Re: [tied] Androphobia [...]

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>>> 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.
>
> You are making a misch masch of examples where you have verbs
> made by an/in

There is _no_ "an", just "în-" as composition element.

> and nouns which have by default the "a" as stem:

?

> aripa,

Nope. See DEX. "înaripa" means `to get wings` not `to get wing`
so the right formation is from "în-" + "aripi" as you can see by
your own eyes.

> firipa,

Wow. What does mean the noun "firipa" in Romanian? The word
"înfiripa" (also "înciripa") is to be connected with Slavic
"Cerep".

> destul(a),

"destul" is an adverb (also adjective in some contexts). There is
no noun "destula". There is no reason to derive the verb from the
feminine form of the adjective since it's obviously related to the
adverbial function (ok, it's obvious for persons who know grammar).

> jgheab(ã),

You're inventive. In the bad sense. There is no "jgheabã" in
Romanian. The noun is masculine, from Slavic "ZlebU".

> sete,

That's the funniest of all. Where do you see an "a" in this word?

> trist(a)

Again, there is no reason to link the verb with the feminine form
of the adjective (which is not basic).

> Search some more... you will find.

Being blind is a lame excuse. None of the verbs I quoted has "a"
in the stem (and, as usual, you conveniently forgot those verbs
for which you couldn't invent the supposed "a").

>>> 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.
>
> ach, ok, there is no rule. Probably this, proable that, probable
> anything else.

No. Some linguistic phenomena are subjected to clear rules. Some
others don't. In this case there is no rule. Linguist's task is to
individuate rules within their applicability domain. Here you have
a bunch of facts ruling out your hypothesis.

>>> All based on the fact the word is a slavic loan.
>>
>> According to science, it _is_ a Slavic loan.
>
> Acording to what? You make me laugh ...

To (linguistic) science. It's obviously a domain for which your
training is far from being at least basically operational.

>> 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`).
>
> A well attested pan slavic word can be a loan too. A panslavic
> word is "brânza" too actually.

Again you are conveniently forgetting Baltic words (presented
here more extendedly by Piotr, I spoke only about Old Prussian)
and the fact that "trupU" is already attested in OCS. OTOH, the
word you have mentioned is _not_ Panslavic.

>> 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.
>
> Ach was! What make you so sure about? Beside bla bla, it could not,
> it is not possible, it is so so, which are your arguemnts?

For example, I use my brain before writing down a reasoning. That
really helps. It's useful also for understanding it.

Cheers,
Marius Iacomi