Re: [tied] RE: etyma for Crãciun, Romanian for Christmas

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

>> On this case, the most probable origin is Balkan Romance. The
>> ultimate etymon is Latin "creationem" (acc. of "creatio, -onis",
>> as in "dies creationis Christi"; cf. also Alb. "kershëndellë" <
>> "Christi natalis"), it was early adopted by Slavs with the original
>> meaning `Christmas` but also with extended sense, including other
>> festive moments of the year. Hungarian got the word with Slavic
>> phonetism. Some Slavic influence on Romanian cannot be excluded
>> but it's not compulsory to explain the word.
>
> I have trouble with the "creatio, -onis" because of more aspects.
> So far I remember the term "creatio-" is not inherited in Rom.
> for this one there being a simple translation into Rom. which
> is "facere".

So what? It's by far not the unique sample of word conserved in
a language (particular case: Romanian) only as remnant of some
expression.

> For "Birth of Jesu" there is never used "Craciunul lui Isus",

Of course it is not used _nowdays_. During all these centuries,
people had plenty of time to forgot that "Crãciun" was originally
meaning `creation` as in the above-mentioned expression. It was
the only word surviving from it. (BTW: think at "minute" and
"second", short forms surviving from original three-word Latin
expressions and adopted as such in all languages).

> Speaking about phonetic aspect we have the final Latin "i"

No, we haven't, since the accusative is "creatione(m)".

> which is supposed to give "u"

?!

> we need a monoftongation of "ea" to "a" or "e" (the question
> remains:why should took place this monoftongation ?)

The details of "e-a" (hiatus) > "ea" (diphthong) > ... > "ã" are
(the only) debatable issue. One can argue for some Slavic influence
(since a South Slavic "krac^un" would be a regular outcome of Latin
"creatione(m)") acting on Proto-Romanians they lived with. Another
possibility is the simple reduction of an unstressed diphthong for
articulatory reasons: the normal result would be again "ã" (/&/).

> and we have the "ti" > "c^i".

This is a non-issue, as said.

> You mentioned even the Aromanins forms with "c^i" which speaks for
> something very special by tzhis word something which determined the
> Aromanians to do not apply their well-working rule of /c^i/ > /Ti/
> in their dialect to this word.

Not always in AR dialect, DR /tS/ has the correspondent /ts/. See
below.

> BTW, If you ask me about some examples where Latin "ti" > "c^i"
> in DR, I won'T be able to give you ad hoc some example.

Lat. "titionem" > DR "tãciune", AR "tic^uni"
Lat. "fetiolus" > DR "fecior", AR "fic^or"
Lat. "petiolus" > DR "picior", AR "pic^or"
Lat. "intellectio:nem" > DR "înTelepciune"
Lat. "*matteuca" > DR "mãciucã"
Lat. "-tio:sus" > DR "-cios" (in suffixes)
Lat. "-tio:ne(m)" > DR "-ciune" (in suffixes)
etc.

Marius Iacomi