>No! Only when s + ce & s + ci, *and* ce/ci already =
>[t$e/t$i], only then you can get > $t.
>
>[Moeller] wie bitte? What about sceptru, sceptic, discerne,
>disciplina, scindare,?Common George, please.
These all are n e o l o g i s m s!
>[Moeller] any example please?
$tofã (for stofã), $tachetã (the variant stachetã is also
standard Romanian), $tafetã, $tampilã (stampilã is old-
fashioned, out of use), $tantzare, $tangã, $tand (variant of
stand, still in use), $teamp (in mining) etc.
Yet significant for what's significant for the old language
evolved as a neo-Romance one (which you deny) are words
like these: "a $terge, $tergere, $ters" (to wipe; delete)
< Lat extergere. And "a $ti, $tire, $tiut" < Lat. scire. The
former illustrates the fact that an ex- becoming s- in Romanian
very well could have turned $ in connection with consonants
such as t.
But in many other cases, you see (in your DEX) that $t- words
are loanwords also starting with $t-.
>[Moeller] you got yourself the answer. It is so because so
>"sounds" romanian. And no in another ways. That should be
>neough.
That is not enough: "sounding" like that only when "shaping"
that foreign words according to sound rules and grammar rules
of the Romanian language. Without Romanian prefixes, suffixes
& al. endings and flexion things, it is highly difficult to embed
foreign pieces of vocabulary in a sentence.
>[Moeller]it seems normal. there is an "ie" and not an "e".
It isn't. It is a mere concession. To those who diphtongate.
(Don't you understand that this "i" was officially accepted to
be written there only in 1954? Go to a library and read a few
pages of books & newspapers printed prior to April 1954.)
In Northern subdialects even such words as "fierbe/re, fiertura,
fier" there is no /ye/, but "ferbe/re, fertura, fer" (boil + iron).
It is your subdialectal area that diphtongates even "ochi" > "oichi",
that inspired the grammar officials to impose "mâine, pâine,
câine & mâini (plural of mâna (hand)) " in the dictionaries since
1954, although 3/4 of the populace has never diphtongate them.
>[Moeller] yeap. This is why your romanian "latin" is not
>latin :-)
I don't doubt the Romanceness of my Romanian. As for your
Romanian, I don't care. :)
>[Moeller] I am not just atracted. I constate it.
Okay, then go ahead, carry on: what lexical element prompted
you to conclude that "greu" has nothing to do with "gravis" but
with a substrate word? I only was curious to see how that word
looked like.
>And here it doesnt matter if the language of the substrate was
>dacian. You cann call it "lie" that language if you like :-)
Oh, by no means. I'm rather eager to learn which part of the
language, why, how, based on which evidence/assumption/rationale
is not of Latin extraction but of the substrate (and, if yes, then
which specific substrate idiom).
George