Re: -ella ( it was Balkan Serpents (was: alb. gji (breast)

In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex_lycos" <altamix@...> wrote:

>> Anyway, there is no need to infer a "*margellatus": the word
>> "mãrgelat" (`with beads`) describes a person which possesses
>> several "mãrgele" (`beads`), so the the correct derivation
>> should be from the plural form, with conservation of /l/.
>
> hehe
> ok
>
> If the roots are margea and stea you will do not derive as
> follow: margelat , stelat, instelat

Yes, one derives like that. The alternance (-ea/-ele) in Latin
words is the obvious source for analogies in Romanian. You may
try for instance to derive the plural form for "peruzeá" or
"ciSmeá", two late (Daco-Romanian) loanwords with no Latin link.
They form an analogical plural in -ele, as the Latin inherited
words ending in "-eá". The /l/ is still alive when deriving: if
one would be to make a diminutive from "ci$meá", it would be by
all means "ciSmeluTã", and definitely not "ciSme(a)uTã".

> The feminine name Stela should be maybe put as an argumentum
> here.

Should not. It's a recent Romanian name of Italian inspiration.

> But let us take a look:
> macellarius has nothing to do with margea since you have in
> romanian "mãcelar"

Well, Miguel has put you on a right track.

> stelutsa = there is no suffix "lutsa" but suffix "utsa"

See above.

> People, it should be enough for a demonstration don't you find?
> Do I have to come with more examples?

No, we all realised that you don't know that derivation is not
always A + -B -> AB, but sometimes goes like A + -B -> A'B 'coz
of language's internal rules.

Marius Iacomi