Re: [tied] Rum. prefix în- [Re: Androphobia]

tolgs001 wrote:

>> 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).

So hard to see ? alll these verbs are derving from nounds which have
already an "a" at the end.

>
>> 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. :)

nope. there is no basta. Hör auf wenn du keine Argumente mehr hast. Es
hat doch kein Zweck sich quesr zu stellen nur weil man es nicht
akzeptieren will. Siehe Slavic "sadU" and "a sãdi".

>
>> 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.

Show the contrary.

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".

Nope. there is no "a clica" , it will look too strong like "clicã"

>> 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.

All these prefixes come from an earlier /an / which became /en/ as
Germanic, Latin Greek and stuff.
I hope you are not going to say there is no /an/ > /ân/ in Ro. Lang:-)