>Cristos has nothing to do with creShtin & derivatives from the
>linguistic point of view seen trough the period of entering the
>language.
Hristos or Cristos or Cristus were taken as
such by most of European languages, as perceived
as a name. That's why it still looks so close
to the original Greek word. Otherwise, people
would've translated it. The name is (in Hebrew)
Yehoshua and Hristos is sort of a... title.
OTOH, creStin follows the pattern Gr. christianos
and Lat. christianus. (The kind of suffix -an,
-ian, -in, -en you find even in the Hungarian
variant thereof "keresztény;" BTW, "kereszt"
means - incidentally or not - "cross".)
>I mean the form of the world which should be
>expected if the word should have been known or
>entered the language in the II-III century AC.
And how would it have looked like?
(Even if there had been another variant,
apart from Hristós and Cristós [note which
syllable is stressed], the next Christian
phases within Orthodoxy imposed these
pronunciations for good.)
>pe dracul! :-)
Your good humored Smiley shows me that, by
now, you've accustomed yourself with stating
all morphologically relevant Latin morphems
(e.g. genitiva of substantives and the perfect
tense in verbs).
>I agree since this is the explanation for
>monumentum.
You have to agree, because... n'ai incotro. ;)
>My problem with agreeing with this etymology
>is the weakness of relation between an term
>which represent a monument, a rich grave and
>the life of the vlahians.
This is *your own* fault: you've focused your
imagination only on big, large and enormous
monuments, neglecting the simple fact that the
simplest "mormânt" is also a monument (note
the additional contotation *Denk*mal*! of it),
not only... Keops', Kephren's, Mykerinos' and
... Lenin's. :)
>I don't insist on it. I show just this is an
>own creation of the rom. language and not a
>Latin term.
Yeah, sure: you don't show it outa the blue
and per haphazard - you subliminally plant
your substrate-theory seeds. ;=)
>it ought to remember sanctus should have given
>*samptu thus this is why the word is seen as suspicious.
Why suspicious? A *samptu intermediary IMHO perfectly
explains the finish sântu, sânta (you seem to always
forget that m and n before ptk, bdg can be and mostly
are nasals in Romanian that don't need at all that
the upper and lower lip touch one another. Your impression
that they must is based only on the fact that in Romanian
we have to write those m's and n's. So, your assumption
is induced by the book; it is learned.And because
Romanian grammarians have failed to explain in school
(apart from linguistics university schools) that Romanian
also has such nasals, even if they aren't as evident
as the Polish and French ones.[A cata oara sa repet
asta?])
>>And preot/preut! ['pre-ot] ['pre-ut]. His
>>wife is preoteasa/preuteasa.
>
>Shit! Sorry, I forgot about it.
Oh, you're being blasphemous, aren't you! Tsk-tsk. ;-)
>Yes, preot is the another one. So there
>are 3 words. Preot is given as coming from Latin
>"presbiterium" but there is unusualy much lost of
>the word , thus it is simply no regular change of
>it and beside "pre-" there is nothing which can
>link the both words together.
[Ce mai adaugi asta cand ti-am aratat in precedenta
ca nu-l avem numai noi, ci (chiar identic) si
fratzânii de peste mare? :-]
>Because the vocalism doesn't work from Latin
>but works from slavic "-ij"
Oh, I see, you meant the ending -ius > Rum. -ie
(such as in Zenobius > Zenobie). But what if
Romanians inherited this ending via the...
vocative? ;>
>Aauzi la el? the form "faur" shows an /u/ there
>which is not to find in Latin.
Nobody asserted "faur" + "f&urar" was in Latin.
Moreover, I added that these are derivations of
Lat. faber.
>I thought you pay a bit attention to the phonetic too.
It is you who's gotta pay attention to phenomena
in Latin (incl. its final phases before the
proto-Romance idioms' becoming independent langs.)
and to phenomena which are specific to the
Romanian language and, as such, no longer under
any influence whatsoever of the Latin language.
The fact that Romanians made "f&au-" out of
"febr-" in February can be seen as an additional
sign/testimony for the transformation L. faber,
fabri > Rum. faur(+ar), namely that FvowelBvowelR
could very well transform into Rumanian FdiphtongR,
whereby the diphtong is limited to [au] which
=> [&-u] in different syllable as soon as you
attach the Romanian suffix -ar to it.
>sniff. Month "februaris" has nothing to do with Latin
>"feber" but with Latin "februum"; it was the month
>where people made clean and stuff (if curious I post
>all the entries for this word)
That's in *Latin*, not in Romanian! This idea is
lost in Romanian. So that those who encountered
Februarius (I dunno when) assimilated it with
the other word, "faur"/"faurar", that has a meaning
in Romanian. So, nobody (except experts) knows that
the month Faurar is related to... februa,
febrorum (nominative plural, genitive plural).
Thus, February became in Romanian Faurar by...
Volksetymologie. (You know the saying "Surdu n'aude,
dar le potriveste". ;)
>Vulgar Latin "febrar-". The Rom. word makes in
>leting be derived direct from Latin form.
It is very possible. But "febrar-" and the knowledge
linked to it was lost (I dare suppose) already over
1000 years ago.
>the word "undera" or "andrea" means usually
>"knitting needle"; more is not known
"More is not known" isn't correct: your general dict.
(the DEX) isn't by far the *complete* dictionary of
the Romanian language. It's a mere summary thereof.
You should say e.g. "In my DEX I don't find any further
definition for "Undrea", nor the variant "Îndrea."
>sâm-bã-tã; I doubt about any nasal there.
>there are 2 labials there.
Then let's take this sign, ~, for such nasals, as
in enfant [a~fa~], or Lech Walesa [va-we~-sa].
Now then, the Romanian pronunciation [sI~-b&-t&]
is not only as correct as [sIm-b&-t&], but it
precedes it historically. But it doesn't matter
that [sIm-b&-t&] also evolved because of the written
form (Romanian has always had writing systems that
tended to be phonetical ones). What matters is
the existence of [sI~-b&-t&], where the bilabial
plosive happens only in the second syllable, with
the B.The sound I'm talking about is the nasal
one before the B, and which is by no means a
must to be an M or an N. [I already pointed this
out to you some time ago. If you don't believe
me, then ask the incumbent wise gals and guys
who guard the Romanian linguistics gral :-) in
Bucharest & al. cities.]
By the same token, [kI~tek, KI~tar/ea, adI~k,
I~puternicit,plI~dZe, plI~set, cu-/a-/pri~s,
PI~cota, co~curs, cu~p&r, cu~p&t, i~stitut] &
myriads of other examples.In all these cases, you
can very well replace N or M with that unique
nasal (which don't need any palatal or alveolar
touch by the tongue apex!), and the pronunciation
will be as correct/received as the one with the
N or M, that you believe is the only existing
and valid.
Look at the Italian lang.: Italians don't write
anything,their nasal disappeared: istituto. :-)
George
NB: Look at "delicvent" that came into
existence in Romanian out of "delincvent"
(today, both are correct).