m_iacomi@... wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex_lycos" wrote:
>
>>>> If one assume "cununã" is from Latin "corona" with the rule
>>>> -VrVn > VnVn, is not enough
>>>
>>> That's your problem. Both assimilation and dissimilation are
>>> encountered in Daco-Romanian. That is -VrVn- > -VnVn- for
>>> assimilation and -VnVn- > -VrVn- for dissimilation
>>> Assimilation is early attested in "Psaltirea Scheiana" with
>>> "aninã" instead of "arinã" (< "arena", `sand`), or with
>>> "fãninã" instead of "fãrinã" (< "fari:na(m)" `meal`; modern
>>> word is "fãinã"). Also dissimilation appears in early
>>> Daco-Romanian texts: "amerinTa", "gerunki", etc
>>
>> Do I understand you false?
>
> As usual, see below
>
>> The outgoing point was the question of Richard
>> "Why latin serenus > senin in Romanian. "
>> You explain it trough VrVn :
>> Corona > cununa , serenu > senin
>> But venenum > venin, *anninare > anina ?
>> And gerundial form of "venind"?
>
> Assimilation and dissimilation are not _necessary_ evolutions
> but unlike major phonetical rules they are only _possible_ and
> in some conditions _probable_. How on earth could someone infer
> simultaneously two contradictory non-exception rules as above?!
Because you are maybe seeing them wrongly. The words as "amerinta", and
"gerunki", and " rarunki" are just rothacised forms of intervocalic "n"
("ameninta" , "genunki", " ranunki".) They all are because of the
rhotacisation of intervocalic "n" to "r" in a certain area in rom. The
attested forms are more recent as the Letter of NeacSu , letter which is
wrote in a non-rhotacising dialect.( I hate the word "dialect" here. In
Dacoromanian are not properly dialects, just regional forms).
If we accept as valid your supposition we will have as follow:
*amminaciarae > *aminanciare > amerinTare > ameninTa
genunculus > gerunchi > genunchi
renunculus > rarunchi > ranunchi
1)Accepting ( for the sake of the demonstration) these words are from
Latin, we see easily that the _initial_ forms have had "VnVn" ( the
Latin words) and the _actual_ forms (Romanian words) have too "VnVn".
The form with "r" like in "amerinta, gerunki, rarunki," are just the
rothacised forms attested for a region.
In fact, trough this example we see that previous of the supposed change
it _must_ have been an another change, the opposite one, like VnVn >
VrVn. (Latin VnVn for intermediate form VrVn)
A such game as VnVn > VrVn (genunculus > gerunki) and a bit later the
VrVn > VnVn ( gerunki > genunki) seems just a wishful thinking and
mostly, improbable. I guess how I said before , they are simply
rhotacised forms and nothing more.
Against my argumentation you will bring maybe the words "anina" and "
fanina". The only one references I know about these words are in Rosetti
where he gives us the information about the word "anina" which appears
in Psaltirea Scheiana( only once ? from his text it seems the word
"anina" appears only once) parallel with the usual form "arina".
For this case I ask if there is not a simply error there and nothing
else since the word today is " arina" too.
About "fanina" , Rosetti gives as reference his own book and he mentions
just "Suceava 1600". What is then this "fanina"? Is this a toponym? Is a
name? For this one word I need more information since the little Rosetti
gives is not sufficient for make any commentary on it.
I do not have his book for searching by myself. ( Lettres roumaines de
la fin du XVI-e et du début du XVII-e siècle, tirées des archives de
Bistritza (Transylvanie) publiées par A. Rosetti, Bucuresti 1926)
2) the Latin sere:nus should have had the following transformations:
sere:nus > sErenu . From this form there are possible 2 ways of
evolution:
a) sErenu > sierinu > Serânu
b) sErenu > serinu > serânu
Conclusion: since Rosetti by himself doesn't speak about an -VrVn> VnVn
as phenomenon , and because the way I showed the problematic seems to
demonstrate the contrary of your assumption , it seems that the
supposed -VrVn > -VnVn is just a thought of Mr. Iacomi for trying to
explain "ad hoc" why Latin "serenus" > " senin" in Rom. Lang.
>
>> The cognate Romanian Word word here should be "fãrâmã"= bit,
>> small piece with its whole family and not the lonely "fãinã"
>
> Why?
Why not?
>> This word seems to be a loan from a language where Latin
>> "a" > "ai" and the only one I know it from Romance this is
>> just Vegliot
>
> The word "fãrâmã" is supposed to come from the substratum by
> decent linguists. I don't see any potential link between this
> word and Latin "fari:na", either in semantics or in phonetics
Are you kidding? How you cannot see the semantic and the phonetic link?
farâma= little particle. But "amount of little particle" is too
"Tãrânã". That does not mean this is cognate with Latin "farina" since
this is an another root there.
Rom. "fãrâmã" has following family :
fãrâmã= little particle, fãrâma= to make litle particles or to destroy ,
fãrâmiTare= crumbling; ragging; fãrâmat= destroyed but fãrâmiTat= made
"meal", made little particles. etc.
They all have the root "fãr-" . This root can be just from an older
"far-" or "fer-" .Take a look please at the Latin word "farina" and you
will see this word is from the same root "fer-".
It should be ( I guess) enough for the semantically and phonetically
link of Rom. word to the Latin word.
That an another Rom. word for "meal" is "mãlai" I discussed some time
ago on this list. And this is from the other root like Germ. "mehl",
english" "meal", latin "molare" all from PIE *(s)mel-
It is worth to mention that mãlai ( maize, corn flour), mãlaieT (
mellow, sapless) means particle _smaller_ as "fârâmã"( for malai) and
for malaieT it feels so as when some small particles are inside of
something when you eat it. ( particularly this word is used for the
taste of the pears (-parã mãlãiata)
Question: Do we know how fine the ancient Latin "meal" was?
>
>> The word fãrâmã ( unknown etym.) with Alb. thërrime should be
>> the cognates of Latin "farina" and the word faina seems to be
>> a new loan into language
>
> Yeah, right. The form "fãrinã" is still in use in northern
> Daco-Romanian, it's by no means "a new loan". I could bet a
> considerable amount of money that you would find something
> to comment about disparition of /r/ in southern Daco-Romanian
> and make a bunch of nonsensical hypotheses as:
Ever thought about fãrinã= fãrâmã ?
>
>> The actually "farin", is a neologism from French "farine"
>
> There is no "farin" in Daco-Romanian.
You have a nice way to express yourself and a handsome still to write.
Tough, your words ( see nonsense, amount of false information & Co)
could harm one as well. I don't think I have to pay back in the same
manner , so I invite you polite to take a look in DEX:
farin: adj. invar. (Despre zahãr sau alte produse alimentare). Care are
aspect de pudrã. Din fr. "farine"= fãinã)
> It could be useful in preventing further trash accumulation to
> state that "fãninã" was attested around a.D. 1600
I explained I don't know in which context and what about. Since I don't
know the text, this one could be a toponym, a name, everything else . I
cannot comment on it without the text, the context where the words is
used.
>>> BTW, in Aromanian one has "curunã" (without assimilation)
>>
>> An do not forget Latin has the word loaned from Greek
>> "korune", already with "u". What about etym. of Greek word?
>
> What about?
>
I just asked what is known about the etymology of the Greek word.
Alex