Re: [tied] RE: etyma for Crãciun, Romanian for Christmas

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

> m_iacomi wrote:

>>> BTW, If you ask me about some examples where Latin "ti" > "c^i"
>>> in DR, I won'T be able to give you ad hoc some example.
>>
>> Lat. "titionem" > DR "tãciune", AR "tic^uni"
>> Lat. "fetiolus" > DR "fecior", AR "fic^or"
>> Lat. "petiolus" > DR "picior", AR "pic^or"
>> Lat. "intellectio:nem" > DR "înTelepciune"
>> Lat. "*matteuca" > DR "mãciucã"
>> Lat. "-tio:sus" > DR "-cios" (in suffixes)
>> Lat. "-tio:ne(m)" > DR "-ciune" (in suffixes)
>
> Thank you. It seems the examples you gave are not the best one
> could find since "petiolus" we discussed about and "fetiolus" too

That is: you simply denied them because you did not understand
well the semantical shift (not a surprise since you have no clear
picture of likely and unlikely with respect to that issue). It's
worthy to remember that these are the widely accepted etymologies.

> The "titionem" is the only I can take into consideration from these
> examples but I cannot too well since we have "tuci" in Rom.

So?!

> The suffixes "-tio:sus" > "-Tios" and "-tionem" > "-Tiune"

... sometimes, in new words mainly, but

> but not

... but yes, they give

> "-cios" & "-ciune".

... mostly. Where do you think are coming these suffixes from? You
have Rosetti's ILR, just look at "Limba Latina/Morfologia/Derivatia
cu sufixe" and stop spreading false allegations.

> *matteuca can be there where it is as reconstructed form without
> any probing value.

For A.M. not knowing the basis of reconstruction, nothing
reconstructed on the basis of existing words following the usual
rules could have a probing value. See Fr. "massue, deriving from
the very same "*matteuca", derivative of "*mattea" (VL form for
"mateola" `bludgeon`) required and accepted etymon also for Cat.
"maça", It. "mazza", Sp. "maza" (all these words meaning the same,
`bludgeon`). Note that the reconstructed part does not include the
sequence -te- but the ending, so the part /ty/ > /tS(y)/ is beyond
any doubt and does _not_ count for reconstruction.

> intelepciune= intelept + ciune.

As well as you took a glance for the others in the DEX, you should
have done the same for this one.

> Question for it: what did meant in Latin " intellectionem"?

Derivative of "intellectio" meaning `understanding ability`...

> Some better examples?

The examples are clear enough, as well as George's "rãpciune",
it's just you fanatically refuting them on fictitious basis that
create artificial problems. I won't pass my time to produce tons
of examples.

> OK, I can be wrong a lot now since I did not verifyed anything
> today.

What is the meaning of "verify" in your speech?! Just curious.

Marius Iacomi