Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Harlan Messinger · Guest

DuÅ¡an VukotiÄ‡ wrote:

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

Harlan Messinger · Guest

Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
[quote]On Jul 24, 1:58 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
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.

Go back and read my posts again: I never denied the Latin to Spanish
(f => h) sound change.
[/quote]
You, 18 July: "In case of fumo and humo, we cannot say that f => h sound
change is impossible. On the contrary, but in this specific instance
(fumo => humo) such a process seem to be hardly feasible."

[quote]In all this time, I>ve been trying to tell you that Latin fumus
originally started with the /h/ initial sound.
[/quote]
Either you brought this up pursuant to your remark that I>ve quoted
above, or else it was never relevant to my response to your another
remark by you on 18 July that "I wouldn>t say that the Latin f to
Spanish h sound change is so 'obviously evident'." I gave you a
substantial list of words showing its evidence. That was the topic.
Everything you>ve written about "dim" since then either has been
intended to dispute "fumus" > "humo", or else it has been irrelevant to
the Latin f > Spanish h issue and therefore I don>t know why you>ve
"been trying to tell" me this.

I>m trying to decide whether you really can>t remember from one moment
to the next what your position is on any given issue, or whether you
change your position whenever you realize it truly is impossible to
maintain the one you started with and you>re just hoping I won>t notice
the change.

AntÃ³nio Marques · Guest

Harlan Messinger wrote:
[quote]DuÅ¡an VukotiÄ‡ 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]
The 'oldest' form was *dh*umo-, anyway, so no 'returning' there.
IE /dh/ > lat. /f/ > old sp. /h/ > sp. /zero/. Not for 'humo' but for
'humo' and countless other words, 'hacer' being another example (cognate
with 'do', iinm).
--
AntÃ³nio Marques
--
This signature does not include a prefab parting phrase
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Du¹an Vukotiæ · Guest

On Jul 24, 2:47 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
On Jul 24, 1:58 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
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.

Go back and read my posts again: I never denied the Latin to Spanish
(f => h) sound change.

You, 18 July: "In case of fumo and humo, we cannot say that f => h sound
change is impossible. On the contrary, but in this specific instance
(fumo => humo) such a process seem to be hardly feasible."
[/quote]
Obviously, I didn>t finish my thought here. Namely, I wanted to say
that, maybe, from some reason, educated people replaced /h/ or /th/
to /f/ (in Latin), while the large masses of the general population
continued to use those words (humo, heno, horno) with the initial /h/.
However, there is a problem with other Latin words, where initial /f/
has been evolved from the bilabials /p/ and /b/ (falcon => halcon
etc.), and it showed that such a Latin /f/ to Spanish /h/ sound shift
took place without a clear reason. As I already asked, how could we
explain forte => fuerte in comparison with fornu => horno (oven)?

DV

Du¹an Vukotiæ · Guest

On Jul 24, 4:28 pm, António Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
[quote]Harlan Messinger wrote:
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.

The 'oldest' form was *dh*umo-, anyway, so no 'returning' there.
IE /dh/ > lat. /f/ > old sp. /h/ > sp. /zero/. Not for 'humo' but for
'humo' and *countless* other words, 'hacer' being another example (cognate
with 'do', iinm).
[/quote]
António,
I do not understand why are you unwilling to answer me directly? ;-)

What you say is nothing new; all you need is just to find the book and
open the right page. I exposed my argumentation (the previous post)
and I said why I consider that Latin fumus had initial /h/ in the
first place.

Have you any additional evidence beside the "facts" of an "open
scripture"?...

*And please, next time be more careful when using the word
"countless". :-)

DV

Du¹an Vukotiæ · Guest

On Jul 25, 12:15 am, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
On Jul 24, 4:28 pm, António Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:
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.
The 'oldest' form was *dh*umo-, anyway, so no 'returning' there.
IE /dh/ > lat. /f/ > old sp. /h/ > sp. /zero/. Not for 'humo' but for
'humo' and *countless* other words, 'hacer' being another example (cognate
with 'do', iinm).

António,
I do not understand why are you unwilling to answer me directly? ;-)

What you say is nothing new; all you need is just to find the book and
open the right page. I exposed my argumentation (the previous post)
and I said why I consider that Latin fumus had initial /h/ in the
first place.

Have you any additional evidence beside the "facts" of an "open
scripture"?...

Where in the world do you think the facts are? Underneath Antonio>s bed?
Behind my refrigerator? The "open scripture", as you call it, *is* the
sum and substance of the scholarly research that has been done on the
subject. It>s where all the records, all the observations, all the
analysis, and all the commentary are. You are saying, "Give me the
facts, but leave out all the facts when you do so."-
[/quote]
Harlan, don>t get mad!
I do respect all "scholarly research" and I do consult a lot of books
every day. I can>t see that any serious scientist has yet brought a
convincing theory about Spanish /f/ that has been derived from /dh/.
However, it might be that I simply skipped something or hadn>t been
reading the right books?

DV

Du¹an Vukotiæ · Guest

On Jul 25, 1:25 am, Duðan Vukotiã <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 25, 12:15 am, Harlan Messinger

hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Du¹an Vukoti¿ wrote:
On Jul 24, 4:28 pm, António Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:
Du¹an Vukoti¿ 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.
The 'oldest' form was *dh*umo-, anyway, so no 'returning' there.
IE /dh/ > lat. /f/ > old sp. /h/ > sp. /zero/. Not for 'humo' but for
'humo' and *countless* other words, 'hacer' being another example (cognate
with 'do', iinm).

António,
I do not understand why are you unwilling to answer me directly? ;-)

What you say is nothing new; all you need is just to find the book and
open the right page. I exposed my argumentation (the previous post)
and I said why I consider that Latin fumus had initial /h/ in the
first place.

Have you any additional evidence beside the "facts" of an "open
scripture"?...

Where in the world do you think the facts are? Underneath Antonio>s bed?
Behind my refrigerator? The "open scripture", as you call it, *is* the
sum and substance of the scholarly research that has been done on the
subject. It>s where all the records, all the observations, all the
analysis, and all the commentary are. You are saying, "Give me the
facts, but leave out all the facts when you do so."-

Harlan, don>t get mad!
I do respect all "scholarly research" and I do consult a lot of books
every day. I can>t see that any serious scientist has yet brought a
convincing theory about Spanish /f/ that has been derived from /dh/.
However, it might be that I simply skipped something or hadn>t been
reading the right books?

DV- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
"...convincing theory about Spanish /f/..."
It should be: "...a convincing theory about Latin /f/..."

DV

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.

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]
By the way--in Spanish, any idea why "fumar" as well as "humear"?

Harlan Messinger · Guest

Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
[quote]On Jul 24, 4:28 pm, António Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:
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.
The 'oldest' form was *dh*umo-, anyway, so no 'returning' there.
IE /dh/ > lat. /f/ > old sp. /h/ > sp. /zero/. Not for 'humo' but for
'humo' and *countless* other words, 'hacer' being another example (cognate
with 'do', iinm).

António,
I do not understand why are you unwilling to answer me directly? ;-)

What you say is nothing new; all you need is just to find the book and
open the right page. I exposed my argumentation (the previous post)
and I said why I consider that Latin fumus had initial /h/ in the
first place.

Have you any additional evidence beside the "facts" of an "open
scripture"?...
[/quote]
Where in the world do you think the facts are? Underneath Antonio>s bed?
Behind my refrigerator? The "open scripture", as you call it, *is* the
sum and substance of the scholarly research that has been done on the
subject. It>s where all the records, all the observations, all the
analysis, and all the commentary are. You are saying, "Give me the
facts, but leave out all the facts when you do so."

AntÃ³nio Marques · Guest

Harlan Messinger wrote:

[quote]By the way--in Spanish, any idea why "fumar" as well as "humear"?
[/quote]
'Humear' is normal, either coming directly from latin or being derived
from 'humo'.
'Fumar' is a 16th century word, not necessarily created from humo.
Notice that even in portuguese, which has fumo/fumar, the connection
between the two isn>t that obvious, and this in a language in which such
relationships are usually clear to speakers (iow, smoke from a fire is
the primary meaning of 'fumo', while cigar smoke almost feels like a
simple homophone). That said, there is a _humar_ 'emit smoke', and
'fumar' could be construed as a learned variation, but I think the
primary sense of 'fumar' is transitive, which is not possible with
'humar'. To make a long story short, sp. 'fumar' appears only in the
16th century, either taken from latin or as a latin-influenced creation
from 'humar'.
--
AntÃ³nio Marques
--
This signature does not include a prefab parting phrase
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Athel Cornish-Bowden · Guest

On 2008-07-23 16:27:29 +0200, António Marques <m.ap@sapo.pt> said:

[quote]Harlan Messinger wrote:

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.

Gascon, of course, has _ho`rt_ /hOrt/.

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").

A curious lot, those spanish.
[/quote]
Before I went to Oeiras I was puzzled as to how such an odd-looking
name could be pronounced, but once I realized that if it were Spanish
it would be written Hueras it seemed quite obvious.

On the same visit you were having an election in Portugal, and Lisbon
was plastered with posters for the party of the preceding government
that said "Em Boas Maos" (maybe with a diacritic or two that I>ve
forgotten). That was likewise difficult to figure out until I
remembered to put in an n wherever it might help (3 in this case), and
to write the first o as ue -- then it was obvious.

--
athel

Harlan Messinger · Guest

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
[quote]On the same visit you were having an election in Portugal, and Lisbon
was plastered with posters for the party of the preceding government
that said "Em Boas Maos" (maybe with a diacritic or two that I>ve
forgotten).
[/quote]
Mãos.

[quote]That was likewise difficult to figure out until I remembered
to put in an n wherever it might help (3 in this case), and to write the
first o as ue -- then it was obvious.
[/quote]

Du¹an Vukotiæ · Guest

On Jul 25, 1:02Â pm, AntÃ³nio Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
[quote]Harlan Messinger wrote:
By the way--in Spanish, any idea why "fumar" as well as "humear"?

'Humear' is normal, either coming directly from latin or being derived
from 'humo'.
'Fumar' is a 16th century word, not necessarily created from humo.
Notice that even in portuguese, which has fumo/fumar, the connection
between the two isn>t that obvious, and this in a language in which such
relationships are usually clear to speakers (iow, smoke from a fire is
the primary meaning of 'fumo', while cigar smoke almost feels like a
simple homophone). That said, there is a _humar_ 'emit smoke', and
'fumar' could be construed as a learned variation, but I think the
primary sense of 'fumar' is transitive, which is not possible with
'humar'. To make a long story short, sp. 'fumar' appears only in the
16th century, either taken from latin or as a latin-influenced creation
from 'humar'.
--
AntÃ³nio Marques
--
This signature does not include a prefab parting phrase
** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**
[/quote]
That Spanish humo and Latin fumus are undisputable related to Slavic
dim (smoke) speaks the English word chimney (Sp. chimenea, Serb.
dimnjak; OHG cheminÄta). You should have known that Latin caminus
(furnace, a home stove, room with a fireplace) had been the "parent"
word for other Romance chimnies and stoves. Now, if your intellectual
capacities allow you to do that, compare the Russian word ÐºÐ¾Ð¼Ð½Ð°Ñ‚Ð°/
komnata (Gr. Î¿Î¹ÎºÎ¿Î½Î¿Î¼Î¹ÎºÎ¿ÌÏ‚ /domestic economy, husbandry/; Serb.
domaÄ‡instvo and try to understand that all these words are related to
habitat and home. This words clearly show that Latin fumus came from
*(g)hom- via dum- (home, dome-stic).

I bet you are unable to grasp why Spanish horno (furnace; Lat.fornax)
became horn (chimney) in Romanian? Even in Serbian there are the verbs
hurnjati and furnjati (both with meaning "to burn"), but they are
derived from different basis (furnjati comes from purenje "burn",
while hurnjati sprang from goreti/gorjeti <= gor-gneti; gorenje
"flaming"). How it happened that you have in Spanish fumigar and
humear (both with the meaning "fumigate")? Of course, both of these
words are derived from the same basis - Gon-Bel-Gon (*(t)koi-mo-; hom-
=> dom-).

DV

Du¹an Vukotiæ · Guest

On Jul 30, 3:08 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]Duðan Vukotiã wrote:
On Jul 25, 1:02 pm, António Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:
By the way--in Spanish, any idea why "fumar" as well as "humear"?
'Humear' is normal, either coming directly from latin or being derived
from 'humo'.
'Fumar' is a 16th century word, not necessarily created from humo.
Notice that even in portuguese, which has fumo/fumar, the connection
between the two isn>t that obvious, and this in a language in which such
relationships are usually clear to speakers (iow, smoke from a fire is
the primary meaning of 'fumo', while cigar smoke almost feels like a
simple homophone). That said, there is a _humar_ 'emit smoke', and
'fumar' could be construed as a learned variation, but I think the
primary sense of 'fumar' is transitive, which is not possible with
'humar'. To make a long story short, sp. 'fumar' appears only in the
16th century, either taken from latin or as a latin-influenced creation
from 'humar'.
--
António Marques
--
This signature does not include a prefab parting phrase
** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

That Spanish humo and Latin fumus are undisputable related to Slavic
dim (smoke) speaks the English word chimney (Sp. chimenea, Serb.
dimnjak; OHG cheminâta).

Are you going to try to *force* us to go off on this tangent again?

I bet you are unable to grasp why Spanish horno (furnace; Lat.fornax)
became horn (chimney) in Romanian?

Who says we even care?

Even in Serbian there are the verbs
hurnjati and furnjati (both with meaning "to burn"), but they are
derived from different basis (furnjati comes from purenje "burn",
while hurnjati sprang from goreti/gorjeti <= gor-gneti; gorenje
"flaming"). How it happened that you have in Spanish fumigar and
humear (both with the meaning "fumigate")? Of course, both of these
words are derived from the same basis - Gon-Bel-Gon (*(t)koi-mo-; hom-
=> dom-).

How can they "of course" be from something you made up
[/quote]
How long are you going to repeat this infantile question?
I made nothing up; the Gon-Bel-Gon basis is one of a few forms of the
primal agglutination of articulated syllables and its basic meaning is
"round heap": oblak, cloud, zemlja, heaven, Himmel, hip etc. But your
ability of critical thinking is equal to zero!

DV

Harlan Messinger · Guest

DuÅ¡an VukotiÄ‡ wrote:
[quote]On Jul 25, 1:02 pm, AntÃ³nio Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:
By the way--in Spanish, any idea why "fumar" as well as "humear"?
'Humear' is normal, either coming directly from latin or being derived
from 'humo'.
'Fumar' is a 16th century word, not necessarily created from humo.
Notice that even in portuguese, which has fumo/fumar, the connection
between the two isn>t that obvious, and this in a language in which such
relationships are usually clear to speakers (iow, smoke from a fire is
the primary meaning of 'fumo', while cigar smoke almost feels like a
simple homophone). That said, there is a _humar_ 'emit smoke', and
'fumar' could be construed as a learned variation, but I think the
primary sense of 'fumar' is transitive, which is not possible with
'humar'. To make a long story short, sp. 'fumar' appears only in the
16th century, either taken from latin or as a latin-influenced creation
from 'humar'.
--
AntÃ³nio Marques
--
This signature does not include a prefab parting phrase
** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

That Spanish humo and Latin fumus are undisputable related to Slavic
dim (smoke) speaks the English word chimney (Sp. chimenea, Serb.
dimnjak; OHG cheminÄta).
[/quote]
Are you going to try to *force* us to go off on this tangent again?

[quote]I bet you are unable to grasp why Spanish horno (furnace; Lat.fornax)
became horn (chimney) in Romanian?
[/quote]
Who says we even care?

[quote]Even in Serbian there are the verbs
hurnjati and furnjati (both with meaning "to burn"), but they are
derived from different basis (furnjati comes from purenje "burn",
while hurnjati sprang from goreti/gorjeti <= gor-gneti; gorenje
"flaming"). How it happened that you have in Spanish fumigar and
humear (both with the meaning "fumigate")? Of course, both of these
words are derived from the same basis - Gon-Bel-Gon (*(t)koi-mo-; hom-
=> dom-).
[/quote]
How can they "of course" be from something you made up?


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 4 of 5