tolgs001 wrote:
> alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
>> One more argument here regarding:
>>
>> "[Hun.] -alom (or: -V+lVm) has been kept [in Rom.] (as -alm�"
>>
>> I don't know in Romanian any '-alom' in Romanian or something
>> similar that became 'alma'
>
> Obviously, you didn't completely understand what I was trying
> to explain in my previous post.
>
> I myself underlined the fact that the Hungarian suffix
>
> (which is a typical one for this language, namely
> -VlVm, which is to read: "vowel+L+vowel+M", e.g.
> szerelm ['s�r�l�m] "love", uralom ['urOlom]
> "domination; reign; sway; rule &c.", veszedelem
> "peril, danger,jeopardy", unalom "boredom, dullness"
> &c.; usually the vowels are either <a>+<o> or <e>+<e>,
> according to the vowel contained in the root of the
> word)
>
> had also been taken and preserved in the slightly altered
> form "-alm�", which in Romanian has no meaning whatsoever
> -> hence: no use -> ergo: no wonder that you don't find
> it in other Romanian lexical occurrences. But this would
> - at least IMHO - be a hint that the word is a loanword
> from Hungarian.
I don't agree with you this is a loan from Hungarian and I don't agree with
Marius which see "sudalma" as being cognate with Albanian "sham�".My opinion
is, the word "sudalm�" is a contamination between "sudui" and "palm�"; for a
native speaker I wonder you don't see it: " te sudui si-ti dau si o palma"
(I injure you and I slap you [slap=slaping with the palm])
as for missing of "-lm�" that is wrong: d�lm�, g�lm�, valma, palma,
adulma(adulmeca), ulma etc.
you are right when you say the group "-lmV" is not a suffix
the problem of a Hungarian loan should be again the "u". How do you want to
get an "u" from "sidalom" ? How to have a metathesis in such recent times
when we do not find one in the very old words, regardless if they are from
substrate,latin, slavic or what_ever for explaining the -dalom > -dalma ?
Assuming "sudalma" is from "sidalom" but influenced by "sudui", then one see
"sudui" is considered to be too a loan from hungarian "sidni" (szidni).
Again, how do you want to have the two "u"-s there?
One see that in all the loans from NeoGreek, Slavic, Turkish ( to mean just
the new loans) there is allways an almost identical vocalismus with the
original word. So, why in the case of Hungarian should be otherways?
A pertinent self-question here for you who speak Hungarian as well is to
take a look at the way how are changed the vowels comparative with vowels in
the original words loaned in Hungarian itself
Alex