Latin perfects and Fluent Etruscan in 30 days!

[Eduard Selleslagh]

-----Original Message-----
From: petegray <petegray at btinternet.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 7:44 AM

>[re: the link between Latin amicus and the ambi- root]

>Unfortunately for your hypothesis, the ambhi- root has wide attestation:
>Latin, Greek, Armenian, Albanian and with syllabic /m/ Old Indic, and
>Celtic.   Pokorny relates it to the ambo root.

>Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Max W Wheeler <maxw at cogs.susx.ac.uk>
Date: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 6:55 AM
Subject: Re: Latin perfects and Fluent Etruscan in 30 days!

>On am-:

[ moderator snip ]

>Catalan <amb> ~ [am], and Occitan <ambe> ~ <ame> ~ <eme>, however, are
>not the original forms of the preposition meaning 'with'. This was <ab>
>in both languages, from Latin <apud> 'at', 'chez'. It is likely that
>[am] was originally a conditioned variant before nasal consonants. Since
><en> `in' had a variant [em] before labial consonants, these
>prepositions mutually influenced each other in form, and in part in
>meaning. In Catalan <viatjar amb avió> and <viatjar en avió> are both
>current for `travel by plane, fly'; in spoken Valencian <en> has
>replaced <ab> ~ <amb> altogether. The influence spreads to the
>preposition <a> < L. <ad> `to'. Colloquial Catalan has <li vaig dir amb
>ella> ~ <li vaig dir an ella> `I said to her'; standard <li vaig dir a
>ella>.

[Ed]

I suppose you're right about the Catalan 'amb' < Lat. 'apud'.  This type of
nasalization is indeed very common in all languages of the Iberian
Peninsula, also in dialects (e.g. 'albóndiga' (meatball) > 'armóndiga' in
Murcia).

>However, the main problem with Ed's etymology (apart from the timing) is
>that Lat. <amb(i)-> is not a preposition. It is rare as a prefix, and
>dubiously productive. And Catalan <amb> is not a prefix.
>But in any case, hasn't *mbhi got a perfectly good IE pedigree, nothing
>to do with am- of Lat. amare?

>Max

[Ed]

I said 'a prepositional prefix', i.e. a prefix with the meaning of a
preposition, like 'ob-',  'ad-' etc.  Anyway, its Greek counterpart, which I
mentioned, IS a preposition (+ gen. +dat. or  +acc.).

According to my Latin dictionary, 'ambo:' ('both) is related to 'amb-' and
Grk. 'amphí' ('around').

I have no problem with its IE pedigree, quite the contrary: it would mean
that the Etruscan root under discussion might be of IE origin, like so many
other.

And I don't see why any relationship with 'amicus', 'amare', etc. should be
excluded a priori: is it because of its lack of attestation in most other IE
languages (except those of Latin descent of course)?  Couldn't it be a double
transfer: early Lat./IE 'amb(i)-' > Etr. 'am(e)-' > later Lat. 'am-'?  I know
of at least one more or less similar case: Lat castra > Arab al-kasr > Cast.
alcázar. (and Lat. Lucentum > Ar. Al--lukant > Val. Alacant/Cast. Alicante).
This happens when another culture is temporarily dominant in the same place,
which was certainly the case in Rome.

Ed.