# Romanian 'fox'



## Kaschiller

from DEX ( dictionar explicativ roman)
*HULPE *_hulpi_, s.f. V. *vulpe* 
*HALPAI(Hulpai), * _hắlpăi_, vb. IV. Tranz. (Reg.) A mânca sau a bea repede şi cu lăcomie. – Cf. bg. h l a p a m, scr. h l a p i t i.     
( to eat or drink fast, to devour)

Is there any etymological law to show this transformation:
H->G->V?

Hulpe - Gulpe - Vulpe? (fox)


----------



## robbie_SWE

Kaschiller said:


> from DEX ( dictionar explicativ roman)
> *HULPE *_hulpi_, s.f. V. *vulpe*
> *HALPAI(Hulpai), *_hắlpăi_, vb. IV. Tranz. (Reg.) A mânca sau a bea repede şi cu lăcomie. – Cf. bg. h l a p a m, scr. h l a p i t i.
> ( to eat or drink fast, to devour)
> 
> Is there any etymological law to show this transformation:
> H->G->V?
> 
> Hulpe - Gulpe - Vulpe? (fox)


 
Sorry, but I don't think that words can tranform themselves like that (a "b" can become a "v", but an "h" can't become a "v/g"). So the Romanian _hălpăi _has nothing to do with this. 

 robbie


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Kaschiller said:


> from DEX ( dictionar explicativ roman)
> *HULPE *_hulpi_, s.f. V. *vulpe*
> *HALPAI(Hulpai), *_hắlpăi_, vb. IV. Tranz. (Reg.) A mânca sau a bea repede şi cu lăcomie. – Cf. bg. h l a p a m, scr. h l a p i t i.
> ( to eat or drink fast, to devour)
> Is there any etymological law to show this transformation:
> H->G->V?
> Hulpe - Gulpe - Vulpe? (fox)


Maybe it's not bad if you first explain to us what exactly you mean by "an etymological law"?

Secondly, it's quite clear from the data in DEX that 
1. Romanian Vúlpe < Latin Vulpes
2. Húlpe < Vulpe
Which means that you have to account for V- > H- and not something the other way round. Latin 'vulpes' could have given a clue too...




Frank


----------



## Kaschiller

I'm not sure for the technical term for " etymological law "
I have often seen "trends".
For example:
Teu - Deu - Zeu (God)
(T->D->Z)
L-> R
B->V->F 

What do Linguists call this transformations?
Where can I find more about technical terms used by Linguists?


----------



## Maroseika

Kaschiller said:


> I'm not sure for the technical term for " etymological law "
> I have often seen "trends".
> For example:
> Teu - Deu - Zeu (God)
> (T->D->Z)
> L-> R
> B->V->F
> 
> What do Linguists call this transformations?
> Where can I find more about technical terms used by Linguists?


The problem is that etymology is only a part of linguistics. You can find some laws in the special literature, but trying to use them without learning phonetics and many other things is quite the same as trying operate on somebody by use of surgery manual without learning anatomy first.
To look how it works in general however, I recommend you any book of Emile Benvenist.
And just as example here is a couple of the scientifically ascertained facts:
The following words originate from one source: *full, folks, полный*.
Iranian stem **frasna,  A.I. *prac'na, Greek pleko, плести, Lat. plico, Germ. flehtan*.
How do you imagine "phonetical law" letting to "calculate all this? Belive, it's a bit more complicated than just b>f>п...


----------



## Frank06

Kaschiller said:


> I'm not sure for the technical term for "etymological law". [...] Where can I find more about technical terms used by Linguists?


 
Before you come up with novel etymologies, I advise you to read this "checklist" (pdf-file). It looks impressive and, well, I think it *is*. But everybody who wants to contribute to a decent etymological research (or dictionary) should keep these principles in mind. And most linguists just *do* that, because they know they are reviewed by peers. 
The list suggests that the time needed to come up with a decent etymology of a word takes slightly longer than the time needed to write a post for a message board. The list also suggest that lexical similarities are not enough to come up with novel theories or explanations.

Luckily, most of us are willing to rely on the enormous job done by others and consult an etymological dictionary, keeping in mind that not all dictionaries are equally reliable or up to date and keeping in mind that what you find in such a dictionary is only the tip of the iceberg. 

In this list of 5 pages you'll find some technical terms which are explained in any Historical Linguistics 101 course or handbook. If you google for e.g. "terminology historical linguistics" you find several off line publications aka books on terminology. 

What your "etymological law" is concerend, I am not sure what you my mean by that, but I have the impression that you mean regular sound change (or sound law). But in every single book on the principles of historical linguistics you should be able to find what you're looking for.

Back to the main topic of this thread:
You wrote:


> Is there any etymological law to show this transformation:
> H->G->V?


Why would you need that, if it is clear from the data given in DEX that you need to account for V > H, viz. Latin vulpes > Romanian vúlpe, húlpe?

Frank


----------



## Kaschiller

Thank you for the information and for your patience.


----------



## OldAvatar

Anyway, *a hălpăi, hălpăire* could be just an onomatopeic word, the association with *hlapiti *may be a bit forced, like it happened with many other Romanian words. Romanian words' etymology is a bit tricky, since, from time to time, it had to give answers to serious political influences, rather than objective studies... I know DEX is a guideline and we should stick to it, but, sometimes, a critic view won't harm.

Best regards!


----------



## Afro-Cherokee

Trying to connect Romanian vulpe to _h__ă__lpăi_ is rather pointless. One only needs to look at the words in other romance languages to realize that it comes from Latin vulpes. This word wich gives us scientific names such as vulpes bengalensis (bengal fox), vulpes vulpes (red fox), etc. It has also been rendered in Standard Italian as "volpe" (fox). Aragonese (the language of Aragon in Spain) preserves the word as "vulpini" (designation for the family), "vulpino"  in Castillian (Spanish... same designation as the Aragonese word).

Whenever in doubt, though it's not always going to give the answer, for romance language origins, use a Latin dictionary, compare to other latin-based languages on wordreference.com, or go to google translate and choose your source language, and then choose Latin as the language you want to translate into.


----------



## LilianaB

It is lape in Lithuanian and comes straight from Indo-European, if this helps somehow. It means the one that steals chickens, if this is somehow related to the Latin one.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings

Especially with regard to Robbie's post, #2, and Afro-Cherokee's, #9, it is worth pointing out that English "whelp", meaning a small or young dog, is manifestly cognate in IE with Latin _vulpes_, as is Greek λύκος (_lykos_), "wolf".


----------



## LilianaB

Hello,what does vulpe mean in Latin? Would it have anything to do with stealing chickens?


----------



## Scholiast

In response to LilianaB's question (#12), I thought it was alread clear from the previous contributions in this thread that Latin _vulpes _means "fox".


----------



## Scholiast

And a footnote to my own post (#11): I should have added that English "wolf" is also cognate. English has several pairs of words that have come into the language from different sources at different times, with different, though related, connotations. So along with whelp/wolf, compare ship/skiff, shirt/skirt, nice/neat &c.


----------



## LilianaB

Thank you, I know vulpes in Latin means fox but would it have another meaning though, like the Indo-European laupasa, an animal which steals hens. Is wolf a cognate of the Latin vulpes, fox? Could the Lithuanian lape be a cognate of vulpes?


----------



## CapnPrep

Scholiast said:


> Especially with regard to Robbie's post, #2, and Afro-Cherokee's, #9, it is worth pointing out that English "whelp", meaning a small or young dog, is manifestly cognate in IE with Latin _vulpes_, as is Greek λύκος (_lykos_), "wolf".


There is no established etymological link between _whelp_ and _vulpes_, or between _whelp_ and _wolf_. The relationship between _vulpes_ and _λύκος/lupus/wolf_ is itself problematic; discussion of this point would be more appropriately continued in the following thread:
English wolf, Italian volpe


Scholiast said:


> So along with whelp/wolf, compare ship/skiff, shirt/skirt, nice/neat &c.


_Nice_ (< nescius) and _neat _(< nitidus) are not cognates either.


----------



## danielstan

Romanian _vulpe _comes from Latin _vulpem_ (accusative form of _vulpis_).
Latin _vulpes _means "foxes".
Romanian, like standard Italian, has inherited most of its Latin words from their accusative form
(with few exceptions like:
rom. om < lat. nominative homo).
We cannot distinguish the accusative or nominative inheritance for the Latin words ending in _-us/-um_.

As native Romanian (born and living near Bucharest, the region who gives the "standard" Romanian) I never heard the word "hulpe", but I don't contest the dictionary who list it - probably is a regionalism.

Regarding a possible phonetic rule which has governed the transformations H > G > V in Romanian I certainly contest such an idea.
I read a lot of books of Romanian linguists and I know the majority of the phonetic rules that marked the evolution of Romanian - there were no such transformations H > G > V as rules and if encountered in some particular cases they should be regarded as exceptions.


----------

