[tied] Re: family

-- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:

> Some scholars see it as comming from a Hungarian word "nyem"

Who exactly gives the form "nyem"? If you'd cared to take a look
in Rosetti's ILR, you'd already seen the etymon "nem" `Geschlecht`.

> with I don't know what a meaning and I very doubt about such a
> Hungarian influence.

Again, based on nothing else than your lack of knowledge. See also
George's message.

>> What's the official line?

There is no need of "official line". A single male is not a fully
accomplished person as member of a (Romanian traditional peasant)
community as long as he does not get a _woman_ (wife, female) and
settle a _family_. In many senses, getting a wife (female) is thus
synonymous with getting a family, making a civilized household;
the evolution of meaning is perfectly understandable.

> [...] For the phonetical explanation they looked a lot until they
> found out the Aromanian form [...]

"They" stands for "Romanian linguists at the end of 19th century".
Before them, it was thought that the word "femeie" is an irregular
derivative of Latin "femina".

> [...] "fumealã";

The Aromanian form is _not_ "fumealã" but "fumeal'ã" (as spelled
by linguists; another spelling is "fumealje". Anyway, the <l'> or
<lj> are reproducing [l^].

> important was the "l" in Aromanian [...]

[l^] =/= [l].

> for explaining then familia > femeie in Rom.

Actually, this was the "missing link" enabling linguists to have
the correct picture on word's etymology.

> Actually one need *femeella for getting the Rom. word from Latin
> and the "e" should be considered as reconstructed as analogy of
> something.

Nonsense. Latin "familia" explains phonetics without pain; a word
with final -ella > -eauã (Common Romanian, Aromanian) > -ea (Daco-
Romanian) =/= -eye, thus explaining nothing.

Marius Iacomi