Re: [tied] cuman , slavic or balcanic?

I just need to emphasize the following:

1. In Romanian the basic form of the suffix is "-esc" not "-escu" like in "calugaresc" from "calugar" (monk).

2. To me, it looks and sounds closer to Spanish than Slavic. Like in the popular Spanish surname "Flores" and its Romanian equivalent "Floresc(u)".

3. The fact that Romance speaking population lived (very) close to Slavic speaking population for a long time probably just reinforced the use of the IE suffix *-isko in both groups, rather than one group loaning it from another.

Paul Alesu

Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 13:08:14 +0200, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
> <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> >Romanian român (+ românesc, românca) is a late, artificially Latinised form, emphasising the Latin etymology of the word. The regular phonological development of <ro:má:n-> in Romanian was <rumîn> with the historically normal change of pretonic o > u and of stressed pre-nasal a > î (the original form of the adjective was actually <rumînesc> with the borrowed suffix <-esc>, cf. Rus. rumynskij).
>
> Just to point out that while the suffix -esc has indeed been borrowed,
> and in this particular case, borrowed from Slavic, this is not true in
> general.
>
> The IE suffix *-isko- had become unproductive in Latin (the only
> native word I can think of that has it is Faliscus "Faliscan"), but a
> borrowed suffix -esc(o) is fairly common in all Romance languages. It
> was initially borrowed from Greek -iskos, and its use was later
> reinforced in the West by the influence of Germanic *-iskaz, in the
> East by Slavic *-IskU.
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...