Re: [tied] Re: "vatër" vs "batran"

tolgs001 wrote:

>> The forms shoed by you with "an" are just regionalisms
>> (btw, why do you not present them as regionalsims?)
>
> Because they aren't mere regionalisms. They are in
> use on the entire (Daco-)Romanian territory. Only
> the standard/official language (influenced by the
> subdialect of *your region*) tends to make almost of
> everything "-ean". That's why. So, one has to put
> up with this and use the -ean suffix in official
> texts even in cases where the non-official version
> is the -an one (BTW: tzaran, not *tzarean.)
>
> So, irrespective of the etymology, modern Romanian
> usage is a (haphazard and whimsical) mixture of
> both suffixes -an & -ean (& -ian if pronounced
> [i-an] or [i-yan]). So, moldovan is 100% correct

That's banane what you say. The "ea" is everywhere and not because of my
region.
You are confounding here in your example two suffixes "an" and "en".
Take a look at the plural form:
Tãran /Tãrani -- > an/ani
Moldovean/Moldoveni ---> ean /eni
For your regional stuff, there will be never a plural "moldovani" , but
a "moldoveni" as it ought to be.

>> Accepting the Latin "-annus" as the root for Rom. "ean"
>> is a immposiblity because there is no Latin a > e.
>
> If that's correct, I'll accept it. Besides, there's
> a related Lat. suffix -enus. (Also relevant in some
> cases.)

Not here. A suffix should show the same function . Look at this for
instance:
"Other nomina used indicated a gens or tribe of non-Latin origin. For
instance, a nomen ending in -acus was usually of Gallic origin. Those
ending in -na and many in -nius were of Etruscan origin. Other nomina
ending in -inius were found in the western provinces. Names ending
in -i(e)dius were of Oscan origin. And those ending in -enus or -ienus
(e.g., Labienus) indicate a tribe which originated in Umbria or Picenum.
"

>
>> The second argument why rom "ean" is not from Latin
>> ( even if has the same function as the latin suffix)
>> is as people showed here, the words which ends in "-ân"
>> as in rumân, stãpân, jupân.
>
> It is, after all, a PIE suffix. But AFAIK -ean is rather
> influenced by some Slavic pattern. Unlike in the case
> of -esc < -isk, -ean has little chance to be deemed as
> a substrate remnant (of course you wish it was ;=).

The problem is , this is not perceped as suffix anymore. There is no way
of suffixation with this "ân". And this is very strange for a suffix as
"-annus" to be not perceped as" suffix anymore from Latin days until
nowadays. It is not preserved in other words since all of them ( hapsân,
stapân, jupân) are given either with unknown etymology. I tried to find
more words which ende in "-ân" for finding any explanation. I found
"plãmân" (lung) but this is given as a loan from Neogreek "plemoni". I
don't know if this is indeed a loan. The another word "bojoc" as another
word for lungs is with unknown etymology too.
Strange enough, there is in Rom. lang the suffix "-an", very productive,
which is not the monoftongued form of "ean". I am not aware of the
etymology of this suffix "-an", femine "-anã". I won't wonder if this is
seen as turkish, slavic or what ever.

>
>> There is no filiation relation between vjetër and vatër.
>> They are from different roots.
>
> So it seems there's no link to batran either.
>
> George

I said there is no filiation relation and that they are from diferent
roots. The roots are tough related to each other.

alex