Re: Magyar uveg <-> Romanian uiag&

From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 57857
Date: 2008-04-22

--- In, "tolgs001" <george_st@...> wrote:
> >1. Where elsewhere you find Hungarian /�ve/ 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., �v�lt "to howl; roar; yell".
> Then �v "belt", �ve "his/her belt". Then "az �ve�" /�-
> "his/her". �reg "cavity", �reg "old", �res /�-raeS/ "empty,
> (�res �veg "empty bottle"). And m�ves /m�:-vaeS/ "wright"
> rezm�ves /'re:z-m�:-vaeS/ "coppersmith") and m�vesz /'m�:-
> "artist". And �gyes /�-g^aeS/ (inter alia) "skilful".
�zem "plant,
> works, mill" (compare with uzin�). �zen "to send word",
> "message".
> The transition e<->�<->�<->i are quite frequent in Hung.
> (With the following subdialectal tendency especially in the region
> of "uiag�": /o:/ > /u:/, /�:/ > /�:/, /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 �
> and � in the initial syllable.

So you don't have examples.

> >2. Next, /uy&/ means 'water' in Albanian (and is presents also in
> >Romanian noian /noy'an/ 'imense waters')
> These have nothing in common either with the Yazyg/Ossetian word,
> nor with �veg and uiag�. (And Romanian people who use the
> lectal* word uiaga - coz otherwise all of them would say sticl� -
> make use of those bottles rather to pour into them brandy than
> fresh water.)

I need to understand that you don't like too much Romanians?

Or you are just trying to find another etymology supposing that
originary there was no water /uj&/ in that bottles?

> >So uya-g& 'bottle (glass)' is a similar formation with Ossetic
> >apa-ka:
> 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!

Do you know the Romanian word 'noian' 'imense waters' ?
Why this word is not from 'apa' the basic romanian word for 'water'?

The answer is simple: to allow you to put such questions here.
(Is like to ask why 'ocean' & 'sea' are not derived from 'water'?)

(Moreover, and again: it is by no means uya, but it
> is u-ya. And this split u<break>ya is so because of the same
> break between � and ve in Hungarian.

So in 'flu-yer' 'flute' the split u-ye is also due to Hungarian u-
veg? :)

> Besides, and I underline
> this, because it is also highly relevant, only in some regions
> is �veg rendered as uiaga: in other regions, south of the former
> ones, there ain't no uiaga whatsoever, but only iag� /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.

I don't see any phonetic issue for Romanian here

There is a Romanian poem saying:
/u-yu-yu la m^an-dra shu-ye ca-re su-ye pe r&-zu-ye/

I can agree that this can be hard for you to pronounce (as not a
native speaker) but is not the general case.

> >Question:
> >
> >The First Issue is how a Hungarian �- in �veg 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 �veg in medieval Hung. texts (say, the 14th,
> 15th centuries).

So before to learn that rules, you are already sure about your final
conclusion: you will find 'a rule' that makes an /u/ from an /a/ (I
saw that you have hardly try alreday) when there are other words (see
my quotes) that show you something else?

> And I for one don't know how the a in Ossetian avg has to be
> 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.

The earlier Ossetic variant was *apaka: ==>
try now with this one obtain uveg :)

I can tell you that is preferable to remain with avg

> What I know is that uiaga is a regional word used only by a
> 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?

Druete is regional ? It is. It's Substratual ? It is.
Why we find 'old' species in isolated regions?
(I answer also in another mail)

> The late Yazyges that stayed for a while in Moldavia
> around 1200 could've left avg or the like to Moldavians, but
> there is no uiaga.

Sorry to tell, but it seems that you didn't understand the general
accepted position here (Abaev etc...)

These are not Ossetic loans of 1200 AC from Ias,i

Hungarians were in contact with (Proto)Ossetians before their
arrival in Pannonia (0-700 BC) this is the general accepted position.

This means about 1000Km faraway to east ...and about 1000 years
before 1200.