m_iacomi wrote:
> BTW, all Romanian examples given are fallacious (etymologically).
>
> Cheers,
> Marius Iacomi
which should be explained trough the etymology of the words given:
maica = cf DEX from Bulgarian /Serbocroatian "majka"
muica = cf DEX cf. "mama" (that is: way of derivation is unknown)
mama = cf DEX -> from Latin "mamma"
muma = cf DEX -> see "mama"
at least cf DEX the "muma" should be an another variant of "mama" and here
one has to see an vocalic alternance "a" versus "u", thus for this one there
is no fallacious example.
THe first example "maica/mica" is too not fallacious but its etymology is
fallacious. These are reduced forms frmo "mumica/m�mica" which are
diminutival forms of "muma/mama". Thus we have:
mama > diminutival "mamica" and was reduced (due ma-mi) to maica
muma > diminutival "mumica" and was reduced to muica
The change did not happened in South Slavic but in these languages they are
loans from the Romanian population they mixed with.
For showing the reduction of the words are in Romanian one can take the
masculine form as well, I mean, the denomination for father or for the older
sister:
tata > diminutival tatica > taica
dada > diminutival dadica > daica
doda > diminutival dodica > doica
DEX consideres them as follow:
taica = from tata (anallogy from maica) like in Serbocroatia "tajka"
doica = from Bulgarian "dojka"
Just for having an another result in reduction I will give more examples:
tata > diminutival tatutsu > tutsu
nene > diminuitval nenica > neica ( neica = cf DEX nene + suffix "-ica")
Apparently fallacious have been not the examples ( from the etymological
point of view) but some obsolete opinions about the etymologies of these
words.
Alex