slavic/romance/german
Dear Guest, please stop making a buffoon of yourself, this is getting pathetic.
"???? (brat)>"brother"
?????? (sestra)>"sister"
. No one ever told you that all IE languages share a common batch of words for father-mother-sister-brother?
"????? (veter)>"wind" (Anglo-Saxon weder>wind, weather)
. Of course, Romance "vento" is surely not related to "wind"...
"common slavonic 'yed-'>"eat"
. Wow, fascinating. In Latin it's 'edo'. Ever wondered where does the word "edible" come from?
There are more serious way to investigate the many cross-linked relationships between Germanic, Slavic, Latin, Greek, Celtic etc.
For instance, the Slavic 'rabot' is an interesting cognate of 'Arbeit'. As is 'werken' with Greek 'erg-'.
The Latin word 'domus' ("house") is stunningly similar to Slavic 'dom', while most Romance languages have retained 'casa', a cognate of 'Haus'.
But as far as grammatical words and particles ('in-', 'ad-', 'ab-' etc.) and grammatical structures are concerned, Germanic and Slavic languages are obviously very far from each other.
Yes, we all know about IE.
Do you find that 'frater' sounds more like brother than 'brat'? Or 'soror' more like sister than 'sestra'? How about 'filius' more like son/Sohn? You have to calm down and listen to what I'm saying (you condemn yourself by your own accusation). You just don't like the fact that I said that Germanic and Slavic share certain similarities more than Germanic and Romance (which are few in comparison).
Slavic "mozh" = man/Mann
Slavic "pesti" = fist/Faust
<<But as far as grammatical words and particles ('in-', 'ad-', 'ab-' etc.) and grammatical structures are concerned, Germanic and Slavic languages are obviously very far from each other. >>
-- Both old slavic and old germanic retain dative plural -m from IE (the only two groups that do [Germ. dative plural -(e)n]).
-- 'to' in slavonic is "do" (Latin attested 'donec' - "as long as" is not primary word meaning "to", and alt. in meaning)
-- Slavic "-ski" = -ish (Scand. -ska, Germ. -isch)
-- 'in' is "on", "on-"
-- 'on' is "na"
-- 'out' is "vy", "vy-" (both <IE *ud-)
-- and the standard IE "perd" ('before'), "pro" ('through'), "pri" ('next to'), "medju" ('between, among [OE. "mid"; Lat "medius"]')
Romance languages don't derive from Latin but from another Italic language which may be even less related to the Germanic languages than Latin. I think that Yves Cortez is right.
<<Romance languages don't derive from Latin but from another Italic language which may be even less related to the Germanic languages than Latin. I think that Yves Cortez is right. >>
That's nitpicky. Italic, Latin, who cares. It's all the same to me : )
Romance is Italic. no argument there
Who cares if that it's important to you or not ? Is it an argument that Latin and other Italic languages are the same to you? Probably if romance languages derived from Latin really they would have kept noun declensions like Greek did respectively , so it's not that irrelevant.
All I'm saying is that there really is no use to Micro-Analyse this topic any further.
Latin was a language of people who lived over 2000 years ago. We live in the modern world. Let's focus on something more interesting.
Is there something more interesting than Latin?
<<Is there something more interesting than Latin? >>
anything.
<<while most Romance languages have retained 'casa', a cognate of 'Haus'.
>>
Although I have wondered this myself due to a possible IE correspondence (Gmc 'h' for Latin 'c'), I have never seen this attested anywhere.
P-Gmc *khusan, the ancestor of 'house' is attested to be related to the root of the word 'hide'.
Latin 'casa' ("hut") may not even be native to Latin since it displays a medial -s- unknown except in Old Latin, other Italic languages, and borrowings (Latin should have *curum, *cura for P-Gmc *khusan)
"Although I have wondered this myself due to a possible IE correspondence (Gmc 'h' for Latin 'c'), I have never seen this attested anywhere.":
. Haupt / Caput
. Haft / Capt- (captivus usw.)
. Halm / Calamus
. Herz / Cor- (Cordis)
. Hirsch / Cervus
. Hundert / Centum
. Hund / Canis
. Horn / Corn-
Borrowings perhaps
Are much and mucho related?
<<. Haupt / Caput
. Haft / Capt- (captivus usw.)
. Halm / Calamus
. Herz / Cor- (Cordis)
. Hirsch / Cervus
. Hundert / Centum
. Hund / Canis
. Horn / Corn-
>>
these are cognate.
casa and haus are not. they are coincidental.
Mucho and much are not related. they are also coincidental.
mucho < Lat multo (cf. Port. muito, It. molto)
much < ME muche,muchel < OE mycel - "big, mickle, much" (cf. Scand. myket - much)
<<Lat multo >>
my bad. that should be multum, multus
"Latin 'casa' ("hut") may not even be native to Latin since it displays a medial -s- unknown except in Old Latin, other Italic languages, and borrowings (Latin should have *curum, *cura for P-Gmc *khusan)"
So, the right Romance cognates to "house" should be Latinate derivates like "court" or "cover"?
By the way, any relationship between Ger. "Hof" and "cover"?