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