Re: [tied] Derivation Rules from Old Slavic to Romanian

From: alex
Message: 26635
Date: 2003-10-26

alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> Hello All,
> A lot of messages were related to explain the derivation rules
> from Latin to Romanian.
>
> Could somebody describe similar Rules from Old Slavic to
> Romanian (or to Balk. Romance)?
>
> Thanks a lot and Best regards,
> marius a.



I will try to put here up the rules which have been sintetised by
Wolfgang Rotheon the basis of the work made by several autorhs who have
studied this derivation rules.

1)Slavic "a" > Rom. "a" when stressed; even when a nasal follows it

remains "a": when "Slavic "a" was not stressed ( specialy at the end of
the word) it yelded "ã"

a>a:->lopata > lopatã; rakU > rac; slabU > slab; rana > ranã; hrana >
hranã
a>ã:->gradina > grãdinã;
There are a lot of discutions about some words which have been
considered Slavic but because of the group "an" which yelded "ân" in
Rom. they are very disputable to be of Slavic origin: stâncã, stânã,
jupân, smântânã

There are some curiosities as "a" > "e" or "a" > "o"
nadez^da > nãdejde; narodU > norod; nakazU > necaz(sem. change); etc.


2)Slavic "e" > "e" when stressed, otherways it yelded "ã"

lebedU > lebãda; veselU > vesel(sem. change);
Curiosity is for instance the change of Sl. KovUc^egU > coSciug

When the "e" was followed by an "a" , the "a" became "ã" and "e"
diphtongated as usual to "ea":
certU > ceatã; otrepU > otreapã; pletU > pleatã.
Curiosity where there is no diphtongation:
bedznU > beznã(sem. change); gleznU>gleznã; greblo>greblã; svekla >
sfeclã

3)Slavic "i" > "i" when stressed, otherways it yelded ""

pila > pilã; izbi-ti > izbi;

Curiosity: i > ã/â
rin-o~ti > rãni/râni (semantic change too)
sirakU > sãrac

4)Slavic "o" > "o"; "o" diphtonged too as expected when followed by "e"
or
"ã"

izvorU > izvor; podU > pod ( sem. change); snopU > snop
groza > groazã; kosa > coasã
bogatU > bogat; obrazU > obraz ( sem. change)

Here are too some words where "o" did not diphtongated as expected:
kobI > cobe; pohot-Eti > poftã ( sem. change)

5)Slavic "u" > "u"

plugU > plug; sluga > slugã; trupU > trup

The Slavic prefix "u" should have yleded "o" in Rom:
umori-ti > omorâ; ure~dU > orândã ( sem. change)

Slavic "E" yelded "ea" , "e", "a", "ã" in Rom
hrEnU > hrean; trEba > treabã;
lenI > lene; vrEme > vreme
izmEna > izmanã; nevEsta > nevastã; sUvEtU > sfat
cEpEnU > tseapãn

Rodhe means that the Rom. " a vârâ" and "a târâ" are not from Slavic
infinitive "trEti" and "vrEzi" but from the pers. 1 sg. "tIro~" and
"vIro~"

6)Slavic "y" (u?) yelded Rom. "i"

byvolU > bivol; gryz^a > grijã; kopyto > copitã
When an "h" or "r" occured at the begin of the word, then Sl. "y" > "â":
hytrU > hâtru (sem. change); rysU > râs;
The Rom. word "rãcni" < Slk. rykn-o~nti should be explained other way
means Rodhe.

7)Slavic nasal "o~" yelded "un" and "ân"

lo~ka > luncã ( sem. change); mo~ka > muncã ( sem. change); sko~pU >
scump ( sem. change)
dobo~d-o~ > dobândi ( sem. change); mo~drU >mândru( sem. change);
so~bota > sâmbãta

8)Slavic nasal "e~" yelded Rom. "in":

gre~da > grindã; ogle~dati > oglindi ( sem. change); z^ed-ati > jindui
( sem. change)
After "r, s, st" the "in" > "ân"
re~dU > rând; sUte~gn-oti > stângãni ( sem. change); se~z^UnU > stânjen
( sem. change)
sve~tU > sfânt

9)Slavic "I" and "U" ( the y-ers) yelded in Rom. "o", "e"; "â"

dobytUkU > dobitoc; vrUtUpU >vârtop ( sem. change); ocItU < otset;
prEkupIcI > precupets
stlUpU > stâlp; strUvI > stârv
bUtU > bâtã; pIklU > pâclã ( sem. change)
Rom. "nisip" < Sl. "nasUpU" should have been influenced by the verb.
nasyupati
sticlã < stIklo and sutã < sUto should be explained due change of the
stress as per Rohde.
cinste < c^IstI should be influenced by "c^e~stI"
Stirb < s^trUbU ( sem. change) should be influenced by "stirbinã" <
"s^trUbina"


Consonantismus seems to be very simple and there are not too much to
say. For the Slavic sounds "s^, z^, s^t, c" Rom. Lang have had already
these sounds.

10)Slavic "h" is represented as "f" and "h"

pohot-Eti > pofti(pohti); prahU >praf; vihrU > vifor ( sem. change);
hvala > falã

11)Slavic "v" > " f"

c^etvrUtU > sfert; sve~tU > sfânt; sUvEtU > sfat
trEzvU > treaz should be explained trough assimilation

12)Slavic "dv" > "v":

dvorUba > vorbã ( sem. change)

13)Slavic "lj" > "l'"

hmelI > hãmei( sem. change); ljubi-te > iubi; skolIka > scoica; volja >
voie
In other ways should be explained the Rom. words "gât" < Sl. poglUtiti,
blid < Sl. bljudo
In the word "prieten" < Sl. prijatelI should be just a suffix change
there.

14)Slavic "zl-" and "z^l" yelded Rom. "g"

zlobivU > zglobiu ( sem. change); z^lEbI > jgeab. The Rom. word "zlãtar"
< Sl. "zlãtar" should be a very late loan from South Slavic.

The words which does not present the methtatesis show that they have
been loaned into Rom. very early, so the general acceptation.

15)Slavic palatal "n'" get lost in Rom.:

banjy > baie; kopanja > copaie ( sem. change); pustyn'i > pustie

Miscelaneaus:
s^tn > s^n : svEs^tInikU > sfeSnic
stn, zdn > sn, zn: besc^IstInikU > becisnic; prazdInikU >praznic ( sem.
change)


I hope I did not confolunded too much the "I " with "U" here since they
are almost identicaly. I am sure, every slavis will recognise here if I
have an "I" instead of an "U" and vice-versus.

As for these rules... here remains big questions open; the lot of
semantic changes should give one to think too about. There are many of
these examples which seems to show in fact an another vector of loan,
someof them which we discussed here, some which we did not.


Hope this will help a bit.

Alex