--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Mate Kapovic wrote:
>> Mea culpa: my phrase was unclear. I wanted to say two things, the
>> second being that Hungarian stress pattern (consistently on the
>> first syllable) was modified by Romanians in most loanwords from
>> Hungarian [...] and the same could very well done by Slavs too.
>
> Of course. If you are ignorant of the laws of Slavic accentuation
> which is quite different from Romanian.
Oh.
> Romanian, I think, has always more or less the same stress pattern
> in words with the same sufix. Correct me if I am wrong.
Yes & no. For suffixed words, a given suffix can consistently either
bear always the stress or exclude it. For these words your statement
usually holds. For words without suffix, the statement simply doesn't
apply. Generally, the Latin stress is conserved in inherited words;
for loanwords, stress shift is common enough. Anyway, just compare
stress in some Romanian loanwords:
méSter < Hung. mester
fíler < Hung. filer
gúler < Hung. gallér
but
ghimbér < Hung. gyömbér
jelér < Hung. zsellér
Tighér < Hung. csiger
or
ceárdaS < Hung. csárdás
gúlaS < Hung. gulyás
gíngaS (variant of gingáS) < Hung. dial. dsingás
but
oráS < Hung. város
imáS < Hung. nyomás
lãcáS < Hung. lakás
So the ending is not exactly the perfect warranty of an unique
stress pattern in Romanian according to which the words should
be adopted -- therefore, other internal laws are to be brought
into play.
> In Slavic, the situation is radically different.
In the limelight of the above examples, not so _radically_
different as you put it.
> A sufix generally has no implication on word stress (especially
> in those early days) so there is no reason what so ever to change
> the accent.
Are all Hungarian loans in Slavic languages (especially Russian,
but not only) conserving the first syllable stress pattern?! If
the answer is yes, you have a valid argument against Piotr's idea
of this Hungarian intermediate. If the answer is no, your argument
does not hold. Up till now you argued that there is no suffix
reason to have this stress shift and that Romanian stress shift
is caused only by suffix correlation, missing in Slavic. From the
examples above, your "only" cause doesn't actually look unique,
and your argument is still fallacious since you did not show the
stress could not have shifted in Slavic (Russian) for any other
possible reasons than word ending. My Romanian example was to
account only for the non-immutability of stress pattern, be it
for suffix or other reasons; is there a _perfect_ conservation of
original stress in Russian loanwords from Hungarian (or any other
language, BTW)?! That would sound strange.
> Krac^un would be acceptable with root-stress the same as with
> final-stress.
We do not speak about this word but about Russian one (the one
with polnoglasie, to be explained through Hungarian according to
Piotr's hypothesis).
> In Romanian, I don't think that crãciun with first-syllable
> stress would be acceptable if I am not wrong.
It would sound undoubtedly strange since the [tS(y)u] part of it
has normally to bear the stress. But the point was not the stress
pattern in Romanian for this word.
Regards,
Marius Iacomi