Re: [tied] Re: cardinal points

----- Original Message -----
From: "tolgs001" <gs001ns@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 11:30 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: cardinal points


altamix wrote:

>The two examples I gave are not from mhd, from their form
>should be to recognize I guess that they are gothic words.

But who claims that the Romanian verbs "înnoi" and
"înhaita" are adapted Gothic words? And on what is
based this interpretation?

On their semantic meaning and their phonetic aspect. As linguist , for
the phoneti aspect it should be no trouble, for the semantic aspect, if
one doesn't know what it means , one has to ask.
ana-nojan= to renew, rom. "innoi"= to renew; DEX gives it as a compund
of in+nou leting the "i" remain somewhere in the sapce. Theactual
germanic form is too with "i", "new"= neu ( noi)

>I guess it is absolut clear we cannot speak here about
>any "deutsch" but about "germanic". When I use germanic
>I understand begining with the Goths and ending with
>the Gepidae

It wasn't clear at all (let alone "absolutely" clear)
Since, after those 2-3 lines containing no explanation, you
added many more lines referring to later circumstances:
Vlach communities in South Slavic environments; you
referred to Johann Filstich's work on Vlach's history
as well as to info by Sextil Puscariu pertaining to
Vlach rural life in the... eighteenth century. But no
hint as to why Rum. prep. "în" (in) + adj. plur. "noi"
(new) should have had a Gothic model in order to create
the verb "înnoí, înnoíre"

It is hard to accept a derivation from a special form of the adjective.
I mean here not the adjective "nou" (new) but a special case of it but I
don't exclude it entirely.
Indoi is too a verb (to bend, to doubt)which seems to appera as compound
of in+doi, but this doesn't make sense ( in+two since "doi"= two, where
"doi"= form for masculine of "two").And DEX has no trouble ofexplaing
"to bend"= in+two.
Of course we have to see here the Latin word "dubio" with the same seman
tic sense as Rom. word.(indoiala) see the Dacian sufix "-ala". But the
phonetic changes doesn't allow it deriving it from Latin thous, this is
seen as in+two.
The Latin "dubio"=is a derivative of IE *dui.
There are several words where I see the habbit of Latin of introducing
an "w" for making derivatives ( see for instance Mars > Mavors) and this
is too a very interesting question to me, if Latin have had indeed the
habbit of introducing an "v" for conjugation and make some derivativeas.

So, one can easily be misled - esp. upon reading this:
<<Or regardign the North of Danube, specially in Transilvania,
do you have any information of "late" way of life of valahians
with the germanics , hungarian in Transylvania?>>

Those "germanics" in the context of Vlachs and Hungarians
were... Deutsche, and not Goths and Gepids (who had lived
there thousand years before)

schoenes Wochenende,
George

I mentioned Filstich and the "late" valachians in Transylvania since
Filstich spoked about the valachians of that time. If you recall , I
guess Mi$u told us about the interdiction from the germanic & hungarian
people to let the valahians to live in their towns.I did not verified
it, maybe you did. One shouldn't wonder if there are not linguisticaly
loans, but one should wonder why/how they ( germans & hungarians)
learned romanian if there was not a pretty good conntact.