>I was carefully by typing. In my dictionary there is Latin
>"incuncare". Should be a mistake there?
Then, it's a typo.
>We discussed about this "'n/în" which is very suspicios.
It's suspicious only to you (because you're "unbeleckt,"
as Germans say).
>Since almost everything points to en > în and not in> în
Why on earth are you so schwer von KP? The sound we write
î and â, along with the sound we write a~ (the schwa),
are mere... Romanian Umlaute, nothing else. Why so? After
all because of the principle of "Sprachökonomie" (vulgo:
laziness). In various circumstances, for the Romanian
native speaker it has been more comfortable to pronounce
[&] or [I], instead of [a, e, i, o, u]. That's why.
So, regardless how the ancient prefix was [an, en, in, on,
un], the Romanian one has become [&n], and then esp. in
the so-called Daco-Romanian dialect, on which is based
official Romanian, [In].
You'll get [en] only if you put together în- and preceding
words ending in -e: du-te'n casa, du-te'ntr'o casa,
du-te'ntre jucatori.
>until there is not stronger argumetnation I make the
>option for the substratual "'n" as in Albanian
>and not for Latin "in-".
Anyone who's speaking Romanian fluently should be
aware of this... instinctively. A Romanian native
speaker knows, on top of that, whenever the Umlaut
suits the environment and whenever the "full" vowel
has to be there, e.g. that you have to say singular
"sc&z&mânt," but plural "sc&z&minte," "pântec,"
but "spintecare, spintecat;" and that "binecuvânteaza"
& "binecuvinteaza," "sprânceana" & "sprinceana" are
interchangeable, because both forms are correct.
Es ist zum Mäuse Melken. :-)
>>If A. guj = Lat. cuneus = R. cui. (And remember: 'ncuia
>>cannot stand alone, it has to be preceded by another
>>word.)
>
>How it cannot stand alone? I am afraid I do not undestand.
Jumpin' tootin' blazes! :-) Only a couple of days
ago did I post my explanation along with many
examples. Such an example is also the construction
above "du-te'n(tr')/(tre)". And I mentioned that
nalt ("high + tall") is pronounced as such because
the Romanian native speakers no longer know that
it should be 'nalt. This is why the frequent mistake
in written: înnalt -- because they think = *în+nalt.
But this is wrong, since în+alt - there is no genuine
word nalt. (So, I gave this example to illustrate
there are exceptions. But by and large in Romanian
the în- and într' prefixations cannot stand as
'n- and 'ntr' without preceding words to which they
are linked in genuine "legatto"s, so that the prefix
form one syllable with the last syllable of the
preceding word.)
>Nothing. Why shouldn't have had the "lost" idiom the
>same pattern?
I meant: what if Albanian guj also meant cuneus, and
what if nguj reflects the same incuia < incuneare?
Remember that Albanian is no living fossil of an
ancestor of the Romanian language. It is a mere
cousin.
>BEcause this is not documented? That is no reason
>since the PIE root is *ku:
(Und macht muh!:) Nostra magna lingua latina is
as PIE as they come. So?
>Alex
George
PS: Vietnamese Nguyen seems to be closer to
ngujon than Romanian încuiat. ;->