>What you will do with 'noian' 'imense waters' that is from >/uj&/ and
not from Romanian 'apa'...
>You will remove it from DEX?
Whaddaheck are you insisting on this crap? It has nothing
to do with uveg and uiaga. Neither in Hungarian uveg, nor
in Romanian uiaga is there any semantic link to the notion
"water" whatsoever. If the Iranic word once had the meaning
"water-like", that meaning is lost in Hungarian and in
(As well as, by the way, the meaning of "vast waters (lakes and seas)"
in the Romanian word noian. This meaning is not the everyday's meaning
in Romanian in those subdialectal areas where it is used. But even so:
noian isn't an everyday's
word today. It is used rather by... prosa professionals
(journalists, writers, playwrights etc.) It is chiefly and
simply used as a synonym for "a great deal of", "great
quantity", "multitude". Most of native-speakers aren't even
aware of the additional meanings. It is a word that we can
put on a list of words that will disappear soon.)
>If the original Ossetic word was avg ===> for sure is
>not the case to talk about a Hungarian suffix here
You didn't understand what I was explaining to you. I bet
all the other subscribers to cybalist did. I clearly wrote
-eg is PERCEIVED as if it were a suffix by Hungarians now.
And I bet 100-200-300-400 years ago, too. Because, otherwise,
-eg means nothing, and üv- means nothing too, in *Magyar*.
And between v and g must have been a vowel, since avg is
non-utterable word by the Hungarian tongue.
> Because is a pure phonetic 'internal need' of Hungarian
> Romanian Cris, > Hungarian K_ö_rösz
Körös, without z (it is not Polish!).
> Romanian Cres,tin > Hungarian K_e_reszteny
> Romanian Cluj > Hungarian K_o_lozs(var)
This is a good attempt, but in vain: in avg the cluster is
... final, not initial. Your examples are correct, but they
show the problem of the initial consonant clusters. Hungarian
is, on the other hand, very "tolerant" of final clusters. It
only happens that the ending vg is a no go.
Besides: your examples above show the proto-chronist point
of view you learnt in non-scientific newspapers and books.
No Romanian scholar (commie or not) would ever maintain
that Hungarians heard of Cris from Romanians (although this
one could be, yeah, could be plausible!), let alone the
word Christian: kereszteny doesn't fit cre$tin phonetically
(Hungarian had conversion relationship with Constantinople
and Rome, not with the politically and in religious matters
anonymous Romanians). And finally, Cluj seems to stem from
some medieval Latin-German clausa > Klause (its German name
is Clausenburg, and the city was built by Germans), or the
name might be Slavic, kluz^. A third hypothesis is the
name Nicholas, in the variant of Miklus^, which is a Slavic
one (that was adopted by Hungarians too: Miklo:S).
> I'm sure that "it sounds highly Hungarian today"
> Romanian ran& sounds today as Romanian too, of course :)
Your awkward bits of sarcasm are ill-placed. If you only knew...
>But we are talking about the etymology here
Oh, really? I thought we were talking about Gucci shoes,
home-runs and slam-dunks.
>Seems that you have a regret that we have an Indo-European
You gotta be kiddin'. Quite the contrary, I'm amused seeing
that you start realize that them Hungarian "bozgors" are in
fact to a great extent... Scythians-Alans, brethren or at
least cousins to the Dacians (who earlier had assimilated
a "noian" of Agathyrsos Scythians). Go figure.
>?u-ya:-gO -> not at all => What are the Hungarian loans that
>you have in mind, showing uya > uya: ?
Don't you understand? I gave you a couple of Hungarian
words with the same phonetic, so that you realize that,
by presumable adopting of Rum. Uiaga, it is impossible
for the Hungarians to make of it uveg.
>So you hope from all your soul to have a 'recent loan'
>here.... that "popped up" suddenly ?
>Next try to count how many Hungarians loans we have in that
You clueless poor fella...