[YG Conlang Archives] > [romanceconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
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@hidden.email (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)