>In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tolgs001" wrote:
[the text already has been distributed, no need for a fullquote]
>We know how it would have been looked earlier:
> I.
>=> if we are following the first hypothesis that IS A LOAN from
>Ossetic avg < apa:ka (as is basically considered today)
It is an assumption that the word is of Yazyg (Iranic) origin.
Since a certain part of the Magyar language vocabulary is of
such origin. Not only that Proto-Hungarians had to do with
some kind of Iranic idioms speaking populaces, but a bit later
on they assimilated a group of Yazyges in the 13th century
(that came along with Cumans). Even today, the counties that
bear their names (Jasz and Kun) are neighboring, in Eastern
Hungary 50-100 km west of the Romanian frontier. Among those
who accompanied the immigrant Hungarian tribes there were
Iranic-Turkish contingents too coming from Khwarezm.
Romanian didn't receive the word directly. If we assume that
it did, then for what reason avg > u-ia-ga? Especially since
the first part of it is supposed to be a shrunken Iranic
apa: this one, the Romanian language wouldn't have concealed,
since it has the same word for "water": apa.
> So no need to write long suppositions about a suffix -eg
>etc...because is not the case...
Of course it is the case. Here, in order to get an explanation
why the Hungarian language inserted a vowel between the
v and g in the Ossetian avg word (if this one is supposed to
have been the loanword passed on to Hungarian). Every language
has ways, "mechanisms", used in order to "adapt" foreign, i.e.
"strange", words to the "mainstream" phonology of that language.
Moreover, I'd be curious to learn why -ka converted in (old)
Hungarian to -eg, since the suffixes -ka, -ke (for diminutival
purposes) are extremely popular (I _suppose_ an influence exerted
by slavic languages, of the Slovak and Croatian kind; and not
of the German one, since the -ke(n) Germans lived in remote
areas, and the "interface" Germans were South Germans preferring
-l(e)/-li and -lein).
So, the final "product", �veg, sounds highly Hungarian today,
so that to no average native-speaker does it occur that the
word might be a loanword from a Indo-European language - because
it fits a pattern as do words such as �res, �reg, �reg, �gyes,
m�:ves, �ves (for that matter, �ves is the Hung. translation
of the Romanian folk dance "bra^ul").
>II. We also know how it would have been looked earlier
>=> if is a loan from Romanian u-ya-g&
If it were supposed to be this other way around, then the
question would be "why/how got u-ya > �-ve?" You don't have
to be a linguist, and a specialized one in Hungarian phonology
occurrences, to realize that a Romanian u-ya-g& would get
some Hungarian u-ya:-gO, written ujaga (with an accent egu
on the a) or with a double j in case that people would have
interpreted uj as "new", ujjaga /u:y-ya:-gO/. Which has never
happened. (Besides, Romanian experts who deal with all the
Romanian early texts could tell us if the word was there in
the first texts or if it "popped up" in recent times.)
George