Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
> Why not? An ancient borrowing would give jup�n, a more
> recent reborrowing jupan. Furthermore, the Romanian
> inherited morphology includes the Latin suffix -a:nus (e.g.
> rom�n), so even a later borrowing may have been secondarily
> adapted to the pattern of -�n-words.
which -a:nus is not felt anymore as suffix. If the second adaptation you
mean was indeed one, it should have worked in hard to verify times. The
loans from Slavic shows an "-an" but you are right, just teoretically,
it does not exclude an old borrowing. The problem is that in the huge
amount of Slavic loans there are just these two which shows an treatment
as the Latin "-a:nus", the rest of them shows the modern treatment. The
meaning of the both words are these of "herrscher", "leader" and one
should find out what is in fact with the frist part of both words, what
should they mean: "sta-" and "ju-"(z^u-).
>
>> , thus even DEX avoid to consider it from
>> Slavic, but it gives "unknown etymology".
>>
>> 2) for "st�p�n" there was long time considered Slavic "stopanU" as
>> being the etymon. The second problem beside "an" > "�n" is the
>> change of Slavic "o" to Rom. "�" which is not sustaining by
>> anything. Thus, we have two phonetical problems which speaks against
>> loaning it from Slavic. The same phonetical problems allow very well
>> the loan from Rom. into Slavic since Rom. *stapanu could yeld very
>> well Slavic *stopanU.
>
> If Slavic /o/ was still /a/, then Slavic *stapa:nU could
> very well yield Rom. *stapanu > st�p�n.
Very correct from the point of view of the phonology but just simply the
form *stapanu is of no help about its Slavic or Rom. origin.
> There is no
> problem. Since the word is attested in Bulgarian and
> Serbian, and not in Latin, it stands to reason that the
> direction of borrowing was Slavic > Romanian.
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
That is your way to see the things. If this is not in Latin then it is
Slavic. You forget allways Rom. has an older layer as Latin, and the
phonological aspect of the both words in discusion here is that one
which belongs to the oldest layer of the language + Latin layer but not
to the one of the Slavic layer.
Which are your toughts about "z^upan" then? You said of iranian origin,
out. Iranian? Why that?
What about "stopan" then ? What should this "sta-" mean ? I could
speculate of the "one of the houses", thus, taking as basis Albanian
"st�pi" < *stapi + suffix -a:nus one gets the same as Rome > romanus,
stapi > stapanus
The meanig is "the one of the house", thus the one which has his rights
here, as the meaning of the words is. The German meaning should be
"herrscher des Hauses" and this makes a lot of sense for the semantism
of the word.
Alex
Alex
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.5 - Release Date: 03.02.2005