Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tied] PIE *Wers-, skr. varsati, lat. versare , rom. varsã ?

Expand Messages
  • petegray
    I cannot help you with the etymology of Romanian varsã ( liquid flow, spill ) indicated as from lat. versare. I can tell you that Latin versare is not from
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 1, 2004
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I cannot help you with the etymology of Romanian "varsã" ("liquid flow,
      spill") indicated as
      from lat. versare. I can tell you that Latin versare is not from the *wer-s
      root, but a frequentative from verto, and therefore from the *wert root. If
      the Romanian does indeed derive from this, there has been a limitation of
      meaning. The Latin means "to turn over" (e.g. a cup of water, or a leaf, or
      an idea in the mind); Romanian must have limited this to turning over a
      container of liquid. There is therefore no need to find a direct link with
      PIE or with Sanskrit.

      Peter
    • petegray
      ... The original post implied, but did not state, that Romanian had preserved an original meaning, also found in Sanskrit. By saying there is no need , I
      Message 2 of 4 , Dec 2, 2004
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        >> There is
        > > therefore no need to find a direct link with PIE or with Sanskrit.
        > what does "the need " means here?

        The original post implied, but did not state, that Romanian had "preserved"
        an original meaning, also found in Sanskrit. By saying "there is no need",
        I mean that the logic is flawed, and nothing compels us to believe that such
        preservation is the only way the current situation could have arisen. The
        usual, normal, simple explanation works fine: Romanian (mostly) derives
        from Latin.

        Peter
      • petegray
        ... No. When a simple derivation from Latin is possible, why look elsewhere? Peter
        Message 3 of 4 , Dec 3, 2004
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Alex:
          > Agree?

          No. When a simple derivation from Latin is possible, why look elsewhere?

          Peter
        • Patrick Ryan
          Alex: Fully 20% of the messages in my INBOX today are from you (9 messages). I read your contributions but think you are overburdening the list. Pat ... From:
          Message 4 of 4 , Dec 3, 2004
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Alex:
             
            Fully 20% of the messages in my INBOX today are from you (9 messages). I read your contributions but think you are overburdening the list.
             
            Pat
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: alex
            Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 11:52 AM
            Subject: Re: [tied] PIE *Wers-, skr. varsati, lat. versare, rom. varsã ?


            petegray wrote:
            >>> There is
            >>> therefore no need to find a direct link with PIE or with Sanskrit.
            >> what does "the need " means here?
            >
            > The original post implied, but did not state, that Romanian had
            > "preserved" an original meaning, also found in Sanskrit. By saying
            > "there is no need", I mean that the logic is flawed, and nothing
            > compels us to believe that such preservation is the only way the
            > current situation could have arisen. The usual, normal, simple
            > explanation works fine: Romanian (mostly) derives from Latin.
            >
            > Peter

            this is what I understood too and I wanted to be sure this is what you mean.
            There is the very clear idea that Romanian is Latin thus everything what
            _could_ be explained more or less satisfactory via Latin _should_ be
            explained that way.

            I consider a such starting point is nowadays not more usable; one is not
            allowed anymore nowadays "auf biegen und brechen" to try to explain more or
            less satisfactory just because of the obsolete idea of _it must be Latin_
            and that not because so I like, but because scientifically correctness asks
            for that. The times of romanticism in linguistic should be over, I guess.

            OK, now, let us take a look at "verto" & co.

            Latin "verto" has its counterpart in Rom. "învârti" which means as in Latin
            "to turn over" u.o.

            One sees, there is a compound of "in"+ "vârti". Of this verb, there is
            nothing which has any derivative in "s" but even the participial form is in
            "t" (vârtit). Cf. DEX the word "vârt-" should be compared with Slavic
            "vrUtEti" and there is no word about Latin "verto". Remarque please, the
            word "invârti" _could not_ derive from Slavic "vrUtEti" but it should be
            compared with this form.

            The meaning of "vãrsa" refers mostly to water, to liquids, it means in fact
            "getting a liquid out of something", thus from here is the meaning "to
            vomit" as well. With the prefix "re-" (revãrsa) is used for "überlaufen" and
            means simply "inundations".

            The Latin "turn over one idea in mind" is reflected in the same expresion
            but not with "vãrsa" and with "invârti" as -in my opinion- expecte "învârt o
            idee in minte" means " to turn over one idea in mind, to thik about".

            I guess the connection of Latin "verso" with Rom. "vãrsa" is wrong
            (semantism does not fit, it is just forced). NOw, please take a look at
            Albanian where the verb "vërshim, vërshon" has the same meaning as Romanian,
            making once again (there are too many such semantic "evolutions" which are
            in fact isogloses one should look more carefully at )a common corpus out of
            "latin" word.

            I know that kind of explanation with "BalkanLatin" but it appears its role
            as joker is limited then when such simmilar meanings appears in other IE
            languages. Agree?



            Alex




            ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
            Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
            Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
            http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/GP4qlB/TM
            --------------------------------------------------------------------~->

             
            Yahoo! Groups Links

            <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/

            <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                cybalist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
             



          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.