[tied] Re: Schöffe I

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Alexandru Moeller <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>
> Am 27.04.2011 21:10, schrieb Torsten:
> >
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:cybalist%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "t0lgsoo1" <guestuser.0x9357@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Are those places in -eşti known earlier under other names in
> > > >sources in other languages or are they new settlements?
> > >
> > > Mostly or always new ones.
> >
> > Odd. So you're saying there was a settlement boom in Transylvania
> > in the 16th-17th centuries?

What's the general opinion of the age of the -eşti suffix?

> here is the problem of missing documents:-)) Just as additional
> information, the city of Bucureshti was mentioned on 1459, the city
> of Ploieshti has been mentioned on 1503 under the name "Plorescht"
> (it seems that this -eshti was not that easy to be caught by the
> foreign speakers thus they tried to approximate how it should be
> written.)

So it's not unlikely -eşti could have been rendered as -st- if loaned.

> > I know, cunosc, cunoşti, cunoşte, like finisco, finisci, finisce
> > Since that inchoative suffix of the i-stem verb with its
> > -sk-/-sty- alternation is pan-Romance it probably is not a good
> > idea to call that alternation a mark of as specifically Romanian
> > substrate. But it is still intriguing that Kuhn's NWBlock/Venetic
> > -st- suffix might have been the plural of the adjective -sk-
> > suffix.
> >
>
> so far I know the "-esc" suffix has been considered to be one of
> thracian provenience and not of Latin origina. But... we have had a
> such discussion about this "-esc" suffix here on cybalist some
> couples of years long time ago (2002?) see:
>
> http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/16177
>
>
> At that time was too George the one who argumentes against it but
> meanwhile we know that the "-esc" suffix in Romanian cannot be
> explained via Latin.

Does Trieste have it own name in Romanian? 'Tîrgeşti'?


Torsten