--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
> m_iacomi wrote:
>> following stress); since they form a clear majority in the
>> category of nouns ending in -Ccã, this is a strong indication
>> for a Slavic origin.
>> Romanian suffix -cã is not diminutive (a feminine diminutive
>> is -ucã, still of Slavic origin) and our considered word,
>> "gâscã", cannot be analyzed in Romanian as "gâs + -cã" since
>> the root has no meaning. In Romanian, "gâscã" is just a simple
>> noun, and "-cã" is not a suffix but a simple ending.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Maybe it wasn't clear enough. "-cã" from Romanian "gâscã" is _not_
a suffix, it is just an _ending_. Hope you keep that in mind.
>> On another hand, Slavic word is an analyzable diminutive
>> *go~s-Uka- [...] indicating clearly it cannot be a loanword
>> from another language (namely Romanian).
>
> 1) for the root:
> I tried to analise it trough "hâs-" (<*gâs).
There is no Romanian root "*gâs-" or "*hâs-", and Romanian word
is still not analyzable.
> The basis thoughts here have been all the onomatopea which are
> constructed after the same model like: bâz-,fâs-, hâs-, pâs-,
> sâs-,hâs-, mâr-, hâr-,zâng-, zâz-, hâts-,bâj-,bâlb-, etc. all
> presenting there an "CâC"
> I guess you can get the idea, should I develop?
I don't see any idea, only a list of ASCII patterns you call by
the audacious name "roots".
> 2)for suffix: there is leoarca, zganca, brânca, nãpârca etc where
> "ca" has nothing to do with the Slavic suffix even if there is an
> "Cca"
Supposing you're able to read properly, re-read my words. I did
not said that <all Romanian words ending in -Cca are Slavic> but
<the clear majority> of these are Slavic.
Out of that, try to understand once for all the difference between
"ending" and "suffix" and don't mix them any more. It would be very
nice and useful.
And while "nãpârcã" and "brâncã" are most probably not Slavic, do
remember that "Et. nec." means _unknown_ etymology (that is: a work
hypothesis of Slavic etymology could be taken into account as well
as any other realistic one, as long as there is no clear hint).
> 3) if this is a loan from any Slavic dialect, this should be a
> very strange one since -so far I remember- there is an Slavic
> "Cru-" which yelded Rom. "CâC"
... see "hârzob", "gârlã", "bâtlan", "mândru", "vârcolac", "cârpã",
"gângav", "cârtiTã", "vârtej", "gâlceavã", "vânj(os)", "gânganie",
"hârtie", "vâslã", "gârbav", "zâmbi", "vâlnic", etc. (BTW, these are
only some of other different possibilities to have an /1/ from a
Slavic word; a good exercise for you would be to identify already
what Slavic phonemes are susceptible to give a Romanian /1/ in the
words above. Except "vâslã", all other are meaningful in this case).
Now here's my counting:
1. The root "*go~sI-" is Proto-Slavic 100%. There is no doubt on
that. Keep it as a fact. Modern Slavic words prove it.
2. The derivative "*go~s-Uka-" is legitimate diminutive in Slavic
and explains Polish, Ukrainian, Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian forms.
Its existence can be admitted beyond any reasonable doubt. Keep also
this as another fact.
3. So, one has the Bulgarian inherited Slavic word "gãska" (meaning
`goose`) on a hand (see 1&2), and Romanian "gâscã" (meaning `goose`)
on another hand.
a) Romanian word cannot be the etymon for an inherited Slavic word
in Bulgarian. Thus the proposal "gâscã" (Rom.) > "gãska" (Bulg.) is
simply not valid (keep it as a fact since it's the result of factual
points 1&2);
b) Romanian word cannot be easily explained through substrate. One
has to cope with a phonetical inconsistency (about not having /z/),
with an improper suffixation with "-cã" (which makes no diminutive
in Romanian), and with the high unlikeliness of having the same kind
of independent treatment in Slavic as well as in a language to be
still conveniently labeled, in order to obtain the word for `goose`;
c) Romanian word has no difficulty to be explained through Bulgarian
term (or, eventually, through a slightly older South Slavic idiom).
Now, one has two possibilities:
- to accept that Romanian and Bulgarian words are related; than (a)
gives the sign of the arrow (Bulgarian -> Romanian, within this
possibility the sign of the arrow is factual, remember 1&2). No
additional explanation is required for phonetics or semantism (c).
- to consider the two words are not directly related; then one has
no convincing etymology (b), and an additional unlikely coincidence
of meaning and phonetic similarity between two terms appearing in
two neighbouring languages.
Even a linguistic outsider shouldn't hesitate too much before
making a clear choice between these two possibilities. As you have
already noticed, specialists have chosen the first.
Marius Iacomi