>Slavic INFLUENCE?
>
>For e/accented > je in Romanian, Albanian and Dacian?
Read "your" Puscariu, Rosetti and all of them (except, of course,
the semi-analphabetes from among them "protochronists" that have
for decades wrought havoc in RO): nobody can explain the
etymology of the vowel+$ suffixation in a conclusive way.
On the other hand, this kind of suffixation is very strong
in Slavic languages, in Hungarian and in Turkic languages --
all languages. (To a much lesser extent in German.)
>In this case DACIAN Diegis 'the Fervent One' (Decebal's General)
>is also a Slavic Name?
The Dacian and Thracian occurrences are not only extremely
scarce, as linguistic fragments preserved until our days. They
are also of little use in order to make assumptions. And if any,
the mainstream of linguistics seem to have concluded the typology
of the language was much closer to the Slavic branch than to
the Greek, Italic, and Germanic ones. So, go figure.
BTW: I should point out an aspect of Romanian linguistics that
is somewhat shameful for people who graduated from secondary
school, but that might be interesting to some linguists over
here: lots of Romanian native-speakers from all regions of the
country are not able to make distinction between the diphtongations
[je, jo] and the hiatuses [i-e, i-o]. Actually, this can also
be encountered in other languages (I'll mention only one: German).
Hence, the difficulty of this angry (young, I suppose)
"gentleman", who seemingly deems <ie> in Arie$ as to have
the same phonetic quality as, say, in <baie> ['baje] "bath".
So, I expect him to make no difference between the pronunciations
[kon-sti-tu-tzi-e] and [kon-sti-tu-tzje].
But this kinda stuff also depends on how teachers in elementary
school teaches their pupils. If they don't insist as much as
the book recommend them, then entire generations are lost: they
never learn the stuff, even if they get to become university
professors. (Therefore, this phenomenon is also a kind of...
"marker" as far as... social + regional aspects are of concern.
But it is even worse when native-speakers lose knowledge of
their local subdialects, and, at the same time, have difficulties
linked to certain aspects of the standard language and ortho-
graphy.)
>Albanian djeg for the same root 'to burn' is from Slavic too?
This sentence is off-topic: the phonetics of Arie$ in Romanian
and Aranyos in Hungarian have nothing to do with the Albanian
djeg.
>Romanian viedzure & Albanian vjedhull are also from Slavic?
This sentence is also off-topic, except for the fact that
<ie> in viezure in Romanian has indeed to be uttered [je],
and by no means [i-e], namely it is unlike Arie$.
>Please quote a single linguist among that 'some linguists' that
>you 'quoted' above...these 'some linguists' are your invention or
>they belong to the same category as you.
Some of them happen to attend this mailing list. Just ask
them, and they'll show you many a wondrous thing.
>All these because we have e/accented > ye in Ariesh and you didn't
>like this?
Open up your ears: of course Arie$ is stressed on the last syllable.
But in Romanian it is very difficult to pronounce it [a-rjeS], i.e.
with a genuine diphtong [je]. Especially because of the [r]. With
diphtongation it is... un-Romanian. And, on top of that, as I can
judge you from your scribbling, reactions and poor knowledge and
power of judgment, I doubt that your gift of the gab is of such
kind that you can pronounce Arie$ in Romanian with an accurate
diphtong [je].
>I'm perplex until where you can arrive with your bad intentions
And I'm flabbergasted by what conclusions some sickos can arrive
at, especially on non-political mailing-lists. (Pentru linistirea
sufletului tau bantuit de himere: mi-s *pro* icoane in scolile
publice.)
>For your 'apprentissage' George:
Aprentizeze-te bunu Dumñezo care sa-ti deie mintea Olahului
de pa urma, ca tare o dadusi pe arataura.
>e/accented > ye (ya in closed syll. as in sharpe < sjarpe)
>is present in Dacian, Romanian & Albanian
Awright: and now it's your turn to chisel it into your
bio-harddisk, namely that in vast areas of the Romanian
language, even today, in December 2006, millions of
native-speakers, in their local Romanian, say neither
['Sarpe], nor ['Sjarpe] (as do, due to a bad, sociolectally
motivated, many people in Bucharest and a few surrounding
counties), but they say ['Særpe] or ['Serpe]. Open up your
wooden ears and listen the grass growing, for God's sake.
>It Started : Before Roman Times because is present in Dacian
There is no proof, contrary to the whole bunch of crap you're
reading from texts written by diletantes and fools who practice
a protochronist Dacian "cult". Romanian is a Romance idiom,
not a Romanized Dacian one. You've been told this by people
over here, who can thousand times better explain it to you
than I'd ever could.
The Romanian suffixes -[a,e,i,î,o,u]S cannot be satisfactorily
explained either by inner (Romance) mechanisms, or as loan
constructions, let alone as substrate, ones, since the knowledge
of the substrate (also unknown which one) is of utmost
scarcity. Unless you grasp this friggin' basic thing, you
can't make any judgment whatsoever. Moreover, until you can,
i.e., until you're able to throw a "bridge" over such a
chasm (8-10 centuries), there is the Latin language and
its relics, as Neo-Romance languages, and Romanian's most
features prompt the conclusion that it must be included in
the Romance-languages family
>Intelegi macar atata lucru George ca nu poate fi din Slava?
Nu te obraznici, puiule. Daca ai sti cat si cum te expui,
ai intra pe sub albia Ariesului de jena fatza de oaminii
ai$tè.
>The River Ariesh was NAMED ALREADY Ariesh Before the Slav
>arrival in Transylvannia?
Where's the source? Arie$ is the last hydronym in the chain.
Those names that were in use up to the arrival of Avars
and Slavs, or up to the extension of Protobulgarian
ruleship over there were different ones. The only thing
that those names have in common is the semantic (meaning):
"gold". Only that in Romanian (at least the Romanian of the
latest 500-800 years) does not have this meaning, "gold":
it has no meaning in Romanian whatsoever!
A fitting rendering with an -[a,e,i,î,o,u]S suffixation
in Romanian would be Aura$ [a-u-'raS], which would be
understood with its "gold" semantic content everywhere
within the Romanian realm, i.e. also amongst Macedonian,
Meglenite and Istrian Romanians.
If Arie$ were supposed to be a genuine old Romanian thing
*also meaning* "the golden rivulet", this is completely
forgotten. There is no memory left from generation to
generation.
Daca nu esti in stare sa-ti pui gandul in inlantuirea
asta logica, apuca-te de altceva, pt. ca pe taramul asta
ai sa ramai pana-i lume, cuc si vilag tufa de Venetia.
Meri la inst. de lingvistica din Cluj si intreaba-i
pe cei cu carte.
=>can you understand that the name of the River
>was Ariesh too in sec VI? Why?
>Because e > je ended and sy > sh ended too when the Slavs arrived
>..and the Hungarian arrived 400 years later than the Slavs
You're talking bunkum. And what seems to be worse is
that you're probably insight-resistant.
Why can't you understand that, in order for Romanians
to be passed on ArieS from a language phase when
this occurrence was natural and had the meaning "golden"
they must have had some internal path of transmission?
But there isn't. No connection between Arie$ and "gold".
And, on top of that, there is no proof for the existence
of Arie$ or Aresya in the first millennium. There are
only the names based on the Greek root for "gold" and
on the Latin root for "gold" (krys-, aur-). And Hungarians
had had their own word for "gold" before their arrival
in that area. Period.
>Now should be obvious also for you that *Aur-esya is for
>sure the Dacian name
If it is "for sure", then why the heck do you add the
asterisk? Because it is by no means "for sure". There
is no hint whatsoever that the rivulet ever had that
name. It is exclusively based on the protochronist
assumption that Arie$ is (let's put it in a nutshell):
(I) a relic from the Dacian variant of the hydronym,
(II) the Latin name variants evolved in an unknown
phase of Romanian as *Ar-
But if so, why don't you ask yourself, how come that
on the one hand you need a Latin->Romanian conversion
rule, whereas for the diphtongation (which isn't a
diphtongation in Romanian) you need an even more
fantastic trial of explanation based on hypothetic
Dacian phonetics?
>and the rivers in the Dacian times were named :
They were *not* named this way. This is a construed
hypothesis. What there existed is only what some
contemporary chroniclers jotted down. Unfortunately,
the hydronyms do not look like Maresya, Samesia,
Timbisia. And the worst case is that of Ardzjesya.
This is not linguistics, this is humbug and malarkey.
The attested form is Ordessos.
>now can you understand that Hungarian Aranjos
Put the ypsilon in there: Aranyos. Because one has to
pronounce it with the mañana-ñ.
>s a translation of Arjesh < *Aur-esja using the Magyar
>suffix -any that is 'exactly' the equivalent of the
>Dacian suffix -esya > Romanian -esh and not vice-versa
Can't your cortex get it that Hungarians have had
their arany word for "gold" all along the way from
the Eastern slopes of the Urals, and that the same
word is extant in virtual all Uralic languages in
slight different forms, and that all these variants
might have been the loanword for gold from Old Iranian?
Hungarians of course called the water Aranyos, namely
with a word that in their language means "golden".
We don't know how they got the idea to call it Aranyos.
But Romanian Arie$ does not reflect the "golden" meaning.
At least in Romanian not. Ampoi and Abrud might be some
weird relics from ancient times, but not Arie$, and not
Zlatna (whose meaning is given to any contemporary
Romanian only thanks to the knowledge of a related word,
zlãtar "the one who 'washes' gold, deals with it").
>Marius
>
>P.S. : 'Remain to say' that e>ye (with a Timeframe: started Before
>Roman Time (in Dacian Times) and ended before the Slavs arrivals in
>Balkans) is a Hungarian transformation that have influenced all
>together the Dacian, the Romanian and the Albanian
The problem of you, folks, is that you've been so grievously
brain-washed as to believe that between Dacian two thousand
years ago and Romanian of any historical phase there would be
a continuum, a conversion of one and the same language. This
is not only outside of any scientific judgment, but this is
plainly sick. Unfortunately, this sickness has been exploited
for centuries now by a commie oligarchy in order to prompt
the mis-guides masses to think "well, these are our legitimate
fellas!" Dream on.
George