Re: Romanian APA

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

>
> --- 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)

It's the first time when I see somebody asserting that Dunare comes
from Slavic...Do you have arguments? Chronological The Slavs are the
last taht arrived in Balkans: will be a unique case in zone : a big
River Name not to be inherit from the Ancients

Marisia > Muresh
Samus > Somesh
*Ardzesia (Ordessos) > Argesh
Timisia > Timish
etc...

> show
> *Da:nuwjus > *Du:nawjU so it doesn't seem to have anything to do

with

> any other examples of a>u.

You just make an assertion....But what are the arguments to sustain
that Marisia > Muresh and Danuvius > Dunare 'have anything to do' ?

>
> > 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.

Here is not 'easily' : we have 2 Rules in Contradiction:

kw- > k- (codru)
kw- > p- (apa)

Sorry but is an evidence this...

> > > 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.

Really, No difference in Time?

So we would have in the same time in Proto-Romanian:

kw- > k (codru) and
kw- > p (patru) ?

You know as me that this cannot be possible.


Marius