> >1. Where elsewhere you find Hungarian /ï¿½ve/ loaned as /uya/ in
> >Romanian? If you make assumptions you need to refer to some
> I don't have the entire Hung. vocabulary in my memory (I am no
> Hung. native speaker either). Spontaneously occur to my mind
> such phonetic occurrences as, e.g., ï¿½vï¿½lt "to howl; roar; yell".
> Then ï¿½v "belt", ï¿½ve "his/her belt". Then "az ï¿½veï¿½" /ï¿½-
> "his/her". ï¿½reg "cavity", ï¿½reg "old", ï¿½res /ï¿½-raeS/ "empty,hollow"
> (ï¿½res ï¿½veg "empty bottle"). And mï¿½ves /mï¿½:-vaeS/ "wright"(e.g.
> rezmï¿½ves /'re:z-mï¿½:-vaeS/ "coppersmith") and mï¿½vesz /'mï¿½:-ve:s/
> "artist". And ï¿½gyes /ï¿½-g^aeS/ (inter alia) "skilful".ï¿½zem "plant,
> works, mill" (compare with uzinï¿½). ï¿½zen "to send word",ï¿½zenet
> The transition e<->ï¿½<->ï¿½<->i are quite frequent in Hung.
> (With the following subdialectal tendency especially in the regionSo you don't have examples.
> of "uiagï¿½": /o:/ > /u:/, /ï¿½:/ > /ï¿½:/, /e:/ > /i(:)/ etc. For
> details have a look at the wikipedia pages dealing with the
> dialects of Hungarian; there's a good page at ro.wikipedia too.)
> Of further importance is the "vowel harmony": the vowel in the
> endings have to fit the vowel in the root. e /ae/ in -eg fits ï¿½
> and ï¿½ in the initial syllable.
> >2. Next, /uy&/ means 'water' in Albanian (and is presents also in*subdia-
> >Romanian noian /noy'an/ 'imense waters')
> These have nothing in common either with the Yazyg/Ossetian word,
> nor with ï¿½veg and uiagï¿½. (And Romanian people who use the
> lectal* word uiaga - coz otherwise all of them would say sticlï¿½ -I need to understand that you don't like too much Romanians?
> make use of those bottles rather to pour into them brandy than
> fresh water.)
> >So uya-g& 'bottle (glass)' is a similar formation with OsseticDo you know the Romanian word 'noian' 'imense waters' ?
> Methinks that can't be so, since the Romanian language word for
> "water" happens (what a coincidence!) to be... "apa". So why on
> earth would have decided ancient Romanians make *uya out of the
> Iranian apa!
> is u-ya. And this split u<break>ya is so because of the sameSo in 'flu-yer' 'flute' the split u-ye is also due to Hungarian u-
> break between ï¿½ and ve in Hungarian.
> Besides, and I underlineI don't see any phonetic issue for Romanian here
> this, because it is also highly relevant, only in some regions
> is ï¿½veg rendered as uiaga: in other regions, south of the former
> ones, there ain't no uiaga whatsoever, but only iagï¿½ /yaga/.
> Methinks, the native-speakers over there (me representing all
> of them in these moments!) dropped the /u/ completely, in order
> to do away with this "uncozy" phonetic occurrence in Romanian.
> >Question:So before to learn that rules, you are already sure about your final
> >The First Issue is how a Hungarian ï¿½- in ï¿½veg can appear
> >from an Ossetic a- in avg?
> To get an answer, one needs the transformation rules typical of
> Hungarian, esp. of old Hungarian. As well as to be aware of the
> intermediary forms of the word, i.e. prior to the latest one.
> I haven't yet read ï¿½veg in medieval Hung. texts (say, the 14th,
> 15th centuries).
> And I for one don't know how the a in Ossetian avg has to beThe earlier Ossetic variant was *apaka: ==>
> pronounced, or whether avg is... today's Ossetian or the
> Ossetian of the 13th century -- or whether the Hungarian word
> is a loanword from an earlier Alanic variant, and not of avg.
> What I know is that uiaga is a regional word used only by aDruete is regional ? It is. It's Substratual ? It is.
> part of the Romanian native-speakers living in greater Transyl-
> vania. (AFAIK, the Banat Romanians don't use it.) If this word
> were supposed to have entered the Romanian language in its
> earliest stages, why is it unheard of in all other dialectal
> areas of it?
> The late Yazyges that stayed for a while in MoldaviaSorry to tell, but it seems that you didn't understand the general
> around 1200 could've left avg or the like to Moldavians, but
> there is no uiaga.