From: BP Jonsson (bpj@NETG.SE)
Date: Wed Jan 24 2001 - 01:01:06 EST
>
>Ah, thanks, BP. Actually, after asking the question, I happened across an
>answer to it in my historical grammar of Spanish, but it contradicts yours
>slightly. My source says that para < pora < Latin pro+ad, but it doesn't say
>why the o became a (nor why por < pro, but I know metathesis of -Vr to -rV
>was somewhat common, as in quattuor > cuatro, so maybe the opposite
>metathesis too).
I should think romanists dont know which of two different possibilities is
the right one, and everybody sticks to theit favorite...
> What other sources do the Romance "for" words come from? I
>assume French <pour> is the same as <por>, but there's also <par> (IIRC).
French _par_ is from PER.
>And Italian uses <per>, no?
There is a good deal of confusion and cross-fertilization between PRO and
PER. In Italian only PER survives, covering the meanings of both.
> Also, do the others display a distinction like
>that of Spanish para vs. por?
Catalan and Portuguese (and, I assume, Gallego) has the same distinction.
One interesting peculiarity of Rumanian is that _pe_ < PER is used to
indicate the direct object.
/BP 8^)>
-- B.Philip Jonsson mailto:bpX@netg.se (delete X) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__ A h-ammen ledin i phith! \ \ __ ____ ____ _____________ ____ __ __ __ / / \ \/___ \\__ \ /___ _____/\ \\__ \\ \ \ \\ \ / / / / / / / \ / /Melroch\ \_/ // / / // / / / / /___/ /_ / /\ \ / /Melarocco\_ // /__/ // /__/ / /_________//_/ \_\/ /Eowine__ / / \___/\_\\___/\_\ Gwaedhvenn Angelmiel \ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun ~~~~~~~~~Cuinondil~~~\________/~~\__/~~~Noolendur~~~~~~ || Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda cuivie aiya! || "A coincidence, as we say in Middle-Earth" (JRR Tolkien)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri Oct 03 2003 - 12:19:45 EST