[tied] Re: Against the theory of 'Albanian Loans in Romanian'

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

> 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 "stângaci", "dreptaci"

> are new words. They are as old as "dreapta" and "stânga"
> dreptaci= rechtshändler, 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, stâng+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