Re: [tied] Androphobia [...]

In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:

>> 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. [...] Conversely, being a late
>> formation in the language, Romanian word does not derive from
>> Greek nor from any other substrate language.
> [...]
> In fact almost every of such derivation make a verb of IV
> conjugation which ends in "i" but not in "a".

... see "înfumura", "întrista", "înveSmânta", "înseta", "îndopa",
"învia", "înjgheba", "înfiripa", "îndestula", "înaripa", etc.

> The best example here is the word "chip" which ends to in "p" as
> "trup", but the verb is ""închipui" but not "inchipuia".

This is a good example showing your lack of feeling for your
own language. The correct I-st conjugation verb would have been
"*închipa"; "închipuia" is the actual form for "închipui" at the
3rd person, imperfect tense.

> Since a rule is a rule ,

There is no "rule" here except native speakers' feeling and
habitude. It happened the verb sounded better with final "-a"
than with final "-ui" for Romanian speakers (probably some
articulatory easiness played a non-vanishing role here), they
have chosen naturally "întrupa" instead of your construction.

> This is the point which should be seen as wrong in my way to see
> the things.

The way you see the things is wrong. You create "rules" which
do not exist.

> All based on the fact the word is a slavic loan.

According to science, it _is_ a Slavic loan. One cannot seriously
claim that a well-attested Panslavic word should be considered a
Balkan-born creation. Specially when it exists also in Old Prussian
(cf. Derksen: "trupis" `log`).
And the reasoning is not based only on that. The prefix "în-" is
by all means deriving from Latin. Both elements needed to construct
the verb "întrupa" are not from substrate -> the verb couldn't have
been existed in any substrate language. Consequently, the link you
made with a Greek word meaning `human being` is fallacious.

> 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").

So?

> 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.

Of no importance here since we deal with the semantism and the
initial position of Latin "in-".

Marius Iacomi