Re: [tied] Re: Rum. sce/sci > $te/$ti

From: alexmoeller@...
Message: 15418
Date: 2002-09-12

----- Original Message -----
From: "George" <gs001ns@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 12:40 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Rum. sce/sci > $te/$ti

>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.

These all are n e o l o g i s m s!

>[Moeller] any example please?

$tofã (for stofã), $tachetã (the variant stachetã is also
standard Romanian), $tafetã, $tampilã (stampilã is old-
fashioned, out of use), $tantzare, $tangã, $tand (variant of
stand, still in use), $teamp (in mining) etc.

ah! they are neologisms too:-)))))))))))))))))))))))
the olds remained "st" stâna,stâncã, stãncutza, staroste ,
stãpân,ustura,custura( no, it doesnt has nothing to do ustura=
custura) stup, brusture , ostoi, rostogoli,

Yet significant for what's significant for the old language
evolved as a neo-Romance one (which you deny) are words
like these: "a $terge, $tergere, $ters" (to wipe; delete)
< Lat extergere. And "a $ti, $tire, $tiut" < Lat. scire. The
former illustrates the fact that an ex- becoming s- in
very well could have turned $ in connection with consonants
such as t.

so from lat ex>s, then st >sht because extergere>shterge .I
said that st >sht when "t" fallowed by "e" or "i"
you said that :
No! Only when s + ce & s + ci, *and* ce/ci already =
> [t$e/t$i],
> only then you can get > $t.
The latin example with extergere doesnt work in your rule, but
in my.
The second example romanian "$ti"= to know >lat. scire. How
"r" gone or how r>t ?

But in many other cases, you see (in your DEX) that $t- words
are loanwords also starting with $t-.

in DEX , old words which begin with "$t" are a few. From latin
just $terge, $ti.I really wondwered as I seen just these
two.Check please your dictionary, there are only these two..
I exclude now the loasn from german ( which are a lot and are
all new words) but I take substratum:
$teazã, $terpeli, $stir, $tirb, $tevie
They are too not so many.

>[Moeller]it seems normal. there is an "ie" and not an "e".

It isn't. It is a mere concession. To those who diphtongate.
(Don't you understand that this "i" was officially accepted to
be written there only in 1954? Go to a library and read a few
pages of books & newspapers printed prior to April 1954.)

I do not care about your "officialy". What has "official" or
"literare" to look here for?
I speak about rom. language hjow this is and not the
"official" aspect of it.

In Northern subdialects even such words as "fierbe/re,
fier" there is no /ye/, but "ferbe/re, fertura, fer" (boil +
It is your subdialectal area that diphtongates even "ochi" >
that inspired the grammar officials to impose "mâine, pâine,
câine & mâini (plural of mâna (hand)) " in the dictionaries
1954, although 3/4 of the populace has never diphtongate them.

[Moeller] there is no "oichi". But there are " mâine, pâine,
câine, "

I don't doubt the Romanceness of my Romanian. As for your
Romanian, I don't care. :)

[Moeller] all my respect about yours.

>[Moeller] I am not just atracted. I constate it.

Okay, then go ahead, carry on: what lexical element prompted
you to conclude that "greu" has nothing to do with "gravis"
with a substrate word? I only was curious to see how that word
looked like.

[Meller] I am not a guru.I just observe now. Upss, pardon
"guru" does tell you something?