alex_lycos wrote:
>George, "barza" has the same plural form as "varza"
>and just for it is not a Latin word, but a substrate one.
I have known this for decades! Don't be so fascinated by
such cognates or phonetic coincidents.
>Romanian has "verdetsuri" for vegetables but not
>"verdeatsa" which is used for "green places".
Look it up in your DEX. "(la singular) frunze de
patrunjel, marar sau leustean". These 3 "green" plants
are inherent in most kitchens, aren't they? ;)
>I am not aware of names as "Verzea" but I do not
>exclude them.
Of course you can't.
http://www.paginialbe.ro/rezultat.php3
http://www.google.de/search?q=%22Verzea%22&ie=UTF-
8&oe=UTF-8&hl=de&btnG=Google-Suche&meta=
>What do you mean here with "verde > vearde >varza "?
>The trnasformation I guess it should be vir(i)dia >
Awright, but it's easier to work with the Romanian
stuff already existant there, "verde", than with the
remote Latin "virdia" (let's drop the second "i", that
you see and copy in brackets: no need of it for the
derivation anyway). But even with the remote Latin
word (which I expect you to abhor ;-) we can obtain
beautiful "virzi$oare", so that any Romanian-speaking
person will immediately understand that we mean
"verzi$oare".
So why the fuss? In similar cases of e or ea becoming
a you aren't bothered. E.g. "peana" > "pana" (feather),
"musteatza" > "mustatza" (moustache). Etcetera.
>But did an "ie" monoftongued to "e"?
>The substrate vord "viezure" shows the contrary.
I don't get your hint here. The other way around, e > ie,
yes, I can think of "fer, pept/chept, ferbe" > "fier,
piept, fierbe" in standard Romanian and in your
subdialect.
> Alex
George