m_iacomi wrote:
> -- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:
>> Some scholars see it as comming from a Hungarian word "nyem"
>
> Who exactly gives the form "nyem"? If you'd cared to take a look
> in Rosetti's ILR, you'd already seen the etymon "nem" `Geschlecht`.
>
>> with I don't know what a meaning and I very doubt about such a
>> Hungarian influence.
>
> Again, based on nothing else than your lack of knowledge. See also
> George's message.
One should read . I expected Sorin will tell you more here. Since it
seems he is not online I have to make some references here:
A magyar nyelv történeti - etimológiai szótára (Dictionar
istorico-etimologic al limbii maghiare), DEM, Budapesta, Editura
Academiei Maghiare, 1970, în vol.II, p. 1034. The word "nyam" appears
first in the Hungarian texts in 1881. In Romanian the word "neam" is to
find:Codicele Vornotian, Tetravanghelul lui Coresi, Palia de la Orastie,
Noul Testament de la Balgrad, Ioan Zoba din Vintz, Ioan Neculce. The
word is thus attested begining with the first Rom. writtings (XVI
century). If this is not enough, one should read in te A magyar nyelv
történeti that the Hungarian word "nyam" is mentioned as "Román
eredetu". ( loan from Romanian)
One interesting aspect here should be the plural form of the word which
is "neamuri" see please Latin "nemoris" which _does not have the sense
of the Rom. word_ but has the phonetical aspect of the Rom. word. The
PIE root could be derived from the PIE *nem1 as well.
>
>> Actually one need *femeella for getting the Rom. word from Latin
>> and the "e" should be considered as reconstructed as analogy of
>> something.
>
> Nonsense. Latin "familia" explains phonetics without pain; a word
> with final -ella > -eauã (Common Romanian, Aromanian) > -ea (Daco-
> Romanian) =/= -eye, thus explaining nothing.
Ah, Scuipã în sân ! You remembered me I said once something about /i/ >
/l/ and I mentionated Rosetti here too. You asked "where" but at that
time I could not re-find ad-hoc the passage. It is a little passage in
its ILR, but after long time I refounded it. Take a look please at
"Inovatii paralele posterioare epocii române comune". In my eemplar (
ILR 1968) there is at the page 398.
"/i/ poate trece la /l'/ printr-un mecanism de inchidere : megl.
"cul'b", istr. "cul'ib" < cuib", cf. Rosetti, Rech., 124-125
>
> Marius Iacomi
Alex