Re: /�vaeg/ > /u-'ya-g&/

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tolgs001" <george_st@...> wrote:

>
> >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.

Of course, is 'the first hypothesis'...:)

> 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.

I answer in another mail: the Hungarian -- Iranians contacts are
placed in Asia long before the Hungarians arrival in Pannonia.
This is today a largely accepted position

The Hungarian <-> Yazyges contacts in Ias,i is your personal
scenario : I could ask you what are the attested Yazyges loans in
Hungarian? But there is no need.

> Romanian didn't receive the word directly. If we assume that
> it did, then for what reason avg > u-ia-ga?

You mixed the plans here...ujaga is not from avg (of course) is
from 'uy&' 'water'

>> 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.

What you will do with 'noian' 'imense waters' that is from /uj&/ and
not from Romanian 'apa'...

You will remove it from DEX?

> > So no need to write long suppositions about a suffix -eg
> >etc...because is not the case...
>
> Of course it is the case.

If the original Ossetic word was avg ===> for sure is not the case
to talk about a Hungarian suffix here

> 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).

Because is a pure phonetic 'internal need' of Hungarian

Romanian Cris, > Hungarian K_ö_rösz
Romanian Cres,tin > Hungarian K_e_reszteny
Romanian Cluj > Hungarian K_o_lozs(var)

As a>e is another one too in soem contexts

>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").

I'm sure that "it sounds highly Hungarian today"
Romanian ran& sounds today as Romanian too, of course :)
But we are talking about the etymology here
Seems that you have a regret that we have an Indo-European loan
here...

> >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,

?u-ya:-gO -> not at all => What are the Hungarian loans that you have
in mind, showing uya > uya: ?


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

So you hope from all your soul to have a 'recent loan' here....
that "popped up" suddenly ?

Where? In the Oash Popular Song that I quoted yesterday?

As a first trial, try to count how many words are non-Latin ones
or non-Subtratual ones in that song from the total ....:)
Next try to count how many Hungarians loans we have in that
song...:)

Marius