Tafsiri - Kiromania-Kiingereza - Origine necunoscută. Opinia predominantă este

Hi again

Just a few edits:

"Unknown origin. The predominant opinion is that we are dealing with a word of oriental origin, but previous to the contact with the turks( which seems to be confirmed through its presence in the dialects and also by its constat appearence, as a personal name, from the XIII century; So it would be a cumanic or turanic word or the derivation of the iraninan "bac"."

In the next part of your text I have some difficulties in understanding exactly what you mean, in particular the following sentenc


"Of course, it is difficult to dispute the foundation of these opinions, as long as it can not be indicated, o one side, the penetration way of the iranian word."

Certain, is the fact that it is in all the balcanic slavic languages that surround the romanian territory. The range of the word itself seems to indicate its romanian presence; because only the romanian language was directly tied to all the above mentioned languages, and the fact that this word doesn't explain itself through personal methods to any of these languages. Still it is not possible to explain it, until now, except through romanian intermedia. In what concerns us, and by the fact that we find ourselves on the fragile ground of conjecture, we are not excluding the possibility that it preserved itself in "baci" a local word, maybe the one that corresponds to the latin pater and possibly the one that preserved itself in "bade". The dacic origin of the word has been postulated by Haseu, Traian's Column. The other old explications seem too slightly plausible. According to Miklosich, we are talking about a Slavic word that must be compared with "basta" father and "bastima" legacy, hypothesis hard to sustain, because of the phonetic difficulties. Seineanu proposed as Turkish etymon "bas" leader, which, on its turn can be neither historical, nor phonetic."

Once you have edited I will set apoll.

Bises
Tantine

Hi Ionut Andrei

Could you do the edits I suggest for your translation, otherwise I will not be able to open a poll.

Bises
Tantine

Ok Tantine. I edited the text as you told me.

Hi Ionut Andrei

Unfortunately you missed out some of the edits. I've gone through the text and cleaned it up

Also, I checked out the names of the different languages the texts speak of and have also edited them

I still don't understand the meaning of:

"Of course, it is difficult to dispute the foundation of these opinions, as long as it can not be indicated, o one side, the penetration way of the iranian word."

Can you explain it to me in other terms so as I can edit that bit too, then I can set a poll

Bises
Tantine

Well if I understood well, some people think that we are dealing with a iranian word, introduced by the turks.

The sentence you don't understand (neither I did) says that it is difficult to belive this opinion since we can't prove the way penetrated tha language.

Ok, I think I got it

If you agree, I will edit it with:

"Of course, it is difficult to dispute the foundation of these opinions either way, since there is no proof of its penetration into the Iranian language"

Let me know, then I will set a poll

Bises
Tantine

Very good. Go for it.

It's well translated, just the last line should be like this:
"...which, on its turn, can not be possible from both historical and phonetical point of view".

Again - "can be possible neither from the historical point of view, nor from the phonetical one." All in all, its possibility of existence is denied from both historical and phontical points of view. Funny me! I hope I managed to make myself understood.

Hi Freya

Thanksfor your help. I understand perfectly what you mean, and will edit.

Bises
Tantine

Après les corrections apportées, le sens semble bien respecté.


After corrections, the significance seems respected.

Hello,

1) the turks --> the Turks (or Turkish);
2) "ar fi prin urmare" --> "therefore, it would be..." (not "so it would be);
3) "of course" --> "obviously" (ro. "evident";
4) "since there is no proof of its penetration into the Iranian language" = a sentence rather ambigous because of the first part of the sentence. Who is "its"? In Romanian it is clearly stated. --> "... since the means by which the Iranian word infiltrated cannot be indicated..."; "pe de o parte" (on one hand) has been omitted from the translation (the meaning of this particular sentence has been slightly changed from its original);
5) "was directly tied to all the of the above mentioned languages" --> "was directly connected to the languages mentioned above";
6) "and the fact that this word doesn't explain itself through personal methods to any of these languages" = in this sentence there is nothing about "personal methods", but about the very methods, the specific methods of those languages; languages cannot have "personal" methods (so the actual meaning of the original is being slightly changed). Also, "doesn't explain itself" is not accurate because in the Romanian text the meaning is that of "it cannot be explained (passive); to make my point clear for the Romanian translator another way of saying that in Romanian would be: "acest cuvânt nu poate fi explicat". My suggestion: "and the fact that this word cannot be explained through the specific means of neither of these languages.";
7) the "Still it is not possible to explain it, until now, except through Romanian inter media" was incorrectly understood by the person who translated the text. The sentence should read like this: "To this day, however, it is not possbile to explain it only through the Romanian medium" (or "the Romanian part";
8 ) "In what concerns us" --> "concerning us" or "as far as concerns us";
9) "and by the fact that" --> "and given the fact"; "în orice caz" was omitted when the translation was done. Suggestion: "and given the fact that, in any case, we find ourselves...";
10) the "we are not excluding the possibility that it preserved itself in "baci" a local word" is entirely ambigous (to me); it wasn't well understood in the original (that is because the syntax in Romanian is a bit entangled). This part should read something like this: "we do not exclude the possibility that within the word 'baci' an indigenous word might have been preserved...";
11) "and possibly the one that preserved itself in "bade" --> "and possibly the same that was preserved in 'bade'";
12) "The Dacian origin of the word has been postulated by HaÅŸdeu" --> "The Dacian origin word had been postulated even since HaÅŸdeu..."
13) "The other old explications seem too slightly plausible" --> "The other old explanations seem much less plausible."
14) "According to Miklosich, we are talking about a Slavic word that must be compared with "basta" father and "bastima" legacy, hypothesis hard to sustain, because of the phonetic difficulties" = it could be improved, and the whole sentence should sound hypothetical. My suggestion: "According to Miklosich, it would be a question of a slavic term that should be put in connection with "bast"-"tata" and with "bastina"-"moÅŸtenire", an assumption hard to sustain due to the phonetic dificulties.
15) "Seineanu proposed as a Turkish etymon "bas" - "leader" which, on its turn, can be possible neither from the historical, nor from the phonetical point of view." -- My suggestion: "As a Turkish etymon, Åžeineanu proposed (or "suggested" the word "bas"-"chief", which can not be possible, too, from the both historical and phonetical points of view."

Pheewww. I'm done :P .
All the best.

"since there is no proof of its penetration into the Iranian language" - sensul corect -> "since there is no proof of how(the way) the Iranian word has penetrated."///
"Dacian origin of the word has been postulated by Haseu, Traian's Column." - sensul corect -> "The Dacian origin of the word has been postulated by Hasdeu in 'Columna lui Traian'(or The Column of Traian)."///"According to Miklosich, we are talking about a Slavic word that must be compared with 'basta' father and 'bastima' legacy" - sensul corect ->
"According to Miklosich, we might be talking about a Slavic word that must be linked with 'basta' father and 'bastima' legacy"///"canNOT be possible neither from the historical".