Re: [tied] Re: etyma for Craciun...

----- Original Message -----
From: "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 3:31 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: etyma for Craciun...



> or
> ceárdaS < Hung. csárdás
> gúlaS < Hung. gulyás
> gíngaS (variant of gingáS) < Hung. dial. dsingás
> but
> oráS < Hung. város
> imáS < Hung. nyomás
> lãcáS < Hung. lakás

I can't explain this being no Romanian lg specialist. But I am not very fond
of "explanations" like - Oh it is just random! because it is seldom random.
There is probably some explanation in the time of borrowing, or dialect
differences or smth. Anyway, I don't see how is Romanian relevant for
Russian in 9th or 10th century? Russian maintains the original stress in
loanwords. I am not a Russian expert but somebody can probably show you
examples. As does Slavic in the early days. If you take the Romance/Latin
loanwords in Croatian adapted when the Slavs came to the Adria, you see the
perfect correspondence. There is no mish-mash.

> In the limelight of the above examples, not so _radically_
> different as you put it.

I'll say it again. *How* is Romanian relevant for Slavic? If something
happens in Romanian, it does not meen it happens in Slavic. Do you think
that Romanian accentual adaption of loanwords can be applie to Chinese also
maybe?

> 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.

I do not know if there are any Hungarian loans in Russian. In litterary
Croatian, there are like 10 or 15 loans from Hungarian and all are stressed
on the first syllable (not that this is very relevant because Croatian and
Russian are hardly the same).
Besides "Piotr's" theory is just a wild guess and accent disaproval is just
a minor part in it. First, he would have to prove that there *are* loans in
Russian from Hung. in those days. Second, I just tought of another
inconsistence - Hung. has -ny# and Russian has an -n7 (not palatalised!)
which goes acordingly, look at the coincidence!, with all other Slavic lgs
which have -n7.


>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.

That wouldn't sound strange. As I said Russian maintains the original stress
in loans, Croatian also, Romance and Germanic loans in Proto-Slavic (or
Common-Slavic) show perfect correspondence.
The view of the layman is to think that accent can be changed just like
that. That does not happen.

I see no sense in going on with this topic if you will continue to argue
that Romanian is relevant for everything. If something happens in Romanian,
it doesn't mean it happens everywhere else.

Mate