Re: [tied] Re: -ishte, -eshte

From: alexmoeller@...
Message: 15358
Date: 2002-09-10

----- Original Message -----
From: "George S t a n a" <gs001ns@...>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 2:03 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: -ishte, -eshte

That what he mentions above ("deshtide") is not quite true.
"deschide" /deskide/ is the standard variant. But there are
subdialectal variants "de$chide" /deSkide/ and "dã$chide"
throughout Romania. And esp. in Western Romania (i.e. in the
provinces of Transylvania and Banat) "dã$chide" /d@$k^ide/
/k^/ is even "softer" than the /t/ in... "Putin").

[Moeller] dãschide , I am OK with this. Dãshchide is not known
too me. Even in Moldavia where they use ex extreme "sh" there
is no dãshchide. But I donnot say " no". It could be, I havent

A similar phenomenon in "$chei", the plural of "schiau" or
i.e. the old Romanian word for "Slav(ic)" (< sclau(inus). This
is a toponym, too. A suburb of the city of Bra$ov, $chei.
But its counterpart in Western Romania (about 60-70 km away
from the
Romanian-Hungarian border) is called $tei. Spelled with a "t".
Exactly because the subdialect there, in this or similar
circumstances, does not differentiate between /k/ and /t/, the
sound being a /k^/. The same applies for /g/ and /d/ in

[Moeller] weit. You make a big confusion here. You try to put
"schei"=slav in the form shtei. .
Your assumption is wrong because "shtei" is not an evolution
of "schei" argued with " exactly the subdialect there ..."
There is no evolution from schei.
The word shtei is the word stei.
And "stei" is supposed to be from serbian "stenje"
And stei=Rock or better said fang of rocks.
The semantic and the toponym can be compared by everyone, I

/k/. Whereas in Northern areas, even the... reversal of
/kw > k^/ > /p/ is extremely strong still today: k^ept,
instead of p(i)ept, peatra/piatra < Lat. pectus, petra; and
k^iper instead of piper (pepper), esp. in Moldavia.)
Since these phenomena aren't inherent in Alex's own
Romanian, no wonder he doesn't pay too much attention to them.

[Moeller] well, k^iper is strange to me. I was growing up in a
region where the peasants use usualy chiept for piept, chiceri
for picioare, chiatrã instead of piatra but piper was allways
used as piper .Nevertheless, the use of "chi" instead of "pi"
is a rule even if there are some exceptions like in "pi"per.

>The softening was completed before /kl/ changed to /ki/ (or
>similar). (This is similar to the Italian change <cl> >
>That is why you have Rom. închide < Lat. includere, not
*încide. It
>is also why you have Rom. deschide, not *deshtide.

what about sclipire, clipoci, clipi, clei, clefãi,
clin,cling, clint, clinti, ?
I give some exemples just with "e" and " i" adter cl . With o,
u and a after cl are a lot to find too..

>The only slightly strange thing about it is
>that the simplification seems to have gone /sts/ > /St/.

That's typical in Romanian: sce/sci tends to turn $ce/$ci
and then /Ste, Sti/. The most frequent occurrences in flexion
forms of verbs. e.g. (I+they) "iubesc" (you, s/he) "iube$ti,
iube$te"; "pasc"; "pa$te"; "cresc"; "cre$te" (in all such
"-esc" <-> "-e$ti + - e$te"). Easter = "Pa$te" & "Pa$ti".

[Moeller] your supposition try to say that it was a time in
romanian language where the conjugation was "tu esci", "el
esce".And that make the latinism more harder as you tought it
could be:-)))

[Moeller] what is carzy about is this gramatik stuff. YOu
suppose a genitive in a language compared with acuzative in
another and you have the nominative in another. I agree that
for you as analyst is a easy way to do. But if you think that
a native popualtion will think to take a word from genitive
or acuzative for getting their own nominative, you dream too
much. And all the latinism of romanian is based of such
"reconstructions" and supposed. Even the word "greu"= hard is
suppoesed to come from an hypothetical *grevis. The latin word
was gravis. Out. But because there is "levis" in latin, so
tought someone, it must have been a grevis there.
By the way, the antonim of greu, ushor=easy is suposed to
come too from levis.. well ushor=levis.. nice try...

> >Reichenkron supposed sk got in romanian "sh" but it is

But a "scl-"!...

>One 'substrate' or two? Why both bH > v and bH > p?


[Moeller] no hehe. I will be ashamed to speak aout alternante
of v with b and here to show with the finger b=v ??????
Tough this is not the explanation I will use. I will come with
an example about this transformation
I have a feelinf that the "e" and "i" worked on b>v here but
still not verified on more exemples. Just give me a bit