--- g <
george.st@...> wrote:
(GK hypothesis 1) the PR lived in very remote
> locations,
> >and were not Christianized in any solid sense, but
> did
> >pick up some of the words common to their Christian
> >neighbours.
>
>(GS) I know it is tempting. But it would have been
too
> superficial and subject to complete oblivion (after
> the tremendous influence by the Slavic liturgic
> terminology).
*****GK: This certainly was tremendous as you say.
Just a cursory look at a dictionary shows the
following words still current in Romanian:
"sin"--gresheala (sp) "confession"-- spovedanie
"vespers"---vecernie "gospel" --Evanghelie (Slavic
filter?) "preach"-- propovadni (sp), and as you noted
"mass" --sluzhba (religioasa). But the word for
"priest" seems to be PREOT and that's clearly not
Slavic.===== Now about the word for "saint". You
suggest that the normal usage would prefer a term more
clearly linked with the Latin "sanctus" i.e. sant and
that the "f" or "v" making this sfant or svint (sp) is
superfluous. I was going to ask a question which may
thus be irrelevant. If "saint" in Romanian is "sfant"
or the like, and if this is from the Slavic, then must
we assume the word to have been borrowed from a
"nasalizing" Slavic dialect? One might perhaps argue
this for "carol" (colind in Romanian acc. to my
dictionary).*******
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com