Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uiucdcsb.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcsb!grass From: grass@uiucdcsb.UUCP Newsgroups: net.nlang Subject: Re: Esperanto and the origins of some in Message-ID: <10500041@uiucdcsb.UUCP> Date: Sun, 13-Jan-85 14:14:00 EST Article-I.D.: uiucdcsb.10500041 Posted: Sun Jan 13 14:14:00 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 14-Jan-85 06:25:34 EST References: <1129@druny.UUCP> Lines: 25 Nf-ID: #R:druny:-112900:uiucdcsb:10500041:000:1150 Nf-From: uiucdcsb!grass Jan 13 13:14:00 1985 /* Written 11:34 am Jan 11, 1985 by polard@fortune in uiucdcsb:net.nlang */ >In article <10500037@uiucdcsb.UUCP> you write: >>This kind of etymology is kind of suspect. I once had a friend >>(a linguist, who should have known better) try to demonstrate that >>Russian was related to Latin on the basis of some similar vocabulary >>between Italian and Russian. I am still not sure she could have >>been serious. >She was. Latin and the language that Russian, Polish, and the other >Slavic languages came from were (metaphorically) cousins. The parent >language is called Proto Indo-european. Look it up in a good encyclopedia. I know, and knew that Russian and Italian both came from Proto Indo-European. My friend was arguing that Russian came from Latin, directly. I.e. Russian is a Romance language. Can you defend that proposition? Her argument was based largely on words like "telefon", etc. On the basis of such word borrowings, English looks like a Romance language. Evidently, I did not make myself clear. - Judy Grass, University of Illinois - Urbana {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!grass grass%uiuc@csnet-relay.arpa