Re: Romanian APA

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > You've given me so much to respond to I'll try to go over the main
> > points (but not all) and reorder your questions.
> >
>
> I will start with Romanian topics:
>
>
> > > We have Romanian Dunare with u- again, versus Danuvius and the
> dan-
> > > root
> >
> > That's metathesis of a: and u.
>
>
> This is a pure suposition => you need to treat globally all the words
>
> Danuvius/Dunare ,
> muma/mama,
> burujana/barurina,
> burta/bark,
> Mures/Marisia
> etc...
>
> and I could still add other cases.

The Slavic forms (which were probably borrowed into Romanian) show
*Da:nuwjus > *Du:nawjU so it doesn't seem to have anything to do with
any other examples of a>u.

> But I cannot see why we cannot talk about Substratual words

If a word can easily be from Latin and no evidence shows otherwise I
won't treat it as otherwise.

> > and kw>p is a simple and certain recent change.
>
>
> Based on what you can established 'a recent timeframe' :
> We have
> codru supposed to be from *quodrum < Latin quadrum
> in the same time
> patru supposed to be from Latin quattuor
>
> Both cannot be true...you need to justify your timeframes

There's no difference in the time they entered Romanian.