>negru ( black) > înegri ( to make black, to become dark)
înnegri!
>In fact almost every of such derivation make a verb of
>IV conjugation
This is not true. Here some further examples: în(n)ota (swim),
în(n)eca (drown) [since Apr 1954, the 2nd "n" can be dropped
in these two verbs], înseila/însaila (stitch, or so), înaripa
(provide with wings), încoto$mana (with thick clothes),
îndatora (indebt), încuviintza (consent, endorse) & zillion
cases other than in the fourth conjugation (-i-re).
>should have had the "slavic" trup making a verb like
>"întrupui" but not "intrupa".
There is no "should have read;" it could also have
been "a întrupì, întrupíre," but the final result (that
was vox populi's choice) is "a întrupà, întrupáre"
& basta. :)
>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 assumption is based only on this remark: namely
that there are *indeed* loanwords in Romanian that
make verbs of the 4th conjugation, ending in "-i(re)"
or even "-ui(re)". That's correct. But this hasn't
generated a rule saying that "-(u)i" verbs are new
and/or loanwords, and "-a," "-ea," and "-e" verbs
are old ones and exclusively of Latin extraction at
that. Moreover, look at "clic," imposed by computerese
in Romanian too: I'd tend to make a verb "a clicui"
with the substantivations "clicuire" and "clicuit."
But a majority of users have tended in the last few
years to say/write "a clicá" => "clicáre, clicát".
So, I'm gonna adapt to this one. :-) A 3d possibility
might also occur, if not in our times, then later on
- we never know :) -> "a clichi" + "clichíre,
clichít." So? What we're gonna do? Dismiss them?
>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.
To no avail: it doesn't fit. The issue is not whether
there are "in > ân" cases, but whether the *prefix*
in- [in] gets the Romanian prefix în- [In]. It does --
without exception: în- in all these circumstances
is a prefix having the same function as in- in Latin
and English, en- in French, ein- in German, be- in
Hungarian etc. This is the case in "întrupá, întrupáre,
întrupát" (whereas BTW întruchipa, -re, -t =
prep. întru- + chip + desinences). For the same reason
the Romanian orthography recommends the spelling
în- for the initial particle as well as for the
infix in the case of composed words (so, spellings
such as "subântzeles, neângrijit" have always been
wrong). Only "înger" (angel) could *etymologically*
be seen wrong, but it is still right because the
ortho-rules say all initial [I]'s have to be written
"î" in Romanian. And in the Romanian cyrillic alphabet
this kind of the initial [I] esp. incl. the "în-"
"într'" prefixes used to be spelled - unlike in other
cyrillic alphabetes - with the special font that
looks like an I with a lambda on its head.
George