>There is no answer in what Miguel showed.
He did: Romanian lost those numerals (20-90)
and reconstructed them by putting together
numerals from 2-9 and the word "zeci" (tens).
That's what he pointed out. And this is what
it is. However, paresimi is a distorted rest
(with the original meaning also forgotten)
of the initial numerals (used as an ordinal
numeral in order to fit the context, Lent).
>The word "patruzecime" is a Romanian construct
Hold it! Patruzecime is a *further* derivation
of *patruzeci*. First you have to have patruzeci,
only then you can talk of patruzecime. But, as
I already mentioned, patruzecime is one thing
and paresimi "a patruzecea (zi)" is something
else.
>You take a Latin word, you change it, you give it
>in romanian where there is no felt as meaning
>something regarding to numerals, and you assume
>this is inherited.
Does this reflect your impression that Romanistik
makes its judgments only this way and basta?
> strange "pãrãsimi" ( singular
pãresimi [p&-ré-simj] Why singular? read your
dictionary: "s[ubstantiv] f[eminin] pl[ural]")
>with stem of plural, absolute alien for Romanian
Quite the contrary: the plural ending is a Romanian
invention here. Sort of a false plural, as in
armindeni (which is also perceived as a plural,
although etymologically it isn't).
>It looks like a loan.
What are the criteria prompting you, me, and the
rest of the world to conclude this *looks* like
a loanword, that looks like an inherited one?
>Alex
George