Re: [tied] Re: Miguel & dentis

On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 21:35:31 +0200, alexmoeller@... wrote:

>> I am puzzled by Miguel's hint that 'tz' is Slavonic '-its-'.
>Has
>> this suffix been productive in Romanian? A Slavonic
>ze,bitsU (or
>> something similar - I am no Slavicist) seems to be being
>proposed as
>> a source, but did Slavonic actually use the e-grade or zero
>grade of
>> the root? Am I overlooking something else?
>>
>> Richard.
>
>[moeller] i dont find the "m" of Miguel . And tehre are many
>sufixes which have been copnsidered to be slavic. Remember my
>post with "ava"?
>the one is not a slavic sufix. And "tz" is productive in
>romanian. But of course, hjust in the speech of the normal
>folk. Not of the intelectuals. Which as normal folk , I will
>say an onomatopoe now in romanian " ete, scârtz"= I dont care.
>where "ete"= iatã= look here.

In linguistics, a "productive" suffix (e.g. a productive diminutive suffix) is a
suffix which continues to be used in the formation of new composite words. If
you take a reecent word (e.g. televizor), and add -tz to it (*televizortz), the
result is not an acceptable Romanian word. Therefore, -tz is *not* a productive
suffix in Romanian. The productive dimunitive suffix for feminine nouns is, I
believe, -itza (another Slavic borrowing), but I'm not sure what it is for
masculine nouns...

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...