S & L wrote:
>I hope that you are not speaking seriously [especially about
>the "cominternist" Iorgu Iordan but also about his "gang"!].
What do you mean by "cominternist" and by "his gang"?
Politics and political opportunism one thing, and
professional linguistics another thing. Agreed?
>As we are indeed because in the last half of century in the
>Romanian linguistics the Slavists made the ruling.
Who? And how? And when? (Taking into consideration that
at least as late as 1964, when the tyrant Gheorghe
Gheorghiu nicknamed "Dej" had already changed policies,
paving the road for his inheritor, tyrant Nicolae
Ceausescu to play the maverick among Moscow's satellites,
the commie propaganda got rid of some Slavic exaggerations
starting to dedicate itself to protochronist fancies,
i.e. Dacian and Thracian exaggerations.)
>And they are still -old habits day slowly- doing it today.
>Being an academician in the communist Romania had almost
>nothing to do with somebody's achievements in the scientific
>field [this is why we had academicians without any scientific
>opera what so ever!].
These are general sayings upon which anyone agrees. But
those I mention, even those old men who had good positions
under the Commies, were real professionals. On top of that,
they earned their so-to-speak glory laurels decades before
the Commies grabbed the power in Romania in the forties.
Including Alexandru Graur, whom most Romanians today, basing
their knowledge on hearsay, deem as a mere Stalinist
impostor: in reality, he was publishing good professional
stuff already in 1929-1930.
>It was a communist organization, as the rest.
So what? Do you imply that between 1945-1990 in those
East-European countries, under Commie regimes, there
was no genuine scientific research in these humanistic
fields?
>I do not know many Romanian academicians during
>the communist era that did not subscribe to the
>devil's pact.
We may agree on this. But this is politics. So, this is
another topic, this has virtually nothing to do with
linguistics by and large, and with PIE issues.
>Yes, BUT is the only one finished [and yet not entirely
>published as far as I know]; in 130 years our brave
>"scientists" in the language field were not able to finish
>yet the "big" Academic Dictionary. I think that we are the
>only one in Europe yet in this situation.
You raise another problem which is off-topic too: this
can be relevant from points of view of, say, efficiency
in organization, business & funds allocations (by the
government). But it is irrelevant in terms of scientific
patience, thorough work and accuracy. And indeed in this
feeld being sort of a Speedy Gonzalez isn't a self-under-
stood virtue.
>Unfortunately, you do not read in Romanian otherwise
Pe ce te bazezi?
>I would suggest some web sites with some critical
>observations regarding your "titan" Iorgu Iordan!
I didn't refer to political whoredom (I apologize for this
word :)).
>As far as I can see in it [ed. 1975], for each word the etymology
>is given [even if as "unknown" etymology].
(Do you also know the previous edition, DLRM, 1958?)
>So, one of it's purpose was to explain ALSO the etymology of
>the word along with the meaning.
Only in a restrictive way, usually only the first degree
of it (if I can say so). No place to further etymological
chains (i.e. much less than in similar dictionaries, such
as the collegiate Webster or - let alone - the Oxford
Dictionary, or even the German Wahrig). But there, where
DLRM and DEX say "unknown origin," in reality linguists
have lots of information, and comparative speculation -
yet in other linguistics works. So, whoever is interested
to learn more than that's put between the covers of the
general monolingual dictionaries can look for books in
the libraries more adequate for this field of interest.
>Let see how "good" the work is by giving only one example:
>BAN [pl. BANI; with the general meaning of money: odd money,
>etc.] which is given with unknown etymology even if for more
>then half of century the Romanian numismatists proved [Constantin
>Moisil in 1919/1924] that the word is coming from DENARII BANALES
>which in Hungarian language were known as BÁNI DENÁROK
There might be some reason why the scientific community
hasn't yet concluded that this is the ultimate etymology.
Its members were aware of such publications and interpre-
tations; I'd say even to a greater extend in the case of
scholars of the 1st half of the 20th c. than many among
those during Ceausescu's "reign." Many of the old ones
were in perfect command of Hungarian, German, some Slavic
languages & were very good at Latin and ol' Greek (unlike
some contemporaries who aren't ashamed to show some
terrible weakness as far as their mother tongue and its
stilistics are concerned).
OTOH, even the significance of "denarii banales" show
that Rum. <ban, bani> "money; coins as subdivision of
the leu" must be seen in connection with the <bán>
title (sort of governor of certain polities along the Danube
and in connection with the Hungarian kingdom;
in other words, some kind of Yugo-Hungaro-Walachian
triangle. The <ban>'s origin isn't quite clear; Avar?
Protobulgar?).
>The protochronists were never truly at "power" in Romanian.
>Not even in the 80's and certainly not in the 90's.
You gotta be kiddin'. Ceausescu himself was one of
the fans (taught by Iosif Constantin Dragan, "your"
lugosiense billionnaire ;^).
>S o r i n
>Timisoara, Romania
>
>P.S. I subscribe to Cristi Mindrut's advice: don't use
>the romanian Dex with too much confidence!
Multzam de sfat, dar, pt. a-l urma, utilizatorul tre' sa dispuna
de oarece discernamant. Din cugetarile voastre ale amandurora
nu-s convins ca nu mai aveti nevoie de antrenament (in afara de
principiul pe care, ca timisorean, il cunosti desigur <<man lernt
nie aus>>.)
George
Monaco (di Baviera)