From: Abdullah Konushevci
Message: 30305
Date: 2004-01-29
> Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:Romanian'
> > ----- 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
> >never
> >
> >> Is there anything to support this assumption [*-c^ --> -s^]? I
> >> metsufficiently
> > that in
> > historical Romanian phonetics.
> >
> > I don't know. One would have to examine the behaviour of
> > early loans with final /-c^/. The sixty-four-thousand-dollarquestion
> > is: is there any independent material to examine? Perhaps somereally
> > old loans from Slavic would do, but I can't think of any obviouswords "stângaci", "dreptaci"
> > example right now. Maybe later.
> >
> > Piotr
>
>
> I assume none will come of the idea that the
> are new words. They are as old as "dreapta" and "stânga"other
> dreptaci= rechtshändler, the one who use better the right hand
> stangaci =the one who use better the left hand; this one word has
> cross-over meanings but this is the principal meaning regarding thehand.
>languages
> 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
> ( except Aromanian where the suffix "-aci" has the same function asin
> Slavic".instrumental
> Concretly, in Slavic "c^"e" should makes agentual names or
> name: biti > bic^i; kovati > kovac^iwhy "e" > "i"
> In Rom. the suffix "-aci" makes adjectivs and nouns.
> The questions here what about this "epetnetic" "a" there and
> if Slavic "c^e" > "ace".have said
>
> Comming back to the examples I gave, I wonder how ProtoRomanians
> before the slavs came to "dreptaci" and "stangaci". Any idea on theLatin
> side? Any idea on the ProtoAlbanian side?************
>
> Alex