Re: Alternance a-u in Romanian [...]

st-george:
"But this would - at least IMHO - be a hint that the word is a
loanword from Hungarian."

In order that your arguments become credible you have to underline
first a single fact: What is the etymology of Hungarian
word 'szidni' ?
As I told you I already tried to check this path in order to check
my derivation:
My Hungarian friends have consulted different Hungarian
dictionaries and told me that the word is marked having an 'Uncertain
Etymology' and that this word is not considered a Hungarian inherited
word.
If you have other information please post it here to can re-check
it. At the end the truth is more important than anything else...
But without a clear origin of Hungarian word 'szidni' your have
not enough credibility to sustain and go on with your claim...

Why?
Because in Alb. we have a word 'shaj' with the meaning in
eng. 'to insult somebody'.

By applying the following ordinary Albanian derivation rules :
nj > j , s > sh, the lost of intervocalic d and au>a
we obtain the PAlb *sadunja.

(once again 'no Methathesis', 'no Grimm's laws', 'no dogs and
cats' 'no artificial streching' as somebody suggested here)..only
ordinary rules with a simple additional note (fully attested) :
'the lost of intervocalic d preceed the au>a transformation in
Albanian'

Strange enough in Romanian we have a verb 'sudui' that can also
be simple derived to a Proto Romanian form *sudunja.
With what meaning? You guess? With exactly the same meaning: 'to
insult somebody'

Now if you compare the results: strange enough again: we obtained
almost the same form *sadunja / *sudunja with an identical meaning.
And this happens between the words of two languages that share
several hundred words (the great majority of these words very old).
Viewing the transformations that these 2 words suffered we easy
arrived in Dacian times with the common form.

Also regarding the last issue: a-u u-u I think that I gave a lot
of examples here. But among all these examples the most solid one
that I found is in my opinion: *baruk ; *baruk-ta for Alb. bark and
Rom. burta 'belly' (PIE *bher-1 'to carry' )

For me, after I found all these, the match is obvious. Of course
everybody can agree or not, for this reason we are here to confront
our ideas, but my arguments described above have at least a solid
foundation.

Now is your turn to proceed in a similar way in order to become
credible:
1. to take the Magyar word 'szidni'
2. to describe from where it is? (inherited or not)
3. to point out its original form (not today form)
4. to apply the Hungarian phonetic rules and to derive it
correctly until the current form 'szidni'
5. next to locate in time the possible loan moment for Romanian
word 'sudui' and to check the Romanian phonetic rules existing at
that moment of time (like: from what vowel of Hungarian 'szidni' the
Romanian 'u' can arrive showing other examples that reflects this).

All the additional argumentation to this...doesn't value a lot
if the five points above are not addressed.

And I tell you all these (not for didactical reasons: you have
all my consideration) only to can point out and to can explain in
what consist the difference between my arguments and yours.

Only the Best,
Marius

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tolgs001" <st-george@...> wrote:
>
> alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> >One more argument here regarding:
> >
> >"[Hun.] -alom (or: -V+lVm) has been kept [in Rom.] (as -almã"
> >
> >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 ['særælæm] "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 "-almã", 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.
>
> The Romanian language could've supplied lots of suffixes
> in the stead of the Hungarian one (e.g. -ire, -intzã, -i$,
> -ialã &c.); moreover, there was no impossibility for the
> verb <a suduí> to be put into another flexion cathegory,
> of the rest fo them: -áre, -ére, -'-ere. But no, the
> ancestors who adapted the Hungarian word preferred the
> fourth conjugation (-íre) for the verb and a weird
> non-Romanian suffix attached to the root: sud+alma. Which
> suffix obviously evokes the typical Hungarian -elem/-alom
> kind of suffix (the counterpart to -ness, -dom, -vowel+ty,
> -(t)ion). Last but not least: the noun Romanian <sudalma>
> is translated into Hungarian as <szidalom>.
>
> >but for sure the insertion of a vowel beween a consonant
> >cluster ('lm' in this case)
>
> The -elem/alom phenomenon has nothing to do with it.
>
> >is something specific to Hungarian loanwords (see Hungarian
> >form 'kereszteny' (sorry if my spelling is wrong) for
> >Christianus).
>
> This has nothing in common with the aforementioned examples
> (phenomena). <Kereszt> "cross" is a mere Hungarian
> adaptation of <Christ>, with the typical "auxiliary" vowel
> introduced in order to avoid the initial cluster [kr-].
> -ény [e:ñ] is a highly frequent Hungarian suffix, which
> seems to correspond to the Lat. suffixes -in-us, -a, -um
> & -ian-us, -a, -um. So <keresztény> fits <Christi(a)nus>
> (and for that matter Romanian <cre$tin>, French <chrétien>
> and Engl. <Christian>. But in onomastics, AFAIK, there is
> only the older adapted variant Krizsán ['kriZa:n], of
> which rare a Hungarian is aware that it means "Christian"
> in some Slavic idiom [I don't know which one: Slovak?]).
>
> >lm loaned as lom in Hungarian
>
> Nope, there ain't no such thing as *lm becoming -lom,
> but -alom or -elem. Moreover, similar endings are
> common endings in flexing verbs, e.g. rühelem "I loathe,
> detest, abhor".
>
> And last but not least, consider the word <halom> ['hOlom]
> "mound, heap, hillock" that turns <halma> ['hOlmO], i.e.
> a *flected* variant, in genitival environments in a sentence.
> As you can see, Hungarian itself creates lexems with -alma
> (let alone the word <alma> ['OlmO] "appel", which can be
> compared with Turkic <elma> and <alma> -> Alma Ata).
>
>
> >Best Regards,
> > Marius
>
> George
>
> [snip fullquote]
>
> >>>Bottom vs. top posting and quotation style on Usenet
> >>>http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html
> >>>
> >>>the art of quoting
> >>>http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html
>
> [snip the rest of it]