Re: Derivation Rules from Old Slavic to Romanian

In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" wrote:

> 2. " You already expressed this opinion and you did not produced
> any valid argument to support it "
> Viewing this "assumption", I feel obliged to re-write my
> arguments (that I posted until now) here again:

You should not "feel obliged" to anything. I saw your arguments
already and I hinted out they're not valid. Restating them is of
no use.

> I. No Slavic loans (or nor major Slavic loans) in Romanian
> before Cyril and Methodius Bible.

The assumption is false. Even if it were true, this is no argument
since chronology is no substitute for causality.

> If you know such loanwords (I mean "serious ones" not like
> "st^an~a", please give me a list of them).

"babã" `old woman` - Sl. baba, "blid" `dish` - Sl. bljudU, "bob"
`grain` - Sl. bobU, "brazdã" - Sl. brazda, "cle(a)Ste" `tongs` - Sl.
klESta, "cl(')in" `gusset` - Sl. klinU, "clopo(/u)t" - Sl. klopotU,
"coajã" `crust, skin` - Sl. koZa, "coasã" `scythe` - Sl. kosa,
"co(/u)cean" `corn cob` - Sl. koCani, "co(/u)lac" - Sl. kolaCI,
"co(/u)siTã" `tress` - Bg. (Sl.) kosica, "coS" - Sl. koSI, "croi"
(DR) / "cruiri" (AR) `to cut out` - Sl. kroiti, "duh" `spirit, soul,
ghost` - Sl. duxU, "gol" `vacuum; naked` - Sl. golU, "goni" (DR) /
"agoniri" (AR) `to run` - Sl. goniti, "grãdinã" `garden` - Sl.
gradina, "hrãni" (DR) / "hrãniri" (AR) `to feed, to eat` - Sl.
xraniti, "înveli" (DR) / "anvãliri" (AR) `to cover` - Sl. valiti,
"învârti" (DR) / "anvãrtiri" (AR) `to spin` - Sl. vratiti,
"izvo(/u)r" `spring, source` - Sl. izvorU, "jale" `grief` - Sl.
Zali, "jar" `embers` - Sl. ZarU, "le(a)ne" `laziness` - Sl. lEnI,
"lipi" (DR) / "alâk'iri" (AR) `to stick, to glue` - Sl. lEpiti,
"livadã(/e)" `meadow` - Sl. livade, "lo(/u)patã" `showel` - Sl.
lopata, "m(/n')ilã" `pity` - Sl. milo, "nevastã" (DR) / "n(i)veastã"
(AR) `wife` - Sl. nevEsta, "nevoie" (DR) / "nivol'ã" (AR) `need` -
Sl. nevolja, "padinã" `(mountain creek) valley` - Sl. padina,
"opãri" (DR) / "upãriri" (AR) `to scald` - Sl. opariti, "pândar"
`watcher, hunter` - Sl. pOdarI, "plãti(ri)" `to pay` - Sl. platiti,
"plug" `plough` - Sl. plugU, "poalã" `hem, lap` - Sl. pola,
"po(/u)liTã" `shelf` - Sl. polica, "prag" `threshold, parting wall` -
Sl. pragU, "pungã" `purse` - Sl. pOgva, "rac" `crawfish` - Sl. rakU,
"(a)ranã" `wound` - Sl. rana, "ro(/u)goz" `mat` - Sl. "rogozU",
"scump(u)" `expensive` - Sl. skOpU, "sitã" `sieve, grill` - Sl. sito,
"slab" `weak, thin` - Sl. slabU, "sloatã" (also "zloatã") `slush` -
Sl. slota, "stog" `stack, rick` - Sl. StogU, "sutã" `hundred` - Sl.
sUto, "topi" (DR) / "tuk'iri" (AR) `to melt` - Sl. topiti, "trup"
`body` - Sl. trupU, "zmeu" `(kind of) dragon` - Sl. zmij.
Bracket forms stand for AR (unless otherwise stated).

> The Slavs arrive in Balkans after 600 or 650 so for minimum 300
> hundred years

300 means three hundred by itself. Anyway, check your chronology.

> there are no major loans from Slavs in Proto-Romanian. This is a
> fact.

No, it's your false statement. The Slavic influence on Proto-
Romanian is beyond any doubt, and can be individuated not only in
vocabulary but also in other Common Romanian features.

> You didn't give any explanation on this.

... rather you did not understand what I said.

> II. Different rules from Latin and Slavic loans in Romanian.
> You didn't give a valid explanation on this (it's my opinion).

Well, as far as you still do not keep in mind the difference
between _derivation_ rules and _adoption_ rules, there can be no
serious debate on that.

[...]

> g) Loans rules from Slavic to Romanian NOT AT ALL the same with

ANY

> other rule above (see e) and f))

You keep comparing things which are not comparable, thus you will
necessary get flawed output.

> I think that this is a "clear" argument (In any case for me

seems

> to be one). What do you think?

See above.

> I add now a third one (thanks to Alex):
>
> Argument III. Slavic transformation rules into Romanian are
> not at all consistent (we have a lot of exceptions).

It depends on what does one call "consistency". Alex is very keen
to find exceptions everywhere (even if not real) because he thinks
that any exception is another "proof" for Romanian not deriving
from Latin. The phonetics of all Slavic loans can be divided into
different classes, and that's perfectly consistent with what is
called "historicity".

> -> This fact cannot be explained using the argument of "a long
> interactions between Romanians and Slavic populations".

All on the contrary. Slavic words having entered Romanian language
at different historical periods have all the reasons to exhibit
different phonetical adaptations. I won't comment any longer on
further nonsense.

> And now I will add a 4-th one:
>
> IV. I fully agree with you on ONLY one point:
> "The adaptation rules for Slavic loanwords" (I want to precise
> here: not for the whole process but for each loanword in part)
> " appears over a very limited amount of time" (I add here: despite
> the fact that the Slavic and Romanian populations live in Balkans

for

> about 1300 years).
> Well, this is a very good observation. And, yes, you are right.
> But this is another fact that I will add as argument to my idea

You have not understood the point. Alex quoted some rules he got
from Rosetti's ILR. Those rules are correspondence rules for some
South Slavic to Romanian, and they refer to the main layer of common
Slavic loans (that is: before diferentiation in Bulgarian, Serbo-
Croatian, etc.). That period was limited. For further loanwords,
one can speak of Slavic loans from Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian,
Ukrainian, Russian, etc. - with subsequent adaptation rules.

> (By the way: I don't agree at all with the other explanations that
> you put there like "not derivation rules" etc...)

BTW, that's not an explanation, that's a linguistical fact.

> I was very surprised when somebody tells me that "A-Slavic loans"
> is not a good sample. Every sample is a good sample in my opinion

... proving you have no clue about what you're talking about.

> 3. "> Unlike Slavic, most Latin words in Romanian are _not_
> loanwords."
> I was very surprised by hearing this assumption. In this case
> my question is: "Who learned the Latin in Balkans: the Latins (or
> the "already Latin-speaker" colonists)"?
> => No.
> => If a non-Latin population learned Latin in Balkans...
> => The learned words are "loanwords" or not? (even they

learned

> also the morphological and syntactical Latin rules, the learned

words

> are of course "not their own words" )
> => So they were...loanwords...

That's your very original (and used by nobody) definition of
"loanwords". Everybody calls "loanword" a term from language A
adopted in language B, and never call an adopted language as being
formed of "loanwords" because its' words were never out of the own
system.

> What I also find "strange" in your email was the following
> assumption:
>
> 4. "even without any external "influence" (if that would be
> conceivable), a language undergoes changes"
> This is NOT true at all.

Of course it's true.

> Arguments:
> a) First of all because ( you are right) : a "perfect

isolated

> (language) system" is not conceivable.

Is that an argument for your thesis?! you make me laugh.

> b) For sure the most "isolated language systems" keep better
> the old traces...I can give you some examples, if needed.

So what?! Everybody knows that isolated systems usually preserve
some ancient features, but that does not prevent them from making
different innovations. I suppose you know what innovations are.

> c) Please give us an example of linguistic change without
> external influence ...I don't think that you can.

Hmmm, what about satem/kentum?! :-)

> (I agree that "Physics is not the right method" (this wasn't an
> argument from my side... only an "expression")-> but for sure the
> Rule: "where is no external change no internal change (if any) will
> survive" is a valid one -> The Rule above is well available in any
> evolutionary system: genetics -> life, languages and also in the
> social systems.

Well, I suppose you never heard about inherent mutation rate in
genetics, about genetic drift and so on. You have a long way in
front of you for which you will need to learn a lot of things you
don't know of yet. Stochastical processes and other related stuff.

Cheers,
Marius Iacomi