Re: [tied] Romanian Development of /st/ (was: Against ... 'Albanian

Richard Wordingham wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
>
>> Actually your phonetic rules will give you from Latin "passionem"
> the Rom.
>> "p�Sune" and you will agree this is simply joke, but not the true.
>
> It is not unusual for words to become homophones. Modern
> _pasiune_ 'passion' is clearly a loan.

This is not what I meant. I meant that trough phoneticaly laws one will have
corespondances in lang X with lang Y. If the meaning does not fit, then it
is hardly to accept that there is indeed a true connection. Of course
"pasiune" is a loand. Rom. Ancient word for "pasiune" is "patim�" cf DEX <
NeoGReek "p�thima".

>
>> The working out of "cr�ciun" from "creationem" looks very fuss
>> regarding the vocalism. It is not known in Rom. that /ea/ or /ja/
>> develop to a; what do your rules do with "e" or "j" here? Why does
>> it get lost?Just for reaching an /a/ for opbtaining the requested &
>> ? I don't see another explanation.
>
> Dealt with separately.
>
>> The second thing is what did happened with the final "e"?
>
> George offered an explanation at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/28833 .

George exagerates when he mentions his "special, regionals" therms generaly.
In this special case, after his explanation it seems just his hypoteticaly
"*cr�ciune" undergone to the change cr�ciune > cr�ciun.
The suffix "-ciune" is a suffix which actually make nouns with negative
conotations ( his examples of b�b�ciune < bab�; ur�ciune < ur�) . I doubt in
"cr�ciun" there is the suffix "-ciune".

>
>> Why is this gone too?
>> These are phonetical questions which are secundary to the dream of
>> "creationem" giving "cr�ciun". In fact, this should be excluded
> from
>> begining from a such analysis since for "creationem" the Rom.
> people have
>> their own word. And this is "facerea".
>
> That is a very weak argument against the word being preserved with a
> specialised meaning.

This statement is stronger as a simply suposition as creationem > cr�ciun.
Semanticaly does not fit, phoneticaly made hard to work. Romanians are not
Spanish people to give them religious names . The word is toponym and
antroponym as well. Absolutely unlike for the Romanians.
It seems there is absolutely nothing to keep this relation on the feet
beside the phonological appropiation. But that is not enoug, it does not
matter hoe much p�Sune one will put into relationship.( sorry, passione :-)

Alex