[tied] Re: Romanian senin

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex_lycos" wrote:

>>> If one assume "cununã" is from Latin "corona" with the rule
>>> -VrVn > VnVn, is not enough
>>
>> That's your problem. Both assimilation and dissimilation are
>> encountered in Daco-Romanian. That is -VrVn- > -VnVn- for
>> assimilation and -VnVn- > -VrVn- for dissimilation.
>> Assimilation is early attested in "Psaltirea Scheiana" with
>> "aninã" instead of "arinã" (< "arena", `sand`), or with
>> "fãninã" instead of "fãrinã" (< "fari:na(m)" `meal`; modern
>> word is "fãinã"). Also dissimilation appears in early
>> Daco-Romanian texts: "amerinTa", "gerunki", etc.
>
> Do I understand you false?

As usual, see below.

> The outgoing point was the question of Richard.
> "Why latin serenus > senin in Romanian. "
> You explain it trough VrVn :
> Corona > cununa , serenu > senin
> But venenum > venin, *anninare > anina ?
> And gerundial form of "venind"?

Assimilation and dissimilation are not _necessary_ evolutions
but unlike major phonetical rules they are only _possible_ and
in some conditions _probable_. How on earth could someone infer
simultaneously two contradictory non-exception rules as above?!

> Now some etymological thoughts.
>
> For "farina". Latin fari:na ( where have you found the form
> with "m"?)

In the dictionary.

> Fari:na= Old Latin "farri:na" with derivatives-ula,
> ,-atus, -osus,-, -arius, -aceus,-ulentus, , -inis , farrago

The Latin word is derived from "(fa:r)farris" (`spelt`, `husked
wheat`).

> The cognate Romanian Word word here should be "fãrâmã"= bit,
> small piece with its whole family and not the lonely "fãinã".

Why?

> This word seems to be a loan from a language where Latin
> "a" > "ai" and the only one I know it from Romance this is
> just Vegliot.

The word "fãrâmã" is supposed to come from the substratum by
decent linguists. I don't see any potential link between this
word and Latin "fari:na", either in semantics or in phonetics.

> The word fãrâmã ( unknown etym.) with Alb. thërrime should be
> the cognates of Latin "farina" and the word faina seems to be
> a new loan into language.

Yeah, right. The form "fãrinã" is still in use in northern
Daco-Romanian, it's by no means "a new loan". I could bet a
considerable amount of money that you would find something
to comment about disparition of /r/ in southern Daco-Romanian
and make a bunch of nonsensical hypotheses as:

> The actually "farin", is a neologism from French "farine".

There is no "farin" in Daco-Romanian.
It could be useful in preventing further trash accumulation to
state that "fãninã" was attested around a.D. 1600.

> The word "ameninta" from reconstructed Latin "*amminaciere
> ( < minaciae )= to menace, does not explain the Rom. word.
> phonetically.

I didn't wanted to mention any etimology because you surely
know that usual form is "ameninTa" and the point discussed was
not its' etimology but attested n-n dissimilation.
On another hand, your alleged phonetical comments have no
relevance since you still ignore the rules and derivational
posible phenomena (as nasals' propagation).

>> BTW, in Aromanian one has "curunã" (without assimilation)
>
> An do not forget Latin has the word loaned from Greek
> "korune", already with "u". What about etym. of Greek word?

What about?

Marius Iacomi