Re: family

m_iacomi wrote:

>Who exactly gives the form "nyem"?

Nobody. (This is a mere rendition of the pronunciation
by the *Romanian native speakers* of the province of
Transylvania [ñeam]. Hungarian doesn't know of any
ñ-transformation of the [n] whatsoever: it is an exclusive
Romanian feature. As well as the tranformation of the
open [e], i.e. [æ] into the Romanian diphtongue [ea].

Moreover: what in 20th-21th centuries seems to be
pan-Romanian, "neam," ought to actually be a term
which is now quasi-restricted to the South-West-Romanian
province of Banate "nat" (< Lat. natus est), such
as in the idiomatic phrase "tot natul" => "tot neamul"
= "toata nati(une)a".) Unfortunately, the genuine
Latine "natul" is vanishing for good under our noses
in favor of the *obvious magyarism* "neam," that
naive contemporaries such as Alex deem (read: dream)
to be some sort of Dacian or at least Thracian
remnants.

>If you'd cared to take a look in Rosetti's
>ILR, you'd already seen the etymon "nem"
>"Geschlecht".

Or, lacking that, you can trust your contemporary's
allegations (read: links) -- i.e. g's :^).

> "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^].

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

stella -> steaua, plural stele,/-le ("the star," "the stars").

George