Re: Schöffe I

From: Alexandru Moeller
Message: 67420
Date: 2011-04-28

Am 27.04.2011 21:10, schrieb Torsten:
> --- In <>,
> "t0lgsoo1" <guestuser.0x9357@...> wrote:
> >
> > >Are those places in -eşti known earlier under other names in
> > >sources in other languages or are they new settlements?
> >
> > Mostly or always new ones.
> Odd. So you're saying there was a settlement boom in Transylvania in the
> 16th-17th centuries?

here is the problem of missing documents:-)) Just as additional
information, the city of Bucureshti was mentioned on 1459, the city of
Ploieshti has been mentioned on 1503 under the name "Plorescht"
(it seems that this -eshti was not that easy to be caught by the foreign
speakers thus they tried to approximate how it should be written.)
> I know, cunosc, cunoşti, cunoşte, like finisco, finisci, finisce
> Since that inchoative suffix of the i-stem verb with its -sk-/-sty-
> alternation is pan-Romance it probably is not a good idea to call that
> alternation a mark of as specifically Romanian substrate. But it is
> still intriguing that Kuhn's NWBlock/Venetic -st- suffix might have been
> the plural of the adjective -sk- suffix.

so far I know the "-esc" suffix has been considered to be one of
thracian provenience and not of Latin origina. But... we have had a such
discussion about this "-esc" suffix here on cybalist some couples of
years long time ago (2002?) see:

At that time was too George the one who argumentes against it but
meanwhile we know that the "-esc" suffix in Romanian cannot be explained
via Latin.