In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh wrote:
> *****GK: One wonders why the earlier word became popular here,
> but not the later. Would a secular (political) authority have
> more impact on consciousness in these areas?******
In Western Romance areas (including Italy), authority of (Latin
based) church was obviously stronger and could impose exclusive
use of official word instead of a popular spreading version.
> As you have just said, and you are quite right, "ecclesia" in
> Christian parlance did mean "congregatio fidelium". It is so
> used in the Gospels and in the Epistles. And that meaning of
> the word does exist in most other Romance languages (at least
> the major ones: I'm not sure about the smaller ones you've
> mentioned.) Question: does Romanian have this word in the
> earlier sense?******
Not at my knowledge (that is: in Dacoromanian). I don't know for
sure the word doesn't exist in Aromanian under some form (and it
should be considered carefully if found there since this dialect
was influenced by Greek), but I think if there would have been
there, I'd have seen it mentioned in some book (and I didn't).
>>> this one word suggests that the Proto-Romanians had little if
>>> any dealings with either Roman or Greek clergy during the
>>> postulated early times of their alleged conversion (3/4 cs.)
>>
>> ... or even prior to that moment, but this is another story.
>
> ******GK: Let's look at this now if you don't mind.*****
I'm sorry, it's my fault: at a first look I interpreted your
parenthesis as referring to 300-400 C.E. while it should read
3rd-4th centuries. Skip my above reply, it's irrelevant.
>> The word shows [...] that Romanians got Christianized early and
>> naturally, at the base level of uneducated people who accept a
>> fate they feel appropriated to their spirit.
>
> *****GK: If so, they would have had the "ecclesia"
> word in the other sense mentioned above.****
They might have had it if that Latin adopted Greek word would
have had a clear reason to be preserved. Actually, words do not
survive necessarily: they are exposed to concurrence and erosion
and they get lost. [For example: Latin "carus" (`dear`) hasn't
survived in Dacoromanian and has been replaced by Slavic word
"drag". We know for sure it is at least a Common Romanian word
since in Aromanian it has been preserved: "caru". It dissapeared
from Dacoromanian probably because of homonymy with "car(u)" (<
"carrus" `two-wheeled wagon`), but words get lost even without
homonymy]. So not having the word doesn't say too much (Romanians
have actually many other ways to refer to an assembly, including
also Slavic "sfat").
The word "ecclesia" might also not have been too used in PBR
since it was a Greek loan, a word for educated Latin people.
In fact, Romanian word "bisericã" (with all its (sub-)dialectal
forms) exhibits rhotacism of intervocalic /l/, as pointed out by
George. That means it was in the language before first Slavic
loanwords in Romanian -> it's inherited and not a medieval church
loanword.
Regards,
Marius Iacomi