[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 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?!
>
> Because you are maybe seeing them wrongly.

I think not.

> The words as "amerinta", and "gerunki", and " rarunki" are
> just rothacised forms of intervocalic "n" ("ameninta",
> "genunki", " ranunki".)

No. Quoted forms are supposed to be the result of rhotacism
by Alex Moeller. The idea is not consistent with linguistical
facts: dissimilation is to be found everywhere in Daco-Romanian
speaking area, with words which resisted dissimilated (like in
mãrunt < mãnunt or cãrunt < cãnunt) imposing themeselves and
others which fail to become widespread. About these words,
Rosetti writes: "In nowdays [!] common language there are cases
of consonant dissimilation, with r (< n) produced by action of
a second n from word's body. The phenomenon appears in words
like "amerinTa" (< ameninTa), "gerunki" (< genunki).".
These facts do not support your allegations.

> If we accept as valid your supposition we will have as follow:
>
> *amminaciarae > *aminanciare > amerinTare > ameninTa
> genunculus > gerunchi > genunchi
> renunculus > rarunchi > ranunchi

No. The existence of dissimilated forms does not mean these
were the only ones. In fact they did not made it for the first
two words. The derivation is like:
genunculus > genuncl'u > genunchi(u) [> gerunki in subdialects]
similar for "ameninta", the last derivation is all yours.

> About "fanina" , Rosetti gives as reference his own book and
> he mentions just "Suceava 1600". What is then this "fanina"?

The same with "fã(r)inã"

> Conclusion: since Rosetti by himself doesn't speak about an
> -VrVn> VnVn as phenomenon ,

He does.

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

The origin is "fa:r", nothing to do semantically or phonetically
with your word.

Marius Iacomi