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

Hello Alex,
I want to thank you for these list...
At a first glance, seems that the :
latin -> romanian rules are not at all "similar" with
slavic -> romanian rules.

On the other hand, if we take a look on :
latin -> albanian and
latin -> romanian rules (of course the rules are not the same)
but we can found a lot of similarities.
Mr. Iacomi will protest saying us to use r-lang list...(it's only a
joke)
However it is better to first take a look on the closer (I
mean "closer in time") transformations ...in order to understand
older ones (where we have less information on them).

So my question is :
Why there are no similarities between these 2 transformations ?

I can take into account:
1. The substrate wasn't the same? In this case what was the older
and the new substrate.

2. The substrate is the same but there is a long distance in time
between the 2 transformations. In this case what are the factors that
influenced (changed) the native population in order that in another
moment of time the transformation rules are so different.

3. The conditions in which the two types of loans appeared are not
at all similar. I could only suggest some types of such conditions:
a) By interbreeding of the 2 populations (in this case we can
have a part of population that knew 2 languages).
b) By "institutions" like: administration and/or church etc.
c) By closer contact BUT not interbreeding
Is important to know also the semantic fields of the loans in order
to can identify these conditions.

If we will have a clear and details picture on this, for sure we
can apply the conclusions that we could identify to other possible
evolutions.

Best regards,
marius

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
> 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