The Slavic adjective is actually as in
OCSl. rimIskU (also rumIskU), derived from <rimU>
(<rumU>) 'Rome'. Germanic mediation is assumed here, though the
etymological route is difficult to reconstruct in detail. The words for 'Rome'
and 'Roman' were borrowed into Germanic more than once, and the apparently
oldest loans, represented by Goth. ru:ma 'Rome', ru:mo:neis 'the Romans' seem to
have been taken before the change of long *a: (< *a:, *o:) into *o:, so that
<ro:ma:n-> was adapted as *ru:ma:n-, which then regularly changed into
<ru:mo:n->. OE ro:m ~ ro:ma:na-burh, ro:ma:nisc are independent and more
recent loans, and ModE Rome, Roman have been reshaped once again on the model of
Fr. Rome, Romain (the process was gradual in the case of
<rome>/<room(e)>; the old pronunciation /ru:m/ < OE/ME ro:m
became obsolete about a hundred years ago).
I suspect the Turkish word was influenced
by Arabic ru:m 'Byzantium'.
Romanian român (+ românesc, românca) is a
late, artificially Latinised form, emphasising the Latin etymology of the word.
The regular phonological development of <ro:má:n-> in Romanian was
<rumîn> with the historically normal change of pretonic o > u and
of stressed pre-nasal a > î (the original form of the adjective was
actually <rumînesc> with the borrowed suffix <-esc>, cf. Rus.
rumynskij).
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 10:58 AM
Subject: [tied] cuman , slavic or balcanic?
Hi together
I should have a question :
I am
interested to know how, after all rules of transformations of
the word it
should be normal to transform the word "romanus" in
slavic - or turkish
languages.
I point out the diferences among
:
latin=romanus
romanian=roma:n
slavic=ruma:n
turksh=
ruma:n