Re: -ishte, -eshte

alexmoeller wrote:

>[Moeller] dãschide , I am OK with this. Dãshchide is not known
>too me. Even in Moldavia where they use ex extreme "sh" there
>is no dãshchide. But I donnot say " no". It could be, I havent
>heard.

You must've been living in some splendid isolation
(& no TV, radio, movies, theater) before you moved to
Germany. :) Even in your own Muntenian "Heimat" is
/dã$kide/ popular.

>[Moeller] weit. You make a big confusion here. You try to put
>"schei"=slav in the form shtei.

And how mightily I can! :)

>Your assumption is wrong because "shtei" is not an evolution
>of "schei"

No assumption: it's even acknowledged by Rum.
scholars. (To me, $tei = $chei is natural, since
I myself know how these dialectal k' <-> k things
work, they are mine, I grew up with them.)

So, you have here: Lat. scl- > Rum. schi-/sche-

> $chi-/$che- and the "soft" variants $"t"i-/$"t"e-.

>The word shtei is the word stei.

"stei" is another word meaning "rock, block, boulder",
i.e. this is something else.

>[Moeller] I was growing up in a
>region where the peasants use usualy chiept for piept, chiceri
>for picioare, chiatrã instead of piatra but piper was allways
>used as piper

You see? And your "ch-" back home is extremely close
to the "softer" variant of it in Northern regions of the
country.

>[Moeller]
>what about sclipire, clipoci, clipi, clei, clefãi,
>clin,cling, clint, clinti, ?
>I give some exemples just with "e" and " i" adter cl

I dunno. Maybe they were influenced by somewhat in
later stages, so that they didn't turn *schipire,
(s)chipi, chei etc. I only know that in my region
people have tended to introduce an /k/ in the Slavic
loanwords: "slab (weak), slanina (lard, bacon),
sluga (servant)" -> "sclab, sclanina, scluga". This
could be interpreted that at least some Romanians
even today deem the cluster "sl-" as... un-Romanian,
so they... atavistically resort to the old cluster
"scl-". :-) (That's what some linguists say, not my
invention.)

>[Moeller] your supposition try to say that it was a time in
>romanian language where the conjugation was "tu esci", "el
>esce".And that make the latinism more harder as you tought it
>could be:-)))

That's not *my* assumption, that's how it has worked
(that means: it works even today -> just have a look
at those myriads of forms with -sc- turning -$t- according
to certain forms: plurals, flexions & the like).

>[Moeller] But if you think that a native popualtion
>will think to take a word from genitive

No, populations always do that... instinctively, never
bothering that an Alex or me will one day scratch
our heads in disbelief. :-)

>Even the word "greu"= hard is suppoesed to come from
>an hypothetical *grevis. The latin word was gravis.

What's your problem with that? In class. Lat. "grauis".
Not too remote our "greu". The other way around Lat.
"seu" - our "sau" ("or"). Why should this be a difficulty?
BTW: how do the Thracian or Dacian correspondents
of these simple words sound like (if they, IYO, aren't
Latin at all)?

>I have a feelinf that the "e" and "i"

Yeah, I see how your feeling leads you... :)

George