--- In email@example.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
> 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$,
> -ialã &c.); moreover, there was no impossibility for the
> verb <a suduí> to be put into another flexion cathegory,
> of the rest fo them: -áre, -ére, -'-ere. But no, the
> ancestors who adapted the Hungarian word preferred the
> fourth conjugation (-íre) for the verb and a weird
> non-Romanian suffix attached to the root: sud+alma. Which
> suffix obviously evokes the typical Hungarian -elem/-alom
> kind of suffix (the counterpart to -ness, -dom, -vowel+ty,
> -(t)ion). Last but not least: the noun Romanian <sudalma>
> is translated into Hungarian as <szidalom>.
> >but for sure the insertion of a vowel beween a consonant
> >cluster ('lm' in this case)
> The -elem/alom phenomenon has nothing to do with it.
> >is something specific to Hungarian loanwords (see Hungarian
> >form 'kereszteny' (sorry if my spelling is wrong) for
> This has nothing in common with the aforementioned examples
> (phenomena). <Kereszt> "cross" is a mere Hungarian
> adaptation of <Christ>, with the typical "auxiliary" vowel
> introduced in order to avoid the initial cluster [kr-].
> -ény [e:ñ] is a highly frequent Hungarian suffix, which
> seems to correspond to the Lat. suffixes -in-us, -a, -um
> & -ian-us, -a, -um. So <keresztény> fits <Christi(a)nus>
> (and for that matter Romanian <cre$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
> [snip fullquote]
> >>>Bottom vs. top posting and quotation style on Usenet
> >>>the art of quoting
> [snip the rest of it]