>for a scientific demonstration I agree this is simply
>nothing and indeed an Armutszeugnis. But these expresions
>exist and they are comming from somewhere.
Undoubtedly. But *research* & *analysis* means applying
some scientific criteria, and not some freedom to create
fiction prose to be put under the caption "science."
Unfortunately, those who've stirred up your curiosity
in this field have (and deliberately they have!) practised
fictitious literature. Moreover, this was embedded after
1960, esp. 1966, in the policy of the Romanian Communist
Party, with the clear-cut purpose: strategy to construct
legitimacy in the eyes of the up to then reluctant
Romanian people. It was a stratagem that made use of
prior waves of Dacianisms (e.g. of the 20s and 30s).
If one doesn't realize this *synchronic* background
one doesn't realize anything.
>This is what I mean with the direct link because I simply
>don't see who could give these names and stories until
>nowaday.
That's okay. But it isn't okay to say "these are Dacian"
or "Thracian" without verifying everything that's
verifyible between the Atlantic and the Urals (at least :-).
So we can't stamp this and that as Dacian/Thracian out of
a mere whim or of a wishful thinking. What if some
folklore thing is of Turkic, the other of South-Italian
and the other of Baltic origin? How do you know - so
long as you don't have any written hints from ancient,
pre-historic times? (Go to South Germany, Switzerland,
Austria and Northern Italy: you'll be amazed to discover
how many seemingly pagan, barely Christianized, customs
there are there, linked to winter, spring, summer and
fall seasons, that are similar to what you know in
the Carpathians in Romania and adjacent countries.
Knowing the Alpine as well as the Caucasus worlds open
further horizons as far as the Balkan and Carpathian
regions are concerned.)
>The habbit of calling the people after animals
>(Lupu, Ursu, Cerbul, Corbu) is this a Latin habbit too?
Of course. Moreover, what on earth can be seen as
closer to Latin than Lupu, Ursu, Corbu, Cerbu, Vulpe?
>It would be nice if you translate it for understanding.
(1) "Schuster, bleib bei deinen Leisten!"
(2)
http://tinyurl.com/bhts
>Since this is not Latin and not Slavic
>and not Greek maybe you find out if this
>is a avaric, cumanic, hungarian or what ever:-))
So, in other words: if you've already examined
the relevant languages and you haven't found anything,
then you automatically conclude 'it must be Thracian'?
What if those dative construction are Romanian
ones?
>Actually I don't know on which you are counting when
>you say that it fits better the pronounciation.
We already discussed this a few weeks ago. Even in
the non-palatalized pronunciation (which is *your*
pronunciation, i.e. the prounciation of your region),
in reality, there is no "i" or "e", but some sort of
semivowel "i". Or, one could say after [k], there is
some sort of [ya] which is not clear-cut, so that
one is not sure whether it isn't actually [ea].
But be assured that beyond the isoglosses of the
subdialect of your region, in considerable Romanian
subdialect regions, the [k] is palatalized to such
an extent, that there's no need to speculate on
what kinda semivowel pops up after it.
Unfortunately, the Romanian alphabet does not have
a special font in order to describe the narrow
transcription phenomenon: the palatalized "chiama"
would be perfectly rendered in... Hungarian: "tyama".
For the same reason, Aromanians try to render their
pronunciation with "c'l" or "cll" (bearing in mind
Italian and Spanish models). But in reality, although
archaic in comparison with our pronunciation, theirs
is quite close to the palatalized one in Banat,
Transylvania, Moldavia and Oltenia+Muntenia where it
is so (esp. in areas close to Transylvania and Banat).
>The derivatives are with "ke": chem, chemi, chemare,
>chemãtor
That's right: here, there ain't no doubt about the
[e] in these forms -- everywhere in the area of the
"Daco-Rumanian" dialect. Only that in the vast areas
where [k] is "softened" by palatalization you'll tend
to hear this as a... [kj], being prompted to render
it as "chiem, chiemi, chiemare, chiemator". To you,
the palatalized k is something exotic, to me, it is
the most normal thing in the world. :-)
>You ought to remember that /e/ > /ea/
You have to always think of the circumstance that
your subdialectal region is *in this respect*
handicapped: you don't have the palatalized [k].
This is why the transformation Lat. cl- > Romance k^
seems to you as impossible. But go to Cluj, Alba
Iulia, Deva, Nasaud, Baia Mare, Sighet, Oradea Arad,
even to Vama Veche, Vatra Dornei, Suceava, Bacau etc.
and you'll hear with your own ears the North-Danube
variations of the [k^] in words such as chiama,
chiatra (piatra), chept (piept), k^***da etc.
The variation thereof is in some regions closer
to the Hungarian and Slovak counterpart, in others
closer to the Russian counterpart (I don't know
how the Ukrainian one sounds).
>when fallowed by /ã/
f*o*llowed
>chem > cheamã. There is no /i/ there.
Of course, there is no real [i] (you should've
written [j], a semi-vowel, not the [i] proper.
It is exactly because of the diphtong that has
to follow the ominous [k]: even you, influenced
by your regional phonologic idiosyncrasies, are
not able to pronounce a clear-cut [e] after that
[k] in "cheama/chiama". If you manage to do that,
then it won't be a normal speech, but that of
an outlandish cyborg, sort of a Schwarzenegger
starring in Terminator. $i sî fa$i, bre, aiasta
iesti $î nu alta. :-)
George