What is the origine of the Slavic word, liubliu ?

Ion   Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:29 am GMT
Augustin 717,

Let's see the world family of " AMIC"

Amicitie = pritenie = friendship;
Amiabil = prietenesc/ste = friendly;
Amical = prietenesc, prietenos = friendly (adverbial);
Amic = prieten = friend;

What is your point, Augustin?

Obviously, I cannot leave you like this because, although I didn't really understand what you want to prove, I have to clarify this prieten/amic controversy.

Let's take it methodic:

Let’s start with the ancient times of proto-Romanians (daco-romans resultants).

Augustin, the first proto-Romanians communities didn’t have a huge number of inhabitants. The people who lived in this communities where usualy blood related. Therefore, the first word used by proto-Romanians to reflect a special affection, trust, closeness etc, was FRATRE. (Torna, Torna Fratre – remember?)

This word has received an larger connotation after the proto-Romanian families/communities increased the number of inhabitans and then due to specific circumstances (when some members remained isolated or isolate themselves from the main stump) , FRATRE became the word of connection, of friendship, of affection without to necessary mean only FRATE (brother) as it is today. That proto-Romanian word FRATRE was the equivalent of Brother and Friend, depending on circumstances. That was the original term used by Romanians and Romanian language to describe a blood and friendly relation (among themselves).

Then, later FRATRE became FARTATE (FIRTATE) and this form has been used in Vulgar Romanian up until the modern times.

The word PRIETEN appeared/was borrowed for the first time (probably by the contacts with Bulgars) to define a good relationship with NON BLOOD REALTED people; That was about a different relation than the one existing among the Romanians themselves. That was the momentum and the reason when and why the Slavic PRIETEN appeared in the Romanian language. To define a relation whose nature was different than any possible relation among Romanians. It was the term used to define a good relation between a Romanian and first a SLAV , then any Foreigner.

It has never had the intention to replace FRATRE because that word was reflecting an unique type of relation which could exist only between Romaninas. The word was used to name the Foreigners which were not Romanians enemies.

PRIETEN entered into Romanian because it was necessary to define a good relation between Romanian FARTATI and the Not Blood related people. A simple indication of PRIETEN, was for a Romanian in that time, enough to understand that it is referring to a good Foreigner.

Only later, when the Romanians started to grow numerically and to separate from each other more and more up until they build provinces like Walachia, Transylvania and Moldavia, PRIETEN has gotten new connotation.

In the modern time, PRIETEN proved to have some limitations in expression. It was the moment when the linguists decided to solve this problem and resuscitated the old Latin AMICUS. Only AMICAL came in our language from French, but not AMICITIE, nor AMIC. From French we borrowed only an adverbial form and not the word.

AMIC- INAMIC proved to serve better than PRIETEN – NE-PRIETEN. You should notice here a completely different nuance between INAMIC and NE- PRIETEN. They don’t express the same thing. To define INAMIC, the Slavs needed a completely different word – DUSMAN.

You understand now that by borrowing some words from the Slavs, we only enriched the vocabulary but didn’t change the language’s nature and/or structure?

Did you understand now the circumstances which “permitted” to the foreigner’s words to complete our lexicon? It doesn’t have anything to do with a potential Romanian SLAVISATION as you and some other “experts “ here, are trying to insinuate… It was just an Romanian adjustments to some new and specific circumstances.

I’m sorry Augustin but it is just not happened as you wanted!
augustin717   Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:22 am GMT
Interesting theory about "frate"/"firtate" and "prieten" and the presumed relationship between the twain, but this will only remain a nice theory, as long as the mere phrase "torna, fratre, torna" isn't sufficient to substantiate your claims.
The fact that words like "prieten", "iubi", "drag", "dragoste", 'nevasta" and a few others, expressing affection and family relationships entered the core vocabulary of the Romanian language, can only be explained by a significant number of inter-marriages between the Romance and the Slavic-speakinng populations.
One just doesn't give up a word like "amicus" for 'prieten" when both of his parents and others of his kin speak the same language. And since these words didn't enter Romanian via books/writting, it is wise to conclude that there was some intermarriage going on there. The final result was that the Slavs were assimilated into the Romance speaking population, but not, of course, without leaving quite a few traces.
Romanian also uses "dusman" (possibly of Cumanic or Petcheneg origin), inamic being a neologism and mainly bookish term.
We also have VRAJMAS.
OldAvatar   Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:45 am GMT
"Duşman" is of Indian origin. As far as I know, "dushman" is still the Hindi word for "enemy". Turks use "duşman" too. Interesting word, though, its traces are very old...

Also, Romanian language has "nevastă" from Slavs, of course.

But, perhaps, you remember about "vestalas", the Greek female priests having virgin apprentices. Southern Slavic, proto-Bulgarians used "Vista" for "virgin", so "ne-vesta" could have the meaning of a non-virgin woman, therefore a married one.

The Romans celebrated the festival of Vestalia too, worshiping the goddes Vesta, on every 15th of June... So, IMHO, things are a bit more complicated...

BR
augustin717   Wed Dec 13, 2006 6:24 am GMT
As regarding "nevasta", I don't dispute what you say, Brennus; I'd only contend that in Romanian, this word came from Southern Slavic, and not from Latin or Greek.
Ion   Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:55 am GMT
Augustin717

Torna, Torna Fratre was used just to remind you about the existence of the word in that time, (to not think that I'm inventing wordss, now) and not to used it as the suport point of "my theory". What I tried to explain to you is not just a theory, Augustin,because this is not a theory anymore; it is the proved and demonstrated Truth about how a Slavic words penetrated the Romanian language.

You gave me examples of wordsof Slavic origin in Romanian. This is something I never contest. What I do contest is the ways these words you consider have been absorbed by Romanians. For 98% of these Slavic words, we have Latin corespondents.

I don't want to waste my time and other's people time insisting on this subject (because this was not the initial topic), but to understand all these it is neccesery to have more speciality information. Unless that is happened I'm just walking on river's surface!

Then, it might became annoying for many peope thinking that I'm trying to demonstrate the Romanians Latinitiy. In fact, I'm trying to bring up the verified Truth. It is just the result of that and if Latin is dominant is just becuase it is like that. (Brennus pointed out very clear aother example - NEVASTA- SOTIE)

OLDAVATAR - Yes, you are right about Dusman. It cames via Turks...way later. (Turkic Dusman with umlaut!)
It is of Sanskrit origin, Oldavatar. You are right, it is my fault to use it in that example

Before that, what was the word to designate this character, Augustin? Do you know what the (proto-Romanians) used for, it instead? Because they had dusmani before the theor contacts with the Turks!

Regards
augustin717   Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:15 pm GMT
"Sotie" (the feminine form precisely) isn't probably inherited from Latin as such (from "socia") but is rather a newer Romanian creation from "sot' (<Lat."socius"), as 'sotie", even if it is not a neologism, isn't as widely used as 'nevasta" or "muiere" in various peasant patois, its use being rather restricted to the formal language.
And "sot" in all forms of Romanian untainted by the modern written language doesn't mean 'husband", but "companion".
Yes, there is an almost perfect synonimous noun for "nevasta" inherited from Latin as such, and that is "muiere".
Stefaniel P Spaniel   Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:46 pm GMT
Sorry for the slight delay in getting back.
I am glad to hear that Ion wasn't trying to prove the Latin "purity" of Romanian, and doesn't mind if it is claimed that it has a proportion of words from "proto-South-Slavic", Hungarian, German, French, Greek, Bulgarian, Turkish and some other words whose origins are perhaps impossible to pinpoint, but which might as well be Dacian. As a native English speaker I have no problem with the idea that my language is a cocktail too - it would be absurd to claim otherwise, in the case of English. As for Celtic words (I know that was just a rhetorical flourish, but bear with me) - I'd say there are probably as many "confirmed" Celtic words in English as there are Dacian words in Romanian, although perhaps not such important ones. All this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with ethnicity, origin and who was where in 1000AD - all issues which you may agree are too often mentioned whenever there is discussion about the Romanian language. The Normans were originally Norse(or was it Danish?) speakers before learning an early French dialect, forgetting their Scandinavian language to a remarkable degree and then a portion of them went over to England, brought a good stock of words with them but largely lost their French grammar...This is fairly well documented and accepted. This is not the case with today's Romanians, but who knows if they may not have gone through a similar process - a Slavic "chieftain class" being absorbed after a few generations, but leaving behind some usful vocabulary (particularly about settled agriculture) and perhaps a bit of grammar (that definite article as a suffix perhaps?)
Whatever, I agree that all we can do is speculate, and speculating can be fun and fascinating.
About "prieten"/ "amice": Don't you also say "colega" quite a lot? Just to stir the pot...
Also, as you were wondering at how odd it is that such "core" basic terms as "prieten" could be loan words, the original word for the term being lost, well, English for one has lost plenty of previously very common Anglo-Saxon words to be replaced by French derivations.
I wonder what the proto-Romanians said for "thought" before adopting "gind" from the Magyars? No doubt they had word for "thought!"

Cu stima
OldAvatar   Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:27 am GMT
@Stefaniel P Spaniel
"All this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with ethnicity, origin and who was where in 1000AD - all issues which you may agree are too often mentioned whenever there is discussion about the Romanian language."

This is rather an obsolete affirmation... Many Romanians are not interested anymore in who was where and when. That is an outdated trend. People are now rather focused on understanding a real history and leave behind the nationalistic aspects. The same current got into the language, where, in the past, origins of many words were sometimes falsified, by Latin nationalists, Daco-Romans fanatics or even by Soviet type Pro-Slavic propaganda...

On the other hand, a perfect synonim for "gând" is "cuget", from Latin "cugitus". That was the initial word used by Romanians... You probably know the famous "Cugitus, ergo sum". "Cuget" is not a neologism.

Best regards
Ion   Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:23 am GMT
Spaniel (Spaniel is a group of gun dog breeds; you couldn't find another name or nickname for you?)

First of all, I only need to ignore all your comments from above, because it will only be a waste of time for me to explain what my position regarding Romanian language is, or to express my opinion about who the Romanians are, what those chieftains in reality were, how the things in regard of Dacian words are, etc, etc. To attack so many areas it might happen only when both of us have assimilated the basics on this matter. I'm sorry, but I simple don't have that much patience for doing that, anymore...I rather let you believe that everything what I’m trying here is to prove the purity of Romanians (I wonder, when I tried that!?!) than to run into these discussions over and over again.

But I will stop a while at your last paragraph just because you were wondering so much by not knowing how /if the Romanians have been thinking before the Magyars showed them how to do it. (sic!)

Tashek, here is what you said:

"I wonder what the proto-Romanians said for "thought" before adopting "gind" from the Magyars. No doubt they had word for "thought!" Really, no doubt?

Stefaniel (I can’t use Spaniel anymore), before the Magyars, Romanians nu (se) gandeau , they just CUGETAU (from the Latin COGITARE).

In other words Gand = Cuget, (Idee, Reflectie)

The verb “ a gandi” in Romanian forces the pronoun EU to overlap its objective sense by developing another semantic rapport : Eu MA GANDESC. These days, Eu MA GANDESC, could be used as EU GANDESC, although, this last form covers a larger meaning.
Something close to I AM THINKING across I THINK.

But EU CUGET, doesn’t need an extra effort from the pronouns. Eu cuget, tu cugeti, el/ea cugeta …noi cugetam, voi cugetati, ei/ele cugeta.

It is obviously a better fit for Romanian when its words are originated in Latin. EU CUGET, covers in accordance with the context, both EU MA GANDESC and EU GANDESC! Simple like Buna Ziua! (Good Day!)

Now, I have a surprise for you which you might not like. While in Walachia and Moldova, GAND and A GANDI is very well used, in Transylvania, exactly where the contacts with Magyars took place, the form EU CUGET is more often used than EU (MA) GANDESC. What is this telling you?
Make an effort and give me the answer!

Visanlatasro!
Ion   Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:26 am GMT
Sory Oldatavar, if I were faster and have seen your posting ,I wouldn't post my coment anymmore!

Regards!
OldAvatar   Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:02 am GMT
The verb "A păsa - păsare" from Latin "pensare" is a widely used word in modern Romanian, especially linked with negative forms:

"Nu-mi pasă = I don't care".

Probably the old meaning was "to think", but in modern Romanian it means "to care about something, to concern".

The word "păs (blue feeling, sadness)" from the same Latin form "pensum" is, indeed, not frequently used nowadays, but it still exists in the language.
Ion   Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:26 pm GMT
Brennus/Augustin717,

"Femeie - Femeia mea/a lui" as used in Vulgar Romanian is anotehr term indicating a non virgin/ a maried women. The same way works for the husband:, omul meu/omul ei. Both again, of latin origin!
augustin717   Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:10 pm GMT
As to "a pasa", I'm unaware of any attestation of this verb with the same meaning as "a gandi".
Ion   Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:08 pm GMT
Augustin717,

By the time " a gandi" has begun to be used, " a pasa" had already lost much of its original sense. Cuget was more used within direct thinking meaning, while PASA, moved on an affective level. A pasa is still a form of thinking just with a higher impact on the in the plan of feelings. That's the sense it has today. You need to be Romanian to understand what I'm saying, to capture exactly the sense.

To care is having a larger coverage than A PASA. To care can be associated with a physical approach/activity and not necessary only with thinking or/and affection. A PASA remains always at the feeling and brain level only.

When somebody cares about...in fact, he is thinking about something/somebody else...

Best personal regards!
Ion   Fri Dec 15, 2006 1:00 am GMT
Erratum:
Please replace:

"When somebody cares about...in fact, he is thinking about something/somebody else...” from the posting from above,

with

" When TO somebody "ii pasa" of somebody else... (that's how this verb relates to a subject in Romanian), it means, that he/she has thoughts and feelings, (positive or negative) about her/him. "

More explanation:

Beside the brain, “pasa” involves the soul, as well.

Because the affective plan is more pregnant in our perception, we might live under the impression that the verb "a pasa” is showing only affection. In reality, thinking is the main action which remains present even after affection has been stimulated by the brain’s signals.

"Imi pasa de tine" means: I feel something for you (because -first- I'm and continue to be - thinking at/about you so profound, that I begun to feel for you).

A PASA is deeper, more expressive and more precise in its meaning/its representation, than EU MA GANDESC or EU CUGET.

"Eu ma gandesc la tine" can or cannot involve affection;

" Eu Cuget" - appear even more indifferent/distant across you... from the affection perspective;

But

" Imi pasa te tine" – it shows no doubts that I’m interested in you and very possible I may love you!

To bring feelings alongside, MA gandesc si Cuget need the help of adverbial forms like mereu, intense, foarte mult, foarte des!

Sorry for being insistent/repetitive on one and the same point! I’m not sure if Non Romanians are getting the right sense of PASA…in case anybody really cares. (or ii PASA)