Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> 18-10-03 15:58, alex wrote:
>
>> The problem was just with "gâsca" and "gâscan" which cannot be
>> Slavic.
>
> Au contraire, they can't be anything else _but_ Slavic. If it weren't
> for your curious intellectual blindness, you would have drawn this
> conclusion yourself from the facts presented to you so far. Here's the
> argument again (for the last time):
>
> The denasalisation of *o~ in most of South Slavic (giving high vowel
> reflexes) accounts for the <â>. In fact, Bulg. g&ska and Rom. gâscã
> sound almost the same. Miguel has already informed you that /&/ is the
> normal development of the old nasal vowel in Bulgarian, and since the
> word *go~sUka (diminutive of *go~sI) has reflexes in practically every
> Slavic language, there is absolutely no ground for believing that the
> Bulgarian word is not inherited. It's true that suffixes with -k- are
> not uniquely Slavic, but it's also true that they are extremely
> productive in Slavic. Please show me any non-Slavic language that has
> a diminutive of the 'goose' word looking like <gVska>.
>
> Piotr
1)I hope I am not to wrong ( I did not re-read it) but the Slavic
suffixes _are_ felt as suffixes in Romanian. In "gâsca" there is no
diminutival form, at least the "ka" is not felt as such in Rom.
the slavic sufixes are stil used as suffixes in Rom. too. In our
case, the suffix "cã" supposed to come from "Slavic" "ka" is used for
making femine nouns from some masculine nouns. (pui + cã > puicã)
In gâscã there is no suffix "cã" there, but the word appears to be
made up as "muscã" ( the fly) which is too a compund of a lallword
*mus + suff. "ka"
2) you assume to many transformations in a wanderwort for having the
Rom. word ( that thing with Occam's ) and you assume a loaning dubblet
from Slavic: once "gânsac" and once "gâscan" at several period of times
and from different Slavic dialects.
OK, until now I just asked and said that the word did not come from that
or this language but I did not said what I think about this word,
namely, which is in fact my opinion about its origin. It ought I say
it now:-)
3) I see the Rom. gâsca not derived from PIE *g^han- but from PIE *gha-
(Pokorny #604). There is enough basis for assuming that from within the
Rom. Lang. If one shouldlike to read the demonstration, I will write it.
P.S. I wonder if George which seems to have some waste knowledge in the
regional aspects of the language is aware of the use of "g" instead of
"c" in the verb " a cãsca" ( "ce gaShti gura" instead of "ce caSti
gura")
Alex