From: Mate Kapovic
Message: 28956
Date: 2003-12-30
----- Original Message -----
From: "g" <george.st@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 3:03 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: etyma for Craciun...
> I understand Marius's assertion above this way:
> Romanians have modified loanwords from Hungarian
> according to their whims (feelings-cum-own rules).
> (Note my Present Perfect: this is valid today and
> with words that could be borrowed tomorrow.) In
> addition, he says: he expects Slavs to have felt
> as free to neglect a Hungarian influence (here: as
> far as stresses are of concern).
He cannot expect that because Romanian and Slavic stress patterns are not
the same. Romanian has to stress the last syllable in the word with the
sufix -un. Slavic *does not*. If the word *kork7 had an acute in the root
(i. e. PIE laryngeal) the stress would be always on the first syllable. It
has circumflex and so the stress in final in it's derivative. Romanian
stress depends on the sufix, Slavic doesn't.
> So, I don't see here any comparison between Romanian
> and a Slavic language in this respect. Secondly,
> you don't explain why is he ignorant with respect
> to the way in which the stress plays or doesn't play
> a role in Slavic loans in Hungarian or Hungarian loans
> in, say, Serbo-Croatian or in Slovak.
He did compare it because he thinks that if Romanians change the accent
place in Hungarian loanwords the Russians would do the same. This is not
true because Slavic acc. system and Romanian are not the same. Russian would
just keep the root stress because there is no reason to pull it back.
Romanian has to, as you said because the sufix -un has to be accented. In
Slavic, it doesn't have to.
Mate