>Is it more common than pântec?
It is.
> >5. Romanian 'copac' - 'tree' is the general form for 'tree' and
> >also the widely used.
> > - 'arbore' is not at all used in NW of the country.
> > - 'pom' means a 'domestic' tree , and never
> >replace 'copac'
> >
> > 'copac' is considered a substratual word too.
>
>OK.
It is not okay as stated above. <arbore> is indeed very rare in
NW regions of RO, yet it is wrong to assert <<is not at all used>>
(let alone the fact that any clodhopper and illiterate between
the river of Mure$ and the province of Maramure$ *knows* what
<arbore> is, and is able to use it whenever necessary, even if
he/she has never used this word in his/her life within his/her
own subdialect). (The same applies for most of the same sub-
dialectal area in the case of the word "child": whereas most
Romanians in other provinces use <copil> or <copchil>, in this
area natives will forever say <prunc> and in Maramure$ <cocon>.
These mean in other regions only <baby> and <young lord>
(this one esp. in the variant <cucon> and the reflex <cona$>);
(plus the semi-slangy meaning, esp. in urban areas and esp.
in Southern and Eastern regions of Romania, "chum, pal", when
in the short and vocative form: "coane!"). Now, go figure! :-))
Also wrong the assertion "pom... never replace[s] copac." Of
course, there are plenty of contexts and locutions where <copac>
and <pom> are interchangeable, in spite of the fact (that I myself
underlined today) <pom> tends to be prefered to designate a
fruit-tree. OTOH, there are locutions, such as <pom de iarna>,
<esti in pom>, where <copac> or <arbore> cannot replace <pom>,
the same way as in the idiomatic saying <s'a suit scroafa in copac>
no one would say <s'a suit scroafa in pom> or <in arbore>.
>Miguel
George