-So you don't have examples.
Until you're able to get professional examples supplied by experts dealing
with the history of the Hungarian language, my examples are especially
good, eloquent and relevant.
>I need to understand that you don't like too much Romanians?
I like Romanians since I am one. I only from time to time dislike stupid
fellas, whenever I forget pitying them. Especially churlish, rude ones.
>Or you are just trying to find another etymology supposing that
>originary there was no water /uj&/ in that bottles?
*I for one* do _not_ try anything like that, since the etymology of uiaga
has been explained by scholars ages before your great-granpa was
born. Besides, in the north-eastern part of Ardeal (the region which is
relevant, and only that one), any kid knows that uiaga is a loanword
from Hungarian. Period.
>Do you know the Romanian word 'noian' 'imense waters'?
You betcha. Moreover: noian is not a genuine Transylvanian word.
(Bine ca repeta$i, altminteri nu-mi aduceam aminte.) And this is also
of relevance in your groping for explanations.
>Why this word is not from 'apa' the basic romanian word for 'water'?
>The answer is simple: to allow you to put such questions here.
>(Is like to ask why 'ocean' & 'sea' are not derived from 'water'?)
Do us and yourself a favor: write less, but that what you write should be
coherent.
>So in 'flu-yer' 'flute' the split u-ye is also due to Hungarian
u-veg? :)
Non-sequitur. Incidentally, Romanian fluier is rendered in Hungarian by
furuja /'fu-ru-yO/. Go figure.
>I don't see any phonetic issue for Romanian here
You don't. But you are neither Romania, nor the entire Romanian
nation, much as you'd wish.
>There is a Romanian poem saying:
> /u-yu-yu la m^an-dra shu-ye ca-re su-ye pe r&-zu-ye/
You can also sing "Uiuiu, ca viu amu, calare pa Vanatu" or "Uiuiu pa
langa stâna sa sa faca branza buna, sa nu fie usturoaie ca gura de
jinaroaie", but
it won't change an iota: that's something else, completely different.
U in
uiaga has no meaning, neither has iaga in uiaga. Neither has üveg in
Hungarian (AFAIK). People who have more knowledge than we do say üveg
is a loanword, and people who know more than you do know and say that
uiaga is a loanword in Romanian.
> I can agree that this can be hard for you to pronounce (as not a
>native speaker) but is not the general case.
I am a native speaker, and a real native speaker of the uiaga region.
And on top of that, I can speak with the pronunciation of a Moldova
guy, of a Muntenia and Bucharest one, and you'll never know. (So, a
good advice to you would be to stop selling castraveti gradinarului.)
>>>The First Issue is how a Hungarian �- in �veg can appear
Is this the way yahoogroups destroys my umlaut-o and umlaut-u?!
>So before to learn that rules, you are already sure about your final
>conclusion: you will find 'a rule' that makes an /u/ from an /a/ (I
>saw that you have hardly try alreday) when there are other words (see
>my quotes) that show you something else?
Of course. We don't even need to know how a in avg (if it stems
from avg at all: we don't know!) gets umlaut-u in Hungarian. It
suffices to see that uveg > uiaga fits some patterns, whereas
the vice-versa thing doesn't work (as your Albanian and noian
don't either).
>The earlier Ossetic variant was *apaka: ==>
>try now with this one... to obtain uveg :)
>I can tell you that is preferable to remain with avg
*You* tell me? It is such a textbook as that one I cited, by that German
or Austrian scholar who mentioned the authors and their assumptions,
as a footnote in his concoction on Iranian-Armenian vocabulary.
>Druete is regional ? It is. It's Substratual? It is.
>Why we find 'old' species in isolated regions?
>(I answer also in another mail)
I know. But uiaga is no substrate word such as those listed in various
lists by all linguists (Romanian and foreign) that dealt with them. I
don't know
how old uiaga is, but I expect it to be very recent. More recent than 1600
or 1700. (In Hungarian it might be much older, but this is none of our
business here.)
>Sorry to tell, but it seems that you didn't understand the general
>accepted position here (Abaev etc...)
It'd be a pleasure to get an heureka from you.
>These are not Ossetic loans of 1200 AC from Ias,i
>
>Hungarians were in contact with (Proto)Ossetians before their
>arrival in Pannonia (0-700 BC) this is the general accepted position.
The components of the old Hungarian "conglomerate" were in constant
contacts for millennia with Indo-European languages speaking neigh-
bors. Namely, both those Ugrians whose language is called the Magyar
language, and those various Turks who ruled the Proto-Magyars (the
"Mogers", as the old chroniclers put it) and who finally were assimilated
linguistically by the Magyar-speaking underlings.
So, unless there are no clear-cut "markers", one doesn't know when
exactly which loanword (that is which non-Ugrian, non-Uralic one)
enterd the language. AFAIK, Hungarian has lexemes that have
equivalents in... sanskrit (e.g. the word meaning "cart", and one
meaning "trousers").
In the case of uveg it is understandable that the word might have
been borrowed from "neighbors" who had much more in common
with the techniques of making glass, since anyone can expect
the proto-"Mogers" not having the know-how and technical possibilities
in those regions east or west of the Ural range.
But of course, it'd be interesting to me to read the explanation why
is uveg so old in Hungarian, 500 b. Chr., when the Magyar language
itself must have been very "proto-proto"-something within the greater
Uralic family. AFAIK, the migration southwards (under a Turkic
social upper-crust) happened way later, perhaps a millenium later
on. (I must add here that according to some scholars, the incipient
Hungarian nation was built in the vicinity of the Caucasus mountains
and from there did they (or some of them) move to the north, in the
Kama-Volga region, from where they (not all of them) moved farther
to the south, south-west, in "Levedia", then in "Atelkuzu", from where
the Petchenegs finally scared them away.)
George