Re: Latin descended through creolization
- From: Joachim Pense <snob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:20:14 +0100
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Dec 22, 4:20 pm, "ranjit_math...@xxxxxxxxx"
<ranjit_math...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 22, 10:53 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You can't look at words derived from reduction and words
in their pristine strong forms as cognates (say sanskrit
Vidhawa and Engish Widow).
Apparently *you* cannot do so, but *we* can certainly say
with confidence that Skt. <vidhávâ> and Eng. <widow> are
cognates, along with Latin <vidua>
Is this a modern respelling of Classical Latin or is it Medieval
Latin? In Classical Latin, it had to be <vidva>.
The convention is to use <u> in lowercase, <V> in capitals, thus uidua
or VIDVA depending whether you're transcribing a manuscript or an
inscription respectively..
I have been wondering if this convention is something peculiar to
English-speaking countries. In Latin those texts by German publishers
(mostly for school usage, though) I know, the convention is to use V
whenever it is supposed to be a semivowel, and u when it's a full vowel;
for both upper and lower case.
So I memorized the perfect forms "monui", but "delevi".
Joachim
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Latin descended through creolization
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Latin descended through creolization
- Prev by Date: Re: Latin descended through creolization
- Next by Date: Re: Latin descended through creolization
- Previous by thread: PR: New Online Russian Translit Service Launched
- Next by thread: Re: Latin descended through creolization
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|