Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 1:42 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: Against the theory of 'Albanian Loans in Romanian'
>
>
>> Is there anything to support this assumption [*-c^ --> -s^]? I never
>> met
> that in
> historical Romanian phonetics.
>
> I don't know. One would have to examine the behaviour of sufficiently
> early loans with final /-c^/. The sixty-four-thousand-dollar question
> is: is there any independent material to examine? Perhaps some really
> old loans from Slavic would do, but I can't think of any obvious
> example right now. Maybe later.
>
> Piotr
I assume none will come of the idea that the words "st�ngaci", "dreptaci"
are new words. They are as old as "dreapta" and "st�nga"
dreptaci= rechtsh�ndler, the one who use better the right hand
stangaci =the one who use better the left hand; this one word has other
cross-over meanings but this is the principal meaning regarding the hand.
Now, the composition is simply drept+aci, st�ng+aci
About suffix "aci" ; Rosetti describe it as being loaned from Slavic
"-c^e-"; the function of the suffixes are though different in both languages
( except Aromanian where the suffix "-aci" has the same function as in
Slavic".
Concretly, in Slavic "c^"e" should makes agentual names or instrumental
name: biti > bic^i; kovati > kovac^i
In Rom. the suffix "-aci" makes adjectivs and nouns.
The questions here what about this "epetnetic" "a" there and why "e" > "i"
if Slavic "c^e" > "ace".
Comming back to the examples I gave, I wonder how ProtoRomanians have said
before the slavs came to "dreptaci" and "stangaci". Any idea on the Latin
side? Any idea on the ProtoAlbanian side?
Alex