[tied] Re: PIE rdical for "thorn"?

From: richardwordingham
Message: 14186
Date: 2002-08-01

--- In cybalist@..., alexmoeller@... wrote:
>
> -----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: "richardwordingham" <richard.wordingham@...>
> An: <cybalist@...>
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. August 2002 11:24
> Betreff: [tied] Re: PIE rdical for "thorn"?
> > Could the Romanian word be a Bulgarian loanword? It almost fits
the
> > examples given in
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/14180 .
> >
> > Regards,
> > Richard Wordingham
> >
>
> [Moeller]
> the rumanian word cannot be a bulgarian loanword because of the
> fonological aspect. The whole theory of the slavic influences in
Balcans
> it seems to be very weak. The rumanians should have took the word
> "trunu" from bulgarian with no transformation because the fonology
of
> rumanian has no restriction about this. But in paleoslav we have g
e n e
> r a l y the methathesis of the liquids "r" and "l" . (See the
exemplaes
> of bulg. blato rom balta:, alb. balte:, bulg. dlato rom. dalta:,
alb.
> dalte:)
> In the rumanian we have a lot of toponims like tarnava on the whole
> country . The linguists forget that the toponim Trnovo in Bulgaria
was
> in fact the capital of Asan dinasty, and they were valachs not
slavs or
> bulgarians.
> The explanation is strongly confirmed by the fact that albanians and
> rumanins have the same pattern in the word but the slavs have the
> difference, which is normal, due the characteristic of the
paleoslav for
> methathesing these liquids.

What was the Old [Church] Slavonic (OCS) form for 'Trnovo'? OCS
didn't have (at least in writing) syllabic liquids. The 'rU'
in 'trUnU' derives from the syllabic literal in PIE tr.nu-.

Regards,
Richard.