From: alexmoeller@...
Message: 15389
Date: 2002-09-11
----- Original Message -----
From: "George" <gs001ns@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 12:01 PM
Subject: [tied] Rum. sce/sci > $te/$ti [Re: -ishte, -eshte]
>[Moeller] yeap. And what does mean "stei" in your
>sub-dialectus? How does happen that even for this word, for
>stei in your region you dont use shtei. You should do it
after
>your rule. Don't you?
Not at all: "stei" is /stey/ and basta. And, according to
"the rule", "scl-" > "schi-" and "$chi-". Hence the further
derivation > "$t-". That's why this rule cannot apply to
"stei"
(which is nothing more nor less than a variant of "stean" and
of "stanã"). Whereas $chei (along with the peculiar $tei) is a
toponym. The information contained in this name: "place of
Slavs" (where they once lived; or: settlement founded by
them).
[Moeller] aham.
>[Moeller]hmmmm "s" becam "sh" before "t" just when "t"
>fallowed by e and i.
No! Only when s + ce & s + ci, *and* ce/ci already =
[t$e/t$i],
only then you can get > $t.
[Moeller] wie bitte? What about sceptru, sceptic, discerne,
disciplina, scindare,?Common George, please.
>I cannot find a word now where st
>fallowed by o, u, a got a sht in romanian Do you?
You find something like that too. But seldom (rather
dialectal).
And in loanwords having that $t in the original form.
[Moeller] any example please?
>[Moeller] hmmm.. I try to make a connection. When you say in
>joke using foreign word romanian you will use the romanian
>sufixes
You may choose words from Mandarin and Cantonese, from
Kishuaheli and Araucanese: if you put them in the "-ire" verb,
then you'll automatically add (even not knowing what a "verb"
is)
attach the endings "-esc, -e$ti" et cetera.
[Moeller] you got yourself the answer. It is so because so
"sounds" romanian. And no in another ways. That should be
neough.
So, the correct spelling had been until April 1954:
"trebue(ste),
contribue, constitue" etc., and, since Apr. 1954, it has been
"trebuie(ste), contribuie, constituie" etc. (the latter two
aren't
tipical for adding that -u-, since their one belongs to the
radix,
but be it now - for my ad-hoc examples that'll do :)
[Moeller]it seems normal. there is an "ie" and not an "e". And
"correct" is a bad word here. "Literrary correct" should
sounds this one.
>It shows from these example that a population when "loan"
>words adaptate these loans to its own way to speak.
But its own way is strongly based on patterns that are fixed
in the mind. No chaos there, but rules that one learns as soon
as one learns the mother tongue, without being told: "Look,
this is a substantive, this is the accusative, this is a verb,
this
is the present time, that is the past participle."
[Moeller] yeap. This is why your romanian "latin" is not
latin:-)
>[Moeller] I dont put any dacian words here.
But you're attracted by the idea that Romanian words deemed
as derivations of Latin words actually evolved from the
substrate.
Hence, you're up to re-analyse their etymology seeing how the
other trip might have been, from PIE via Dacian (?), Thracian
(?)
then via Proto-Romanian to Romanian. So, I was asking what
would you (or your author) propose for "greu", if you doubt
the
link to Lat. "grauis"?
George
[Moeller] I am not just atracted. I constate it. And here it
doesnt matter if the language of the substrate was dacian. You
cann call it "lie" that language if you like:-)