Re: [tied] Androphobia [...]

m_iacomi wrote:

> In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:
>
>>> The "problem" is that being a composed word (with Romanian prefix
>>> "în-") it cannot be linked in this new form with the Ancient Greek
>>> word already exhibiting "an" at the beginning.
>>
>> there is no problem. At least not so as you imagine yourself there
>> should be one.
>
> If any imagination plays some role in the above, it's yours not
> mine. I am using simple reasoning. Romanian word "întrupa" derives
> from Romanian loan word "trup" which is by all means from a Slavic
> word having the same meaning. Consequently, the word "întrupa" is
> a newer formation, ulterior at least to the first Slavic loans in
> (Proto-) Romanian. These cannot be prior to Slavs' arrival in the
> Balkans. The Ancient Greek word is attested at least one thousand
> years before that historical moment. Therefore, it cannot derive
> from Romanian "întrupa". Conversely, being a late formation in the
> language, Romanian word does not derive from Greek nor from any
> other substrate language.

I have strongly hoped you could spring over your shadow and will analyse
a bit deeper. Unfortunately, you could not do it or you did not wanted
it. Let us take the examples of the sufix "in" + something which will
give you the verb in Rom:
negru ( black) > înegri ( to make black, to become dark)
aspru ( raw) > inãspri ( to make raw)
chip ( face) > închipui ( to imagine)

In fact almost every of such derivation make a verb of IV conjugation
which ends in "i" but not in "a". The best example here is the word
"chip" which ends to in "p" as "trup", but the verb is ""închipui" but
not "inchipuia". Since a rule is a rule , in the same manner we should
have had the "slavic" trup making a verb like "întrupui" but not
"intrupa".
This is the point which should be seen as wrong in my way to see the
things. If you will explain why there is a stem with "a" like in
*traupas and not a stem in "u" like in "trupU". For me this is the
strongest argument and this "a" there says this is an old one like a
mânca, a întrema, îndrepta etc.
Your logic is as follow:
the word is a Slavic loan > then it cannot be too old > then it is a
late formation.

All based on the fact the word is a slavic loan. Actualy for slavic
"corps" as the meaning in polish is today we have indeed the Slavic
"starvU" which means simply corpse ( BTW I guess this is cognate with
the Rom. verb " a stârpi").

>>> First take a look in your DEX. "în-" is a productive prefix in
>>> Romanian (continuing Latin prefix "in-")
>>
>> there is not only your Latin story with /in/ > /ân/
>
> I didn't suggest you to look in the DEX to find "my story" (which
> is in fact "the story"), but to read what is written at the end of
> the entry: "în + trup". Other phrases were meant as explanation
> for this little text.

with my intervention here from the previous mail:
"there is not only your Latin story with /in/ > /ân/" , I just wanted to
remember you there _is_ an "ân" from "an" in Rom. Lang.