Science and Technology news... :: View topic

AntÃ³nio Marques · Guest

DuÅ¡an VukotiÄ‡ wrote:

[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 f was kept before ue, because in ue the u was consonantal. It is
so in *all* fue- words. As is latin stressed o-breve > spanish ue.
--
AntÃ³nio Marques
--
This signature does not include a prefab parting phrase
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

AntÃ³nio Marques · Guest

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

[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 DuÅ¡an>s "theory" would
also need to explain why one doesn>t see these effects in Portuguese?
[/quote]
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.

I also wonder where he>ll get the words of gascon from. Gascon went
further than spanish, turning every single f into h, e.g. heresc
'fresh', hlor 'flower', huec 'fire', huelha 'leaf' (sp. has hoja because
of a long o; a short o would have given *fueja).

[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]
Or leonese, which has ie and ue but keeps the fs, as in the proper name
'Fierro'.
--
AntÃ³nio Marques
--
This signature does not include a prefab parting phrase
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

AntÃ³nio Marques · Guest

AntÃ³nio Marques wrote:

[quote]'Family' is demsontrably a learned word; an inherited word would have
-illa, not -ilia.
[/quote]
Or -ija, actually.
--
AntÃ³nio Marques
--
This signature does not include a prefab parting phrase
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Harlan Messinger · Guest

AntÃ³nio Marques wrote:
[quote]Harlan Messinger wrote:

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. domaÄ‡in master, host; domaÄ‡ica 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.

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.
[/quote]
True. As it happens, I was curious the other day whether Spanish might
also have had "huerte" in some capacity, with "fuerte" having come
through a separate development, and found that it didn>t. And then
"hueso", on the other hand, is from Latin "ossum", with the "h" added
purely by orthographical convention (because Spanish words don>t start
with "ue", just as they don>t start with "ie").

[quote]
Curiously, f > h had already happened in italic, as in fasena > (h)arena
arena 'sand', doublet of farina 'flour'. Lat. f is frequently from dh
(e.g. dhumos > fumus).[/quote]

Harlan Messinger · Guest

Harlan Messinger wrote:

[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".
[/quote]
I didn>t think this all the way through, and as Antonio pointed out
environment IS the factor with "forte" because of the diphthonization
that occurred there, in the stressed syllable, that was inapplicable in
the unstressed first syllable of "formica".

AntÃ³nio Marques · Guest

Harlan Messinger wrote:

[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.

True. As it happens, I was curious the other day whether Spanish might
also have had "huerte" in some capacity, with "fuerte" having come
through a separate development, and found that it didn>t.
[/quote]
Gascon, of course, has _ho`rt_ /hOrt/.

[quote]And then
"hueso", on the other hand, is from Latin "ossum", with the "h" added
purely by orthographical convention (because Spanish words don>t start
with "ue", just as they don>t start with "ie").
[/quote]
A curious lot, those spanish.
--
AntÃ³nio Marques
--
This signature does not include a prefab parting phrase
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

AntÃ³nio Marques · Guest

Harlan Messinger wrote:

[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".

I didn>t think this all the way through, and as Antonio pointed out
environment IS the factor with "forte" because of the diphthonization
that occurred there, in the stressed syllable, that was inapplicable in
the unstressed first syllable of "formica".
[/quote]
But of course the possibilities you point out above are often the
explanation (not on an ad hoc basis, but usually with good other
evidence supporting them; for instance, a word borrowed from a different
dialect may show not one but two sound changes which betray its origin,
etc).
--
AntÃ³nio Marques
--
This signature does not include a prefab parting phrase
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Du¹an Vukotiæ · Guest

On Jul 23, 11:33Â pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]DuÅ¡an VukotiÄ‡ wrote:
On Jul 23, 2:32 pm, AntÃ³nio Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
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 DuÅ¡an>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.

Do not exaggerate! Does it mean that I should not, by no means,
compare the words from the Slavic or Greek vocabulary?

Yes, *if there isn>t already a perfectly good explanation through a
well-established route by which the words came down from the parent
language*.

Even Vasmer wasn>t sure about Lat. fenum and Slavic seno

Which has nothing to do with Spanish "heno".

and therefore
he said:"Ð¡Ð¾Ð¼Ð½Ð¸Ñ‚ÐµÐ»ÑŒÐ½Ð° ÑÐ²ÑÐ·ÑŒ Ñ Ð»Ð°Ñ‚. fÄ“num "ÑÐµÐ½Ð¾" (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.

There isn>t any reason why the Spanish word "heno", which is exactly the
word that would be expected in coming down from Latin, would come from
Serbian.
[/quote]
Not fair at all!
Are you trying to accuse me of having some chauvinistic ideas? I
think that your behavior at the moment is very indecent and shameful.
I have never, ever, said that any language in the world has ever
borrowed a single Serbian word! I know the main principles in which
the human speech has been developing from its very beginning and I
know that none of the languges had a special role in such process.

[quote]I proposed the word "dry" (Russ. ÑÑƒÑ…Ð¾Ð¹, Serb. suh, Lat. siccus) and I
didn>t say that my "drying-gras theory" must be correct.

Why are you wasting your time proposing absurd theories to explain
something for which the perfectly ordinary explanation fits 100%?
[/quote]
Don>t be silly! Nothing in this world is 100% sure!

What are we going to do with Latin fumus? Is it not related to Slavic
dim (smoke)? Of course it is. Then what makes you so sure that fenum
is not related to Slavic seno? Vasmer isn>t sure, other authorities
aren>t sure, but Harlan is sure? The same Harlan who couldn>t piss
without the "authorization" given by his loving "authorities"!

DV

Harlan Messinger · Guest

DuÅ¡an VukotiÄ‡ wrote:
[quote]On Jul 23, 1:01 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
DuÂ¹an VukotiÃ¦ wrote:
On Jul 22, 9:50 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
DuÂ¹an VukotiÃ¦ 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.

Because you say so?
Where are the evidences?
[/quote]
I got "dem" from the American Heritage Dictionary, the same place where
I confirmed your attributions to "dhe-mna-" and "(dh)ghom-on-". (Hint:
the "because I say so" ploy only works when someone claims something
with no basis or documentation, as you do habitually. If you try it with
me, you>re not generally going to get any further with it than you did
this time.)

AND AGAIN: None of this has anything to do with Spanish words that
either came from Latin through f > h or that came into Spanish via some
other circuitous route that you>ve made up and that--MIRACULOUSLY--look
exactly as they would if they>d come directly from Latin through the
usual f > h route.

Harlan Messinger · Guest

DuÅ¡an VukotiÄ‡ wrote:
[quote]On Jul 23, 2:32 pm, AntÃ³nio Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
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 DuÅ¡an>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.

Do not exaggerate! Does it mean that I should not, by no means,
compare the words from the Slavic or Greek vocabulary?
[/quote]
Yes, *if there isn>t already a perfectly good explanation through a
well-established route by which the words came down from the parent
language*.

[quote]
Even Vasmer wasn>t sure about Lat. fenum and Slavic seno
[/quote]
Which has nothing to do with Spanish "heno".

[quote]and therefore
he said:"Ð¡Ð¾Ð¼Ð½Ð¸Ñ‚ÐµÐ»ÑŒÐ½Ð° ÑÐ²ÑÐ·ÑŒ Ñ Ð»Ð°Ñ‚. fÄ“num "ÑÐµÐ½Ð¾" (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.
[/quote]
There isn>t any reason why the Spanish word "heno", which is exactly the
word that would be expected in coming down from Latin, would come from
Serbian.

[quote]I proposed the word "dry" (Russ. ÑÑƒÑ…Ð¾Ð¹, Serb. suh, Lat. siccus) and I
didn>t say that my "drying-gras theory" must be correct.
[/quote]
Why are you wasting your time proposing absurd theories to explain
something for which the perfectly ordinary explanation fits 100%?

Harlan Messinger · Guest

DuÅ¡an VukotiÄ‡ wrote:
[quote]On Jul 23, 11:33 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
DuÅ¡an VukotiÄ‡ wrote:
On Jul 23, 2:32 pm, AntÃ³nio Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
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 DuÅ¡an>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.
Do not exaggerate! Does it mean that I should not, by no means,
compare the words from the Slavic or Greek vocabulary?
Yes, *if there isn>t already a perfectly good explanation through a
well-established route by which the words came down from the parent
language*.

Even Vasmer wasn>t sure about Lat. fenum and Slavic seno
Which has nothing to do with Spanish "heno".

and therefore
he said:"Ð¡Ð¾Ð¼Ð½Ð¸Ñ‚ÐµÐ»ÑŒÐ½Ð° ÑÐ²ÑÐ·ÑŒ Ñ Ð»Ð°Ñ‚. fÄ“num "ÑÐµÐ½Ð¾" (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.
There isn>t any reason why the Spanish word "heno", which is exactly the
word that would be expected in coming down from Latin, would come from
Serbian.

Not fair at all!
Are you trying to accuse me of having some chauvinistic ideas? I
think that your behavior at the moment is very indecent and shameful.
I have never, ever, said that any language in the world has ever
borrowed a single Serbian word! I know the main principles in which
the human speech has been developing from its very beginning and I
know that none of the languges had a special role in such process.

I proposed the word "dry" (Russ. ÑÑƒÑ…Ð¾Ð¹, Serb. suh, Lat. siccus) and I
didn>t say that my "drying-gras theory" must be correct.
Why are you wasting your time proposing absurd theories to explain
something for which the perfectly ordinary explanation fits 100%?

Don>t be silly! Nothing in this world is 100% sure!

What are we going to do with Latin fumus?
[/quote]
You keep asking this. Since Spanish "humo" is exactly what would be
expected, there isn>t any reason for you to question this one specific
word in the first place.

[quote]Is it not related to Slavic
dim (smoke)?
[/quote]
There isn>t the slightest reason to think so, since it>s exactly what it
should be given the usual Latin > Spanish progression.

[quote]Of course it is.
[/quote]
Because you say so? I see no "of course" about it whatsoever. Maybe it
is, maybe it isn>t. Either way, it has nothing to do with "fumum" > "humo".

[quote]Then what makes you so sure that fenum
is not related to Slavic seno?
[/quote]
I have expressed no opinion on this whatsoever. I have only questioned
why you keep bringing it up when it has nothing to do with what happened
after Latin.

[quote]Vasmer isn>t sure, other authorities
aren>t sure, but Harlan is sure?
[/quote]
Harlan has expressed no opinion on this, so get off it. Stop inventing
reasons to deflect attention from the matter at hand.

Du¹an Vukotiæ · Guest

On Jul 24, 12:34Â pm, AntÃ³nio Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
[quote]Harlan Messinger wrote:
What are we going to do with Latin fumus?

You keep asking this. Since Spanish "humo" is exactly what would be
expected, there isn>t any reason for you to question this one specific
word in the first place.

Is it not related to Slavic
dim (smoke)?

There isn>t the slightest reason to think so, since it>s exactly what it
should be given the usual Latin > Spanish progression.

(I know nothing at all about slavic, but) Lat. fum- 'smoke' is from
*dhum-. Now I>m told* that dh- > d- in slavic, so there may be a
relationship between fumus and said dim. Nothing of this has anything to
do with Spanish and its f > h, of course.
[/quote]
In this specific case there is a relation, because the Slavic
consonants, dentals d, t (dim smoke, tuman fog, tamjan incense) are
developed from velars h-, g-, k. Now, if we know that Slavic tama/
tmina (darknes, obscurity) is related to dim (smoke) and tuman (fog)
and tath tama (darkness) is related to dubina/udubljenje (depression,
depth, cave; "a dark cave") we are going to see that the English word
"gloom" is equal to Slavic tama (darkness; Serb. veÄernja tama "the
evening gloom". Namely, Slavic deepness is known either as dubina or
glubina; hence the other Slavic words; Serb. duplja (hollow), Å¡upljina
(cave; from hupljuna; this word is related to English hollow, Greek
ÏƒÏ€Î·Î»Î¹Î¬ cave and Ï„Ï…Ï†Î»ÏŒÏ‚ dark, obscure, blind).

If you read carefully my above words, you would be able to understand
(I hope you are smarter than Harlan the Fifthgrader ;-)) that Latin
fumus started as hum- and later bacame fum- via dhum-. Similar
happened to Russian fimiam (incense; from timijan, tamjan).

Quite casually, Spanish returned Latin fumus to its oldest form
(hum-), though with the silent /h/.

DV

Du¹an Vukotiæ · Guest

On Jul 24, 1:58 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
Quite casually, Spanish returned Latin fumus to its oldest form
(hum-), though with the silent /h/.

So now you agree that Spanish "humo" came from "fumus", which is what I
said in the first place. Then all of the rest of this "dim" business had
nothing to do with that.
[/quote]
Go back and read my posts again: I never denied the Latin to Spanish
(f => h) sound change. In all this time, I>ve been trying to tell you
that Latin fumus originally started with the /h/ initial sound.

DV

AntÃ³nio Marques · Guest

Harlan Messinger wrote:

[quote]What are we going to do with Latin fumus?

You keep asking this. Since Spanish "humo" is exactly what would be
expected, there isn>t any reason for you to question this one specific
word in the first place.

Is it not related to Slavic
dim (smoke)?

There isn>t the slightest reason to think so, since it>s exactly what it
should be given the usual Latin > Spanish progression.
[/quote]
(I know nothing at all about slavic, but) Lat. fum- 'smoke' is from
*dhum-. Now I>m told* that dh- > d- in slavic, so there may be a
relationship between fumus and said dim. Nothing of this has anything to
do with spanish and its f > h, of course.

(*) http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/indoeuropean.html
--
AntÃ³nio Marques
--
This signature does not include a prefab parting phrase
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Harlan Messinger · Guest

Harlan Messinger wrote:
[quote]DuÅ¡an VukotiÄ‡ wrote:
On Jul 23, 11:33 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
DuÅ¡an VukotiÄ‡ wrote:
On Jul 23, 2:32 pm, AntÃ³nio Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
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 DuÅ¡an>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.
Do not exaggerate! Does it mean that I should not, by no means,
compare the words from the Slavic or Greek vocabulary?
Yes, *if there isn>t already a perfectly good explanation through a
well-established route by which the words came down from the parent
language*.

Even Vasmer wasn>t sure about Lat. fenum and Slavic seno
Which has nothing to do with Spanish "heno".

and therefore
he said:"Ð¡Ð¾Ð¼Ð½Ð¸Ñ‚ÐµÐ»ÑŒÐ½Ð° ÑÐ²ÑÐ·ÑŒ Ñ Ð»Ð°Ñ‚. fÄ“num "ÑÐµÐ½Ð¾" (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.
There isn>t any reason why the Spanish word "heno", which is exactly the
word that would be expected in coming down from Latin, would come from
Serbian.

Not fair at all!
Are you trying to accuse me of having some chauvinistic ideas? I
think that your behavior at the moment is very indecent and shameful.
I have never, ever, said that any language in the world has ever
borrowed a single Serbian word! I know the main principles in which
the human speech has been developing from its very beginning and I
know that none of the languges had a special role in such process.

I proposed the word "dry" (Russ. ÑÑƒÑ…Ð¾Ð¹, Serb. suh, Lat. siccus) and I
didn>t say that my "drying-gras theory" must be correct.
Why are you wasting your time proposing absurd theories to explain
something for which the perfectly ordinary explanation fits 100%?

Don>t be silly! Nothing in this world is 100% sure!

What are we going to do with Latin fumus?

You keep asking this. Since Spanish "humo" is exactly what would be
expected, there isn>t any reason for you to question this one specific
word in the first place.

Is it not related to Slavic
dim (smoke)?

There isn>t the slightest reason to think so, since it>s exactly what it
should be given the usual Latin > Spanish progression.
[/quote]
I shouldn>t have said this--I was answering a different question. The
proper answer would have been that I don>t know if it>s related to
Slavic "dim", but it>s irrelevant since it>s exactly what it should be
given the usual Latin > Spanish progression.
[quote]
Of course it is.

Because you say so? I see no "of course" about it whatsoever. Maybe it
is, maybe it isn>t. Either way, it has nothing to do with "fumum" > "humo".
[/quote]
This part of my response doesn>t change.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Languages Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 3 of 5