Re: [tied] Re: PIE *ghe(n)d

tolgs001 wrote:

>> the "wise guys" suppose the word was loaned not directly
>> from Hungarian but via Bulgarian or an another Slavic dialec
>> For the Hungarian "on" becoming an "â" in Rom. there is no
>> other example as this "gond".
>
> Then how about Hung. <bolond> ['bolond] "crazy"> Rum. <bolând>
> [bo'lInd] "crazy"?

This is a slavic word but not a Hungarian one. Slavic "boli" is the
ultimatley the one wherefrom it was loaned. I think that for the
hungarian "bolond" it is exact the expected form from românian "bolând"
since Hungarian rendered the /ã/ and /â/ in /o/ too.

> And how about this one, which is much
> stronger than that? Hung. bot "stick, club", Rum. bâtã
> (meaning the same), and which in Western Romanian subdialectal
> pockets is still "botã", not yet "bâtã". (Put them all in
> contrast with Rum. bãtz, that has almost all connotations
> of these, but perhaps a different etymology.)

From "bâtã" which is a derivative of PIE *bat like a lot of other in
Rom. ( bâtã, bãT, bãtaie, bãtãtor, bãtãtori, etc) we have the saem loan
where /ã/ ( inexistent in Hungarian was rendered as /o/. The form "bota"
is to explain as reloaning from hungarian rendered form ( there is
nothing unusual in re-loaning).

>
> To sum up: gond-gând, bolond-bolând, bot-bâtã - the latter
> two even having Romanian intermediaries pretty much in use
> in many western counties with [u] and [o]: bolund, botã
> This suggest a NW->SE movement

no.

>
>> For romanian /ã/ & /â/ becoming /o/ in Hungarian there are
>> several examples.
>
> You certainly intended to put it vice versa: [o] > [ã] > [â]

no. Hungarian has a lot of Rom. Loans. there is a lot of works out there
which show us this .

>
>> The absence in aromanian is weakening the hypothesis
>> this is an inherited word in Rom.
>
> Heureka! :)
>
>> but the presence in Albanian would confirm the
>> word is inherited.
>
> But if in Albanian it's the mere (primeval?) meaning
> "to grab," then I'd assume that, both in Romanian and in
> Hungarian, this word is a loanie, since it only has the
> extended, figurative meaning - namely the "comprehendere,"
> but not the simple "prehendere" (or - to put it in
> Romanian - only "cuprinde," but not "prinde" as well.)

I am afraid I don't understand what you want to say here.

>> Since you speak Hungarian and Rom. can you remember
>> of Hungarian words which have an /o/ within the word
>> and it is rendered as /a/ in Rom.?
>
> I'm skeptical there is something like that

Me too. But viceversa is perfectly true.

>
> I'd rather think of [o]<->[u]<->[I]. In Hungarian
> itself, dialectally, there has been [o]<->[u] and
> [ö]<->[ü], which has influenced Romanians esp. in
> Transylvania in loanwords. (Note my tenses: I use
> here the Present Perfect on purpose, meaning the
> phenomenon is valid today: in some local Hungarian
> areas of Transylvania peasants would say <lú>
> [lu:], while the rest & standard Hung.-speakers
> will say <ló> [lo:] "horse". The o<>u phenomenon
> is, IMHO, reflected even in Rum. Cluj - Hung.
> Kolozsvár ['koloZva:r] (Ger. Klausenburg), a former
> capital of Transylvania. And in Hung. Korond, Rum
> Corund - the name of a town famous for pottery
> But note the name of a Romanian country music
> singer (she was popular in the 50s-60s, "M'am
> suit in dealu Clujului") Ana Pop-Corondan: although
> Corund in Romanian, the name is closer to the
> Hung. form. So, the o-u-o-u variations tend to be
> a solution for several puzzling situations, I sup-
> pose. :-)
>
>> Alex
>
> George

It is not. The /un/ > /în/ in Rom it simpy did not happen recentely but
at a very fara away time see Latin sunt, rom "sânt". Certainly not in
the time of the first contacts with Hungarians and more sure, not later.