Re: [tied] Re: Historical implications of Romanian ecclesiastical t

m_iacomi wrote:

>
> I don't understand well your "deChristianized".

I don't understand it either.

> Why should those
> people abandon their faith to be late "reChristianized"? Latin
> Christian inherited terms include also words specifical to some
> Christian practices: if the population would have lost the faith,
> they would have also forget the practices and the subsequent words:
> quadragesima > pãresimi (`Lent`)

which is almost exstinct. Instead of it is used the word "post" given by
DEX as coming from Slavic "postU" which is a loan from what? ( I think
at the German "fasten" now and the relation fasten/posti )

> Another point is that many Christian terms of Latin origin
> are not in agreement with "official" terms in Western Romance:
> Creatio (Mundi) <=> "Facere(a)" (< Lat. facere `to make`)
> Creator (Mundi) <=> "Fâcâtorul"
> Regnum Dei <=> "împãrãTia Domnului" (der. imperator + dominus)

These here look like simple translations since none of them is a
directly continuation of the Latin expresion, but a simply translation
of it. Creatio Mundi= Facerea Lumii, Creator= Facator, Regnum Dei=
Imparatia Domnului

> Virgo <=> "Fecioara" (der. "fecior" < "fetiolus") and so on,

this is a translation too. And "fetiolus" is a joke as etymologycal
basis for Romanian ficior/fecior.

> fact which suggests also that Christian faith was something
> quite popular since people _constructed_ the terms they needed
> from the words of their own language (see also Mircea Pacuraru,
> 1980, "Istoria BOR")

Yes, indeed. The people constructed the terms mentionated , they are not
Latin expresions but simple translations of the Latin meaning. And this
is pretty important too. Why not latin expresions here? Why _contructed_
terms? When did became such terms as "Creatio Mundi, Regnum Dei" to be
used in the Latin world?

>
>> In both cases the genuine (permanent cgs) Christianization of
>> the PR /R would have occurred more or less simultaneously with
>> that of their Slavic neighbours, in the context of the Bulgarian
>> Empire.
>
> I still don't know why you suppose that Proto-Romanians had to
> reconvert to Christian faith once they already got it at a basical
> level. What is due to Slavic contact is the organization of an
> Institutional Church, with clear consequences on corresponding
> Christian vocabulary part, and all our historians agree on this
> important contribution.

George forget with pleasure the 3 persons coming from North of Danube to
the Court of Boris for arrange the christianisation of the Bulgars. Do I
make a mistake here or this aspect was too in a study of Mr Brezeanu
where he showed in which sources we find these 3 persons ( 2 with
Dacian-like names Cerbula, Ursula and one more with a Latin-like name).
I guess the text was posted here on the list some time ago.

Alex