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

--- m_iacomi <m_iacomi@...> wrote:

>
> The "constructed" expressions and words aren't
> "datable" in the
> sense of their Christian meaning, since the first
> Romanian texts
> one has "Valeatu [year] 7002 de la Facerea",

*****GK: This would be the equivalent of 1494 AD I
gather? *********

but

> those texts aren't
> old enough. Only phonetical changes are to be dated,
> but they can't
> enlighten on these inherited words. Pacuraru's point
> is to prove
> that Christian faith was somehow popular and
> transmitted from mouth
> to mouth rather than downwards from officials, the
> terms being
> _explained_ and not officially imposed.

******GK: Frankly I don't understand this process at
all. I can imagine a situation without clergy, but not
one where many words essential to Christianity are
entirely absent. What would be the point of this
anyway? And even "mouth to mouth" transmissions should
rely at some point on "Jack who once talked to a
priest says etc.".. :=)))******

Neither did

> Slavic church
> terms prevail on these (if they were already
> established).

******GK: This is another area worthy of exploration.
After all no matter what the vernacular the
ecclesiastical and liturgical language of the
Romanians WAS Slavic for hundreds and hundreds of
years. And there would be no reason to avoid the
terminology conveyed in these texts. They just had to
be current. If they did not make it into the language,
there must be a reason. I take it that the translation
of Christian texts into Romanian earnestly begun in
the 17th century tended to avoid Slavicisms as much as
possible?? I am not very versed on this. *******

>
> PS - I won't be able to reply on cybalist for about
> a week

*****GK: Hurry back*****

>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com