Re: [tied] Androphobia [...]

m_iacomi wrote:

> In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:
>
>>> If any imagination plays some role in the above, it's yours not
>>> mine. I am using simple reasoning. Romanian word "întrupa" derives
>>> from Romanian loan word "trup" which is by all means from a Slavic
>>> word having the same meaning. [...] Conversely, being a late
>>> formation in the language, Romanian word does not derive from
>>> Greek nor from any other substrate language.
>> [...]
>> In fact almost every of such derivation make a verb of IV
>> conjugation which ends in "i" but not in "a".
>
> ... see "înfumura", "întrista", "înveSmânta", "înseta", "îndopa",
> "învia", "înjgheba", "înfiripa", "îndestula", "înaripa", etc.

You are making a misch masch of examples where you have verbs made by
an/in and nouns which have by default the "a" as stem: aripa, firipa,
destul(a), jgheab(ã), sete, trist(a)

Search some more... you will find.

>
>> The best example here is the word "chip" which ends to in "p" as
>> "trup", but the verb is ""închipui" but not "inchipuia".
>
> This is a good example showing your lack of feeling for your
> own language. The correct I-st conjugation verb would have been
> "*închipa"; "închipuia" is the actual form for "închipui" at the
> 3rd person, imperfect tense.

Gracias. As usually your way to react .. It is known, to me has no
influence anymore.

>
>> Since a rule is a rule ,
>
> There is no "rule" here except native speakers' feeling and
> habitude. It happened the verb sounded better with final "-a"
> than with final "-ui" for Romanian speakers (probably some
> articulatory easiness played a non-vanishing role here), they
> have chosen naturally "întrupa" instead of your construction.

ach, ok, there is no rule. Probably this, proable that, probable
anything else.

>> This is the point which should be seen as wrong in my way to see
>> the things.
>
> The way you see the things is wrong. You create "rules" which
> do not exist.

This is a rule.

>
>> All based on the fact the word is a slavic loan.
>
> According to science, it _is_ a Slavic loan.

Acording to what? You make me laugh ...

One cannot seriously

> claim that a well-attested Panslavic word should be considered a
> Balkan-born creation. Specially when it exists also in Old Prussian
> (cf. Derksen: "trupis" `log`).

A well attested pan slavic word can be a loan too. A panslavic word is
"brânza" too actually.

> And the reasoning is not based only on that. The prefix "în-" is
> by all means deriving from Latin. Both elements needed to construct
> the verb "întrupa" are not from substrate -> the verb couldn't have
> been existed in any substrate language. Consequently, the link you
> made with a Greek word meaning `human being` is fallacious.

Ach was! What make you so sure about? Beside bla bla, it could not, it
is not possible, it is so so, which are your arguemnts?

>
>> with my intervention here from the previous mail:
>> "there is not only your Latin story with /in/ > /ân/" , I just
>> wanted to remember you there _is_ an "ân" from "an" in Rom. Lang.
>
> Of no importance here since we deal with the semantism and the
> initial position of Latin "in-".
>
> Marius Iacomi

Hoffnungsloss mit dir...