet can>t discern
the simple fact that f became h. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Harlan Messinger
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:00 pm Post subject: Re: Vamos a hablar claro |
|
|
Dušan Vukotić wrote:
[quote]On Jul 21, 11:15 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Dušan Vukotić wrote:
On Jul 20, 10:04 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Well, I give up. I>m still going to point out to new
participants when an answer you>ve given them is pure trash,
What do you think you are? The all-knowing Harlan? Do you really think
that nobody knows how to use the brain and that everyone needs your
"guiding" precepts?
Yes, I can tell as readily as anything can be told that you don>t know
how to use your brain, and I can tell that from everything you write,
and so can everyone else with a brain. Just look at your last couple of
contributions to this thread. You>ve contrived mutually independent
explanations for a whole bunch of the Latin/Spanish word pairs I gave
you. Anyone with a brain, upon being presented the dozens of these pairs
that exist, would compare
1. a theory that Latin f became Spanish h, and
The Latin /f/ became Spanish /h/ in a certain number of casis but it
couldn>t be taken as a general rule. I hope you knew that.
[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]How would you explain the fact that the /f/ initial in Latin "forte"
didn>t change to Spanish horte but remained untouched - forte =
fuerte?
[/quote]
Because sound change is not 100% uniform for reasons that have to do
with speech communities and intermingling, common versus rarefied or
technical vocabulary, later reborrowings, etc. That doesn>t alter the
fact that when you are confronted with dozens of words that do manifest
this change, that the change happened. Also, the phonetic environment
makes a big different, but in the case of "forte" that>s clearly not the
imposing factor because "formica" > "hormiga".
Besides that, I repeat: IT>S IN THE WRITTEN RECORD. (You have not once
addressed this. Facts just shoot your theories down altogether, don>t
they? Much easier to ignore them every time they>re mentioned.)
[quote]What is the relation among Lat. forte, Serb. tvrd (OSl
тврьдъ), Eng. hard (in sens of solid, firm), Slavic trud (endeavour),
trudno (hard, not easy), Serb. čvrst (ORuss чьрствъ, cherstv solid,
hard), Goth. haúrds (door; Serb. dver door; dvor castle) and number
four (fourth = fort?; Serb. četvrt, quarter, Lat. quadra any squared
object)? How it happened that Skt. catur (four), duryona (home; Serb.
dvor home, dvorana hall, tvoriti create).
[/quote]
And the digression (remainder snipped) begins. (Hint: even the earliest
Spanish texts didn>t include a whole lot of Serbian.) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:48 pm Post subject: Re: Vamos a hablar claro |
|
|
On 2008-07-21 23:15:50 +0200, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> said:
[quote][ ... ]
1. a theory that Latin f became Spanish h, and
2. a theory consisting of dozens of unrelated
etymologies for dozens of Latin/Spanish
word pairs that meander through hundreds of
other words before getting to their destinations,
through the most tortured of semantic leaps--
all resulting--MIRACULOUSLY--in Spanish having
words that look exactly as they would
IF Latin f had simply become Spanish h
in the first place
and realize that 1 is obviously the case and 2 is a steaming heap of
dung. And then you can add to that the fact that each of your
individual demonstrations, even ignoring what we know about f > h,
doesn>t make any sense anyway.
And do I need to mention AGAIN that centuries and centuries of Spanish
writing SHOWS the gradual change from f to h?
[/quote]
I admire the persistence with which you continue to trying to drum some
sense into this kook, but I>m glad you do, because I enjoy reading your
replies even though I rarely (if ever) any more read what you>re
replying to.
Is it not the case that although written Spanish and written Portuguese
are so similar that anyone who can read one can read the other, yet the
f -> h change didn>t happen in Portuguese, so Dušan>s "theory" would
also need to explain why one doesn>t see these effects in Portuguese?
Come to think of it, I think Ladino is a better example than Portuguese
-- even closer to Spanish, but without the f -> h change.
--
athel |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Harlan Messinger
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:12 pm Post subject: Re: Vamos a hablar claro |
|
|
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
[quote]On 2008-07-21 23:15:50 +0200, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> said:
[ ... ]
1. a theory that Latin f became Spanish h, and
2. a theory consisting of dozens of unrelated
etymologies for dozens of Latin/Spanish
word pairs that meander through hundreds of
other words before getting to their destinations,
through the most tortured of semantic leaps--
all resulting--MIRACULOUSLY--in Spanish having
words that look exactly as they would
IF Latin f had simply become Spanish h
in the first place
and realize that 1 is obviously the case and 2 is a steaming heap of
dung. And then you can add to that the fact that each of your
individual demonstrations, even ignoring what we know about f > h,
doesn>t make any sense anyway.
And do I need to mention AGAIN that centuries and centuries of Spanish
writing SHOWS the gradual change from f to h?
I admire the persistence with which you continue to trying to drum some
sense into this kook, but I>m glad you do, because I enjoy reading your
replies even though I rarely (if ever) any more read what you>re
replying to.
Is it not the case that although written Spanish and written Portuguese
are so similar that anyone who can read one can read the other, yet the
f -> h change didn>t happen in Portuguese, so Dušan>s "theory" would
also need to explain why one doesn>t see these effects in Portuguese?
[/quote]
Good point. All these words in Spanish, according to him, had a
completely separate development from their Portuguese equivalents--and,
miraculously, they all look their Portuguese equivalents with "f"
replaced by "h" *anyway*. Mirabile dictu.
One of his problems is tunnel vision. Whereas most people, when
formulating their *own* hypotheses, continually subject their ideas to
reality checks based on all available knowledge, Dusan doesn>t do that.
Once something looks to him as though it *might* work, no amount of
contradictory evidence to the contrary will deter him. He starts with
the goal he has in mind and nothing that might come up alongside his
path as he follows it will make a dent in his ratiocinations.
[quote]Come to think of it, I think Ladino is a better example than Portuguese
-- even closer to Spanish, but without the f -> h change.[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Harlan Messinger
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:50 am Post subject: Re: Vamos a hablar claro |
|
|
Dušan Vukotić wrote:
[quote]On Jul 22, 5:12 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Good point. All these words in Spanish, according to him, had a
completely separate development from their Portuguese equivalents--and,
miraculously, they all look their Portuguese equivalents with "f"
replaced by "h" *anyway*. Mirabile dictu.
Yes, the point is why that change occurred only in Spanish.
[/quote]
ROFL! Duh! Each language is distinguished from its predecessor language,
and from other descendants the predecessor, precisely by those changes
that occurred in the speech of its speakers that didn>t occur in the
speech of other speakers.
[quote]I never said that /f/ to /h/ sound changes didn>t happen in Spanish.
[/quote]
It>s hard to know what you said because you keep contradicting
yourself--just like when you first agreed that two particular words
weren>t related and a message or two later you were back to pondering
whether they were related.
[quote]I
just expressed my doubts that some words in Latin with the initial /f/
were originally "initiated" as /h/ - words.
[/quote]
How the Latin words originated has nothing to do with how they got from
Latin into Spanish.
[quote]And I specified those
words (fumus, femina), which appeared to suffer the /h/ to /f/ sound
mutation in Latin (homo, hominis)
[/quote]
Because you say so? You have presented no *reason* to think so.
[quote]and it passed on over the "back" of
dentals /d/, /t/ or /th/; similar as it happened to Russian fimiam
(incense; from tamjan, from Slavic dim smoke).
As everyone can see, you are not ready to enter a serious discussion
and, for instance, say, "femina is not related to homo -inis".
[/quote]
I>m waiting for you to offer a serious discussion, something that goes
behind your claiming it to be true just because you say so.
[quote]Simply,
you dared not to say something like that because you know that it
wouldn>t be true (Lat. femella young female, girl; famulus a servant,
slave, attendant); the alleged connection of femina to felo -are
(suck) is nonsensical.
Femina is akin to hominis via domina (homo -inis => domina => femina),
is it not?
[/quote]
Because you say so? You have presented no *reason* to think so.
[quote]In this specific Latin example we had velar to dental and
dental to fricative sound mutations (h => d => f).
[/quote]
Where is evidence to support that there was any tendency for this to
happen in Latin, as opposed to this being something you made up as part
of your invented history for one particular set of words?
[quote]Instead of a serious counter-argumentation you decided to use the most
primitive methods of disqualification.
[/quote]
If you consider the written record in which these changes are readily
observed to be a "primitive method of disqualification" then you have
just essentially expressed the sentiment, "My fantasies supersede
concrete reality." (I note AGAIN that you haven>t bothered addressing
the existence of a written record that contradicts all of your baloney.)
[quote]Of course, it is most easier
eristic approach to the subject of dispute, but any average
intelligent person can see that your strategy is totally fruitless and
intellectually (as well as morally)incoherent and incorrect.
[/quote]
Yes, I suppose it is totally fruitless to cite observable reality to a
person who won>t let it stand in the way of his manufacture of
never-ending fantasies. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Duan Vukoti
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:11 am Post subject: Re: Vamos a hablar claro |
|
|
On Jul 22, 9:50pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]Duan Vukoti wrote:
On Jul 22, 5:12 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Good point. All these words in Spanish, according to him, had a
completely separate development from their Portuguese equivalents--and,
miraculously, they all look their Portuguese equivalents with "f"
replaced by "h" *anyway*. Mirabile dictu.
Yes, the point is why that change occurred only in Spanish.
ROFL! Duh! Each language is distinguished from its predecessor language,
and from other descendants the predecessor, precisely by those changes
that occurred in the speech of its speakers that didn>t occur in the
speech of other speakers.
I never said that /f/ to /h/ sound changes didn>t happen in Spanish.
It>s hard to know what you said because you keep contradicting
yourself--just like when you first agreed that two particular words
weren>t related and a message or two later you were back to pondering
whether they were related.
I
just expressed my doubts that some words in Latin with the initial /f/
were originally "initiated" as /h/ - words.
How the Latin words originated has nothing to do with how they got from
Latin into Spanish.
And I specified those
words (fumus, femina), which appeared to suffer the /h/ to /f/ sound
mutation in Latin (homo, hominis)
Because you say so? You have presented no *reason* to think so.
> and it passed on over the "back" of
dentals /d/, /t/ or /th/; similar as it happened to Russian fimiam
(incense; from tamjan, from Slavic dim smoke).
As everyone can see, you are not ready to enter a serious discussion
and, for instance, say, "femina is not related to homo -inis".
I>m waiting for you to offer a serious discussion, something that goes
behind your claiming it to be true just because you say so.
Simply,
you dared not to say something like that because you know that it
wouldn>t be true (Lat. femella young female, girl; famulus a servant,
slave, attendant); the alleged connection of femina to felo -are
(suck) is nonsensical.
Femina is akin to hominis via domina (homo -inis => domina => femina),
is it not?
Because you say so? You have presented no *reason* to think so.
In this specific Latin example we had velar to dental and
dental to fricative sound mutations (h => d => f).
Where is evidence to support that there was any tendency for this to
happen in Latin, as opposed to this being something you made up as part
of your invented history for one particular set of words?
[/quote]
Consult the linguistic literature. What is the IE root of female and
femina? Is it not a suffixed form *dhe-mna-? And human? From *(dh)ghom-
on-? Does it say anything to you?
DV |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 10:20 am Post subject: Re: Vamos a hablar claro |
|
|
On Jul 22, 9:50 pm, Duan Vukoti <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 22, 5:12 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Good point. All these words in Spanish, according to him, had a
completely separate development from their Portuguese equivalents--and,
miraculously, they all look their Portuguese equivalents with "f"
replaced by "h" *anyway*. Mirabile dictu.
Yes, the point is why that change occurred only in Spanish.
[/quote]
Well, Spanish started as a linguistic variety of Romance spoken in the
North of the Iberian Peninsula. It was neighbors with a certain very
non-Indo-European language called Basque. Now, Basque happens to have
no f in old, domestic words. And now, we happen to know that the
Basque-speaking area was much bigger in earlier times. (How do we know
it? Well, there are a lot of obviously Basque placenames around the
contemporary Basque-speaking area. Besides, Basque surnames, such as
Echeverria, from "etxe berria", "the new house", are commonplace in
the whole Spanish-speaking world.) Thus, a variety of Romance learnt
and then nativized by lots and lots of Basques with difficulties to
pronounce their f>s might have played a role in the development of
Spanish. There is a technical term for this - we call it "substratum
influence". |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Duan Vukoti
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:41 pm Post subject: Re: Vamos a hablar claro |
|
|
On Jul 23, 2:35 pm, Antnio Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
[quote]Antnio Marques wrote:
'Family' is demsontrably a learned word; an inherited word would have
-illa, not -ilia.
Or -ija, actually.
--
Antnio Marques
--
This signature does not include a prefab parting phrase
** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**
[/quote]
I asked clearly:
1) is the Latin word femina related to domina and homo -inis?
2) what is the relation (if any) among words as Latin familia
(household), English hamlet and Russian ֧ާ/semya (family)?
I consider this to be of crucial impotance. When we answer these
questions we can go on farther in discussing f => h sound change in
Spanish and in some of the Spansh dialects (for instance in South
America, I think), where much more Latin f-beginning words obtained
the initial h.
There are the Latin words with the initial [f], which were derived
from IE bilabials [b] and [p], like in falconem, fugire. fundere,,, or
from velars (famili, femine, fumus).
As a matter of fact, I do not deny that Spanish words with the initial
h didn>t come from Latin f-words (it would be nonsensical to claim
that), but I am trying to prove that a certain number of Latin f-words
(which I mentioned above) originally had the sound h as their
initial.
DV |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Duan Vukoti
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 4:00 pm Post subject: Re: Vamos a hablar claro |
|
|
On Jul 23, 1:01pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]Duan Vukoti wrote:
On Jul 22, 9:50 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Duan Vukoti wrote:
On Jul 22, 5:12 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Good point. All these words in Spanish, according to him, had a
completely separate development from their Portuguese equivalents--and,
miraculously, they all look their Portuguese equivalents with "f"
replaced by "h" *anyway*. Mirabile dictu.
Yes, the point is why that change occurred only in Spanish.
ROFL! Duh! Each language is distinguished from its predecessor language,
and from other descendants the predecessor, precisely by those changes
that occurred in the speech of its speakers that didn>t occur in the
speech of other speakers.
I never said that /f/ to /h/ sound changes didn>t happen in Spanish.
It>s hard to know what you said because you keep contradicting
yourself--just like when you first agreed that two particular words
weren>t related and a message or two later you were back to pondering
whether they were related.
I
just expressed my doubts that some words in Latin with the initial /f/
were originally "initiated" as /h/ - words.
How the Latin words originated has nothing to do with how they got from
Latin into Spanish.
And I specified those
words (fumus, femina), which appeared to suffer the /h/ to /f/ sound
mutation in Latin (homo, hominis)
Because you say so? You have presented no *reason* to think so.
> and it passed on over the "back" of
dentals /d/, /t/ or /th/; similar as it happened to Russian fimiam
(incense; from tamjan, from Slavic dim smoke).
As everyone can see, you are not ready to enter a serious discussion
and, for instance, say, "femina is not related to homo -inis".
I>m waiting for you to offer a serious discussion, something that goes
behind your claiming it to be true just because you say so.
Simply,
you dared not to say something like that because you know that it
wouldn>t be true (Lat. femella young female, girl; famulus a servant,
slave, attendant); the alleged connection of femina to felo -are
(suck) is nonsensical.
Femina is akin to hominis via domina (homo -inis => domina => femina),
is it not?
Because you say so? You have presented no *reason* to think so.
In this specific Latin example we had velar to dental and
dental to fricative sound mutations (h => d => f).
Where is evidence to support that there was any tendency for this to
happen in Latin, as opposed to this being something you made up as part
of your invented history for one particular set of words?
Consult the linguistic literature. What is the IE root of female and
femina? Is it not a suffixed form *dhe-mna-? And human? From *(dh)ghom-
on-? Does it say anything to you?
Yes, it says to be that "female" and "human" aren>t related. And
"dominate", from PIE "dem", is unrelated to both.
[/quote]
Because you say so?
Where are the evidences?
DV |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Harlan Messinger
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 4:01 pm Post subject: Re: Vamos a hablar claro |
|
|
Duan Vukoti wrote:
[quote]On Jul 22, 9:50 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Duan Vukoti wrote:
On Jul 22, 5:12 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Good point. All these words in Spanish, according to him, had a
completely separate development from their Portuguese equivalents--and,
miraculously, they all look their Portuguese equivalents with "f"
replaced by "h" *anyway*. Mirabile dictu.
Yes, the point is why that change occurred only in Spanish.
ROFL! Duh! Each language is distinguished from its predecessor language,
and from other descendants the predecessor, precisely by those changes
that occurred in the speech of its speakers that didn>t occur in the
speech of other speakers.
I never said that /f/ to /h/ sound changes didn>t happen in Spanish.
It>s hard to know what you said because you keep contradicting
yourself--just like when you first agreed that two particular words
weren>t related and a message or two later you were back to pondering
whether they were related.
I
just expressed my doubts that some words in Latin with the initial /f/
were originally "initiated" as /h/ - words.
How the Latin words originated has nothing to do with how they got from
Latin into Spanish.
And I specified those
words (fumus, femina), which appeared to suffer the /h/ to /f/ sound
mutation in Latin (homo, hominis)
Because you say so? You have presented no *reason* to think so.
and it passed on over the "back" of
dentals /d/, /t/ or /th/; similar as it happened to Russian fimiam
(incense; from tamjan, from Slavic dim smoke).
As everyone can see, you are not ready to enter a serious discussion
and, for instance, say, "femina is not related to homo -inis".
I>m waiting for you to offer a serious discussion, something that goes
behind your claiming it to be true just because you say so.
Simply,
you dared not to say something like that because you know that it
wouldn>t be true (Lat. femella young female, girl; famulus a servant,
slave, attendant); the alleged connection of femina to felo -are
(suck) is nonsensical.
Femina is akin to hominis via domina (homo -inis => domina => femina),
is it not?
Because you say so? You have presented no *reason* to think so.
In this specific Latin example we had velar to dental and
dental to fricative sound mutations (h => d => f).
Where is evidence to support that there was any tendency for this to
happen in Latin, as opposed to this being something you made up as part
of your invented history for one particular set of words?
Consult the linguistic literature. What is the IE root of female and
femina? Is it not a suffixed form *dhe-mna-? And human? From *(dh)ghom-
on-? Does it say anything to you?
[/quote]
Yes, it says to be that "female" and "human" aren>t related. And
"dominate", from PIE "dem", is unrelated to both. And what any of this
has to do with "fumus" and "humo" is a mystery. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Duan Vukoti
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 4:36 pm Post subject: Re: Vamos a hablar claro |
|
|
On Jul 23, 2:32 pm, António Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
[quote]Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
Is it not the case that although written Spanish and written Portuguese
are so similar that anyone who can read one can read the other, yet the
f -> h change didn>t happen in Portuguese, so Dušan>s "theory" would
also need to explain why one doesn>t see these effects in Portuguese?
Oh, he>s said it quite clearly, that pt. feno, fel, fumo, forte, etc
have nothing to do with sp. heno, hiel, humo, fuerte, which are supposed
to come from some grecoslavic source.
[/quote]
Do not exaggerate! Does it mean that I should not, by no means,
compare the words from the Slavic or Greek vocabulary?
Even Vasmer wasn>t sure about Lat. fenum and Slavic seno and therefore
he said:"Сомнительна связь с лат. fēnum "сено" (The connection with
Lat. fenum is doubtful); "doubtful" doesn>t mean either "impossible"
or "rejected". I just was trying to examine if such a relation (Slav.
seno <=> Lat. fenum; Sp. heno) is possible at all.
I proposed the word "dry" (Russ. сухой, Serb. suh, Lat. siccus) and I
didn>t say that my "drying-gras theory" must be correct.
DV |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
António Marques
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:15 pm Post subject: Re: Vamos a hablar claro |
|
|
Harlan Messinger wrote:
[quote]and I presented my arguments and reservations "against" the words as
family, (female, feminin) and fumus (both seem to be related to
Germanic home and Slavic dom; cf. Lat. domina /mistress of a
household; wife/; Serb. domaćin master, host; domaćica mistress of a
household). Namely, if you admit that homo/hominis might be related
to dominus than you must also accept that femina might be related to
homo/hominis as well as famulus to homullus (see Ita. uomini men).
The number one argument is that the actual change from f to h is blatant
in the written record, and therefore no rational argument can conclude
otherwise, and therefore no other argument is even worth looking at.
[/quote]
One should point out that f was kept before ue (cf. fuego, which also
shows that o > ue preceded f > h). 'Family' is demsontrably a learned
word; an inherited word would have -illa, not -ilia.
Curiously, f > h had already happened in italic, as in fasena > (h)arena
[quote]arena 'sand', doublet of farina 'flour'. Lat. f is frequently from dh
(e.g. dhumos > fumus).[/quote]
--
António Marques
--
This signature does not include a prefab parting phrase
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
