Re: Rum. prefix în-

>>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.

Let's see: not; nec; saiá (here indeed: a stressed -a);
aripa (here too); coto$man; datorie+dator; cuviintz& (okay,
let's say here too). (And we won't take Mr Iacomi's
examples as well, shall we? :))

So, the allegation "all these verbs" isn't valid.
But it doesn't matter: your initial idea (objection)
was that... Romanian verbs based on loanwords were
made as "-(u)ire"-conjugation ones, while ancestral
verbs were "-are"-conjugation verbs. In fact, this
is not so, and hence it is of no help for your
speculation în- + trup + -a, -are, -at.

>nope. there is no basta. Hör auf wenn du keine
>Argumente mehr hast.

Nur ruhig Blut! (Sonst werd' ich grantig ;-)

>Es hat doch kein Zweck sich quesr zu stellen
>nur weil man es nicht akzeptieren will.

Sorry, it's you - not me - who's in this position
of a lonesome contender (I for one accept...
gehorsamst :=) what's been concluded and what's
been mainstream).

>Siehe Slavic "sadU" and "a sãdi".

What do you wish to say by mentioning this one?

>Show the contrary.

Look yourself for those myriads of examples
that run against the wanna-be rule.

>>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"

C'mon, you won't tell me that you've never read
Romanian press and never listened to Romanian
so-called word media in the latest, say, 12 years!
(Let alone Romanian Web and Usenet occurrences!)

"A clica" is overwhelming in frequency if we compare
it with the variant "a clicui." (-are vs. -(u)ire)
And both clicá and clicuí are definitely kinda
last rage neologisms in Rumanian, you're not going
to deny it, are you?

>All these prefixes come from an earlier /an / which
>became /en/ as Germanic, Latin Greek and stuff.

Even if it were as you describe it, why should we
reject the next relation, Lat. in-? Is an- closer
to Rum. în-? And what kind of prefix is that? Ancient
Greek? If so, on which grounds should I assume that
it is the ancestor for Rum. în- and not Lat. in-?

>I hope you are not going to say there is no /an/
> /ân/ in Ro. Lang :-)

Dontcha divagate here, meen Leewer! ;)

George