Re: Magyar uveg <-> Romanian uiag&

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tolgs001" <george_st@...> wrote:

>
> -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
>

OK George don't be nervous....seems that you switch to personal
attacks ...in place to explain that /u/ from /a/ etc..

to resume your position:
"gyula is not from Iulius but is from a unknown turkic language" ....
"noian is not linked to uj& dfespite Rosetti"
"Iza and Mara are Hungarian toponims" and
"you are not pro_Hungarian"


So Let's stop here if you don't have other arguments.

I don't want to start another story here.

You can read Rosetti meanwhile regarding...'noian' to see that is
really linked to uy&


Bye,
Marius

P>S> If you are Romanian, I'm Chinese...