--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tolgs001" <st-george@...> wrote:
>
> >Correct: Ariesh is not a pure Latin transformation
> >However you made a Bad deduction (again) above => *Auresya >
Ariesh
> >is an ANCIENT Dcaian formation
>
> Who told you this? Vinereanu?
Not Vinereanu , George, Maghiarule!
The formation of the other Dacian river names attested in the
Antiquity (that you willingly have ignored) :
Somesh , Muresh, Timish, Argesh, Crish.....
these FACTS told me THAT in ARIESH we have the same formation
Romanian -ESH, -ISH > DACIAN *-ESJA, -ISYA > PIE *-ESYO, *-ISYO
> As for the [ye] diphtongation in Romanian: be cautious, since
> exactly the linguistic area of the Arie$, i.e. of the greater
> North-West area of Transylvania (I mean, Cri$ana and Maramure$
> included) is the most important preserver of very old phonetic
> habits in this respect. In that area, unlike in other Romanian
> areas and unlike standard Romanian, there is no [ye]
> diphtongation (which some linguists have assumed to have occurred
> under Slavic influence, warranted or not, I dunno).
Ma, George-Maghiarule, you are Not Romanian and you try to learn me
that that there is no e>je diphtongation in Romanian in the Ariesh
Valley, "YE, M~A" ? CHIAR NU-TI E RUSINE?"
> So, in the
> subdialects overthere, there's no fier, fierbere, but fer, and
> ferbere.
Maybe true for a Hungarian like you....that speak badly Romanian
> a hypothetic
> [*Auresja] to > Arie$ is unlikely. Something such as *Arã$
> would've been likelier.
*Arã$ is Likelier for an Ignorant like you George-Maghiarule:
e/accented > je NEVER ã
PUT THE HAND AND READ BEFORE to talk and to write such stupidities...
*Auresya > Ariesh is REGULAR
au-/non-accented >a
e/accented > je
sy > sh
> Note Mure$: nobody arrived at a variant
> *Murie$;
Nobody of course...because Only you a s an ignorant 'could linked'
the non accented e of Muresh with the accented e of Ariesh...
But of course is hard for you to understand that an accented syllable
could evolved different than a non-accented one: George, Maghiarule
PUT THE HAND AND READ BEFORE to talk...
>
> Hence, I'd be very cautious with your *Auresia > Arie$.
You need to be cautios with you first ...because you don't have any
knowledge here...
$arpe is
> the first choice only because of the artificial homogeni-
> zation under the influence of the Muntenian subdialect.
Really? Poor Rosetti...
> And my "suspicion" is that $arpe couldn't have occurred
> without the intermediate [$ær-pe]
I'm down...when I saw how many nonsenses you are able to write ...
> Finally, arany is the pan-Hungarian word for "gold". So,
> Hungarians living in Austria and Croatia also say arany.
Bravo! A 'Deep thought' again....keep momentum
Conclusion:
Maghiarule George please learn at the end that:
1. AU/non-accented > A >...etc in Rimanian : You need to learn this
rule ...:
2. and A/non-accented never passed to ~A in initial position
GEORGE I already indicated PUSCARIU, did you hear about him? =>now I
tell you to put the hand and to read also
READ ROSETTI ILR (at least this name I hope to tell you something)
WHERE is written black on white this rule :
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AU/non-accented > A
with the example:
ROMANIAN R~APOSA < OLD ROMANIAN *R~AP~ASA < LATIN REPAUSARE
WITH LATER ~A > O after a LABIAL as in BOTEZA > BAPTIZARE etc...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Also NOTE: that No Romanian can pronounced Aurjesh in place of Ariesh
George-Maghiarule as you proposed here...
Is not good to be ignorant maghiarule-George, but to continue to
ignore the evidence after somebody quoted for you PUSCARIU & ROSETTI
is worst
Go and read that books first before to come here and to write that
au/non-accented is still au or a-u in Romanian ....and that e is not
YE in Romanian erspecially in the Ariesh Valley where everybody
say "YE" each 2 words
All this to defend a false ideology....Ufff...
Marius