# Romanian nevoie and Albanian nevojë



## DenisBiH

Hello everybody! 

I'm sorry if this has been discussed before, I searched for "nevoie  nevoje" and didn't find anything. Both words seem to mean "need" (native  speakers please correct me if I'm wrong)

Is something more known about their etymologies? Both words look Slavic (BCS volja "will; wanting"), and according to this discussion Slavic etymology has indeed been proposed, if perhaps not universally accepted, for Romanian nevoie.

Is there anything in their forms or elsewhere that could tell us if they  were borrowed separately and directly from Slavic (if indeed Slavic is the source) in both cases, or if  there was something else involved?


Note: I thought about adding this post to the thread about the Romanian word, but wasn't sure if that would be proper considering I'm also asking about the Albanian word and their possible relationship. If the moderators think this would fit better as a post in that thread, I won't object to this thread being deleted, of course.


----------



## robbie_SWE

Hi DenisBiH, 

I'm sorry that no one has responded so far!  

I've always been inclined to believe that the Romanian *nevoie* is composed of the prefix _*ne-*_ ("not") + *voie* ("will") = "no will" or 
"not willingly" (hence the meaning need, necessity). It is also possible for the word to come from the verb _*a nevoi*_ ("to need"). 

The problem with *voie* is that it could just as well be a descendent from Latin _volo_. 

Hope this helped! 

 robbie


----------



## DenisBiH

Thanks robbie_SWE.  I did find a little bit, not much really, in Petar Skok's etymological dictionary of Croatian/Serbian under the entry for _volja_. Basically he says that a negative compound _nevolja_ in the meaning "necessitas" was borrowed by Hungarians/Magyars (as névolya, nyavalya, where it developed the meaning "illness, sickness"), and by Romanians and Albanians. He also seems to think Romanians borrowed _volja_, as did Albanians supposedly.




> Negativnu složenku nevolja »necessitas« posudiše Madžari névolya, nyavalya (1211) »bolest«, Rumunji nevoie i Arbanasi nevojë / novoje »nužda«, s pridjevom nevojëshëm »necessario, essenziale, bisognoso«, pored toga Rumunji i volja > voe, s pridjevom na lat. -osus > -os voios, Arbanasi vole.


----------



## phosphore

robbie_SWE said:


> The problem with *voie* is that it could just as well be a descendent from Latin _volo_.


 
But the usual Romanian reflex of the Latin intervocalic [l] is [r], isn't it? This can be seen in caelum>cer or solem>soare.


----------



## robbie_SWE

phosphore said:


> But the usual Romanian reflex of the Latin intervocalic [l] is [r], isn't it? This can be seen in caelum>cer or solem>soare.


 
I'm glad that you mentioned this Phosphore! 

Well, there seems to be a lot of confusion concerning words connected to "wanting something" and "needing something" in Romanian. The verb "to want", *a vrea* (from lat. _volere_), has somehow mutated with *voie* creating words like *a v*(r)*oi *(to want, to have the will to...). The question is if the original word for will in Romanian, was *_*v*(r)*oie*_. Of course I have very little to build my theory on, but I believe that words related to "will" and "need" in Romanian are very oblique. 

E.g. 

*a vrea*, *vrere*, *vrută*
*a v*(r)*oi*, *voios*, *voie*, *v*(r)*oinţă*, *nevoie*
*a învoi*, *învoială*

I even found this explanation for _a vrea_, from Dicţionarul etimologic român:



> Var. I _vreu, vroi, voi,_ I pl. _vrem, voim,_ inf. _v(r)oi._ Mr. _voi, vrută, vreare,_ istr. _voi._ Lat. _volĕre,_ forma vulgară în loc de _velle_ (Diez, I, 448; Cihac, I, 319; Puşcariu 1920; REW 9180), cf. it. _volere,_ prov., cat. _voler,_ fr. _vouloir._ Pentru evoluţia formelor, cf. Candrea, _Éléments,_ 45 şi Tiktin; despre folosirea ca auxiliar al viitorului, cf. _va._ *La pierderea lui r în tema prezentului şi a inf. au contribuit analogia cu voie „voinţă”, simultan cu poziţia slabă a cons. la I *vo(r)iu › voi ca *ceriu › cei (cerere), pier › piei (pieire) etc.*


 
The bold passage states that the omitted _r_ contributed to the analogy with _*voie*_,while the weak position of the consonant enforced this development. 

 robbie


----------



## aeneas dardanus

DenisBiH said:


> Hello everybody!
> 
> I'm sorry if this has been discussed before, I searched for "nevoie nevoje" and didn't find anything. Both words seem to mean "need" (native speakers please correct me if I'm wrong)
> 
> Is something more known about their etymologies? Both words look Slavic (BCS volja "will; wanting"), and according to this discussion Slavic etymology has indeed been proposed, if perhaps not universally accepted, for Romanian nevoie.
> 
> Is there anything in their forms or elsewhere that could tell us if they were borrowed separately and directly from Slavic (if indeed Slavic is the source) in both cases, or if there was something else involved?
> 
> 
> Note: I thought about adding this post to the thread about the Romanian word, but wasn't sure if that would be proper considering I'm also asking about the Albanian word and their possible relationship. If the moderators think this would fit better as a post in that thread, I won't object to this thread being deleted, of course.


 

Before you dwell deeper, I should remind you that "volja" is not a slavic word at all, - it is latin [volo]. No other slavic language has this word in common, not even neighboring slovenians: "volja" :"bo"; slovak: bude; russian: budet; macedonian: ke; bulgarian: shte; belarusian: budzie. Etc...
 
In albanian lat., verb 'volo' goes directly into "voj:ë\a" [the L/J liquidation] - therefore, in romanian it didn't have to undergo any kind of transformations.​


----------



## DenisBiH

My dear Dardanian friend, _volja_ is a word inherited from Proto-Slavic *volja, in turn inherited from PIE *wel-. This dictionary says it is also attested in OCS, Russian and Old Polish. You seem to be confusing volja with the forms of the verb "to be" and "to want", both of which exist parallel to it.


----------



## OBrasilo

Interesting, Italian seems to have such a word as well, namely _voglia_, means _will_, _desire_. So the Romanian _voie_ could well be descended directly from Latin, and a cognate to Italian _voglia_, and _nevoie_ would be just a regularly formed negative.


----------



## koniecswiata

Maybe, in a way, this Romanian term is related to/descended from both the Latin and the Slavic.  I don't know Romanian, but it can happen that words that are fairly similar in two distinct (though related) languages--such as Latin and Old Slavonic, end up influencing each other or supporting each other in a third language--in this case Romanian.  Something analagous may have happened with the "s" plural ending in English as coming from both Anglo-Saxon and French.


----------



## DenisBiH

Well, the etymology of Romanian _nevoie_ aside, there is still the problem of the Albanian word and whether and how it's related to the Romanian one. According to aeneas dardanus, this sort of sound change can be explained regularly in Albanian (though I don't know if there ever was such a thing as _Albanian Latin_ which is what I presume "albanian lat." stands for). And if I understand the last sentence correctly, aeneas assumes that Romanian borrowed that word from _Albanian Latin_ (I'm aware this might be a controversial issue when put together with the issue of the original Romanian homeland etc.)

So, giving preference to "native" explanations:

1) Romanian nevoie is a specific development of the Latin word in Romanian to which analogy and the "weak position of r" (something related to Romanian historical phonology I presume ) contributed
2) Albanian nevojë is a direct development of the Latin (borrowed) word in Albanian. It would be nice to be able to verify this -l- > -j- change in Albanian.

Not impossible, but seems a bit too complicated on the Romanian side. That is of course a humble opinion of an amateur. That's excluding Slavic origin from any considerations.


----------



## robbie_SWE

Well, I don't see a problem with the Romanian morphology.

Intervocalic "l" kind of disappeared in several words inherited from Latin. For instance:

Lat. _folia < _rom._ *foaie*_ 
Lat. _cōleus < _rom. _*coi*_. 
Lat. _palea_ < rom. _*pai*_. 

(even double "ll") Lat. _gallῑna < _rom. *găină*. 


So I believe that "voie" could very easily have come from Latin. 

 robbie


----------



## DenisBiH

robbie_SWE , do you happen to know what was the environment in which this -l- (or later -r-) was weak and subsequently disappeared?


----------



## robbie_SWE

DenisBiH said:


> robbie_SWE , do you happen to know what was the environment in which this -l- (or later -r-) was weak and subsequently disappeared?


 
Unfortunately I don't  But I really hope that somebody else does!


----------



## aeneas dardanus

The Latin expression *volo, * in conjunction with *ne* (meaning: *no[t] *), can produce the rendition of: *not want*, or *no need. *Which has the exact opposite meaning of Albanian word* nevoj\ë, ~a, *and/or Romanian *nevoia. *Not to mention that (the semantically opposite word) formation *nevolja *[невоља] turns out to be quite new in s.S. (south Slavic), or alien in Slavic proper grounds:
Невоља:
Russian: беда [beda]
Belarusian: бяда [biada]
Ukrainian: біда [bida]
Slovenian: težave
Slovak: ťažkosti
Latvian: nepatikšanas
Czech: potíže
Bulgarian: беда​This proves that the s.S. word _nevolja_, (holding the concept of _unwilling_ state of things or of the subject) is recent - probably never attested in written south Slavic languages before XIX century. Resembling Latin expression "ne volo" [_don't want to_] which both  negate the meaning of _nevoie ._
__ 

*Nevoie;* being the equivalent of_ "in need", _requests the preposition *ne*, to have the meaning of *in *which (also) out rules the possibility of Romanian formation; since the Romanian preposition (_in_ ) is *în.*
 
To form the word *nevoie *with its actual meaning, you will also need the Language in which the preposition *ne would *mean: *in, -*leaving us with only one possible origin. 

Contrary to all comparable languages using preposition "ne" as a negation, only in Albanian, the preposition *ne* means *in*, enabling it to make such word formation ("ne+volo") to mean exactly "*in need*" not the opposite. 

Indicating the possibility that *nevoia* entered the Romanian vocabulary sometime before south Slavic tribes devided their ethnically difusive region, or even later.


----------



## DenisBiH

> Not to mention that (the semantically opposite word) formation *nevolja *[невоља] turns out to be quite new in s.S. (south Slavic),


It doesn't seem that is the case. Best to have other Slavs confirm it, but  Russian and Ukranian *неволя*, Belarusian *няволя* "captivity, slavery", Polish *niewola*, *niewolnictwo* "slavery".

Furthermore, BCS *nevolja* means "trouble, distress" (also "need" as a secondary meaning), Bulgarian *неволя* "woe".

Judging by the examples given, a shift from "un-will" to the above Slavic meanings seems quite plausible to me. And then, so does a shift from "trouble, distress" to "need". But of course, it would be interesting if someone could find the entry for неволя in, say, a Russian etymological dictionary.



> or alien in Slavic proper grounds:


I'm unfamiliar with the term "Slavic proper". Is South Slavic then "Slavic non-proper"?




> This proves that the s.S. word _nevolja_, (holding the concept of _unwilling_ state of things or of the subject) is recent - probably never attested in written south Slavic languages before XIX century.


Judging by my etymological dictionary, in BCS the adjective _nevoljan_  then meaning "miserable" is attested as far back as the 15th century.


----------



## robbie_SWE

aeneas dardanus said:


> The Latin expression *volo, *in conjunction with *ne* (meaning: *no[t] *), can produce the rendition of: *not want*, or *no need. *Which has the exact opposite meaning of Albanian word* nevoj\ë, ~a, *and/or Romanian *nevoia. *Not to mention that (the semantically opposite word) formation *nevolja *[невоља] turns out to be quite new in s.S. (south Slavic), or alien in Slavic proper grounds:
> Невоља:
> Russian: беда [beda]
> Belarusian: бяда [biada]
> Ukrainian: біда [bida]
> Slovenian: težave
> Slovak: ťažkosti
> Latvian: nepatikšanas
> Czech: potíže
> Bulgarian: беда​This proves that the s.S. word _nevolja_, (holding the concept of _unwilling_ state of things or of the subject) is recent - probably never attested in written south Slavic languages before XIX century. Resembling Latin expression "ne volo" [_don't want to_] which both negate the meaning of _nevoie ._
> 
> 
> *Nevoie;* being the equivalent of_ "in need", _requests the preposition *ne*, to have the meaning of *in *which (also) out rules the possibility of Romanian formation; since the Romanian preposition (_in_ ) is *în.*
> 
> To form the word *nevoie *with its actual meaning, you will also need the Language in which the preposition *ne would *mean: *in, -*leaving us with only one possible origin.
> 
> Contrary to all comparable languages using preposition "ne" as a negation, only in Albanian, the preposition *ne* means *in*, enabling it to make such word formation ("ne+volo") to mean exactly "*in need*" not the opposite.
> 
> Indicating the possibility that *nevoia* entered the Romanian vocabulary sometime before south Slavic tribes devided their ethnically difusive region, or even later.


 
Interesting analysis Aeneas Dardanus. 

I just want to share some of my observations: 

1. Older meanings of the Romanian word *nevoie* (presumably the more "original" ones) mention the meaning of "constraint", "want", "obligation" and even "trouble". This kind of makes me believe that the leap from "not willingly" to "need" isn't that farfetched. Besides, the Romanian verb *a vrea* (< lat. volĕre,"to want") has kind of merged with _voie_ creating many ambiguous derivations. 

2. You mention the contradiction of prefixes. Well, there are a lot of cases where prefixes just don't make sense but still have a specific contradictory meaning. E.g. *degera* ("to freeze" < lat. *dĕgĕlāre,) would logically mean "to defreeze". But I do admit that the prefix *ne- *is usually very consequently used. 

3. Last but not least we have two of the Romanian sublanguages Megleno-Romanian and Macedo-Romanian (a.k.a Aromanian). These two languages have been more isolated from foreign influences than Romanian, Aromanian being mostly influenced by Greek. If a word is shared by these three languages, it has to be old taking into consideration that these languages split from Romanian 800-1200 years ago. *Nevoie* does exist in these two sublanguages: _nevol’e _in Aromanian and_ nivol’ă_ in Megleno-Romanian. 

 robbie


----------



## OBrasilo

DenisBiH said:


> Well, the etymology of Romanian _nevoie_ aside, there is still the problem of the Albanian word and whether and how it's related to the Romanian one. According to aeneas dardanus, this sort of sound change can be explained regularly in Albanian (though I don't know if there ever was such a thing as _Albanian Latin_ which is what I presume "albanian lat." stands for). And if I understand the last sentence correctly, aeneas assumes that Romanian borrowed that word from _Albanian Latin_ (I'm aware this might be a controversial issue when put together with the issue of the original Romanian homeland etc.)
> 
> So, giving preference to "native" explanations:
> 
> 1) Romanian nevoie is a specific development of the Latin word in Romanian to which analogy and the "weak position of r" (something related to Romanian historical phonology I presume ) contributed
> 2) Albanian nevojë is a direct development of the Latin (borrowed) word in Albanian. It would be nice to be able to verify this -l- > -j- change in Albanian.
> 
> Not impossible, but seems a bit too complicated on the Romanian side. That is of course a humble opinion of an amateur. That's excluding Slavic origin from any considerations.


Well, at least in a few dialects of Italian, gl/lj tends to become a simple j, like _bottiglia_ -> _boteja_, _pigliare_ -> _pijà_, _gli_ -> _je_, etc.
And as pointed out earlier, there were such shifts in Romanian as well, as well as in Albanian, with PIE _wlkwe_ (wolf) becoming Albanian _ujk_.


----------



## DenisBiH

OBrasilo said:


> Well, at least in a few dialects of Italian, gl/lj tends to become a simple j, like _bottiglia_ -> _boteja_, _pigliare_ -> _pijà_, _gli_ -> _je_, etc.
> And as pointed out earlier, there were such shifts in Romanian as well, as well as in Albanian, with PIE _wlkwe_ (wolf) becoming Albanian _ujk_.




Well, many things happen in many languages; pretty much the same change occurs in some Croatian dialects along the Adriatic coast (it is categorised as an "Adriatism" along with some other changes). 

I'd just like to find out more details about these changes, i.e. in which environments they occurred, approximately in which time frame, at least relative to other changes etc.


----------



## MRossi

Which is the pronunciation of *nevoie *and *nevojë*?

Beacause italians dialect (but also italian) ,hum, we say that sometimes are very near to romanian.

For example that *nevoie *on italian can become *ne voglio*,on dialect can become *ni vogghiu* but also *ni vojju* (the sound is the same).On italian *ne voglio *means *i want it *, but if i add a negative particle *non **ne voglio *,it means  *i dont want it*.On dialect *ni vojju/vogghiu *, it means *i want it* but if i add a negative particle *nun **ni vojju/vogghiu *,it means  *i dont want it*.Sometimes (but it is more rare) on dialect also whitout adding a negative particle *ni vojju/vogghiu *means i dont want*.

*a banal example

(Dialect)

Tu *ni vu*? (do you want/need it?)

No, *nun **ni vojju/vogghiu (No, I dont want/need it)

*No, *(nun) **ni vojju/vogghiu (No, I dont want/need it*,with  negative particle *nun* tacit)

or

Si,*ni vojju/vogghiu* (Yes,* i want/need it*).

(Italian)

*Ne vuoi?*(do you want/need it?)

No, *non ne voglio (No, I dont want/need it)*

or

Si,*ne voglio* (Yes,* i want/need it*).

The italian dictionary suggests (but we should verify, if it is really so) that *ne* come from latin word *inde* ,through an apheresis *(NDE)* ,and further transformation of *D* in an *N **       (NNE)*  and finally *NE*  (http://www.etimo.it/?term=ne&find=Cerca).*Inde *which is an adverb of A) place B) time C) cause D) movement.


----------



## OldAvatar

All the Romanian dictionaries say that the word <nevoie> is having its roots in Slavic <nevolja>.
However, MRossi post is very interesting and I'll try to explain why.
Maybe the prefix <ne> does not mean <no>, but <we>.
Actual examples in Romanian:
*We need* = _ne trebuie_
*We desire* = _ne dorim_
In this case, the MRossi post becomes pretty plausible. An expression like <ne v(r)oim> could have been existed.


----------



## Sulius

OldAvatar said:


> All the Romanian dictionaries say that the word <nevoie> is having its roots in Slavic <nevolja>.
> However, MRossi post is very interesting and I'll try to explain why.
> Maybe the prefix <ne> does not mean <no>, but <we>.
> Actual examples in Romanian:
> *We need* = _ne trebuie_
> *We desire* = _ne dorim_
> In this case, the MRossi post becomes pretty plausible. An expression like <ne v(r)oim> could have been existed.


 
I found MRossi use of the Sicilian dialect to explain the employment of "ni" quite interesting, likewise. However, it is my understanding that a "ni" plays the role of a suffix instead of that of a preffix. 

For Example:
Tu *ni vu*? (do you want/need it?)
It is rather: Tu*ni* vu?, where "ni" emphasises the "You".

Similarly, in Sicilian there is "cca" for here, which makes "cca*ni*" or "hereto".
Again, that is to emphasize "here".

*Ne vuoi?*(do you want/need it?) In the Italian context appears that "Ne" has replaced the subject "Tu" firstly, in order to not compromise the meaning of the sentence. Thus, instead of Tu vuoi? we have "Ne Vuoi", and secondly to emphase not the "You 's want" but the the "thing" You (Tu) wants. 

Interestingly, the same exact suffix "*ne*" employment exists in a south Albanian dialect. It goes: "Ku je ti? or "Ku je ti*ne*? (where are You) 
Likewise, "ketu" dhe "ketu*ne*" (righ here).

That being said, the explanation that the preceding "Ne" in "nevoie" stands for "we" is too far fetched and unsupported not only etimologically but also logically. Unless the men of the old had 6 heads and 12 hands to justify the usage of "we" prior to "me". But even if we agree on this rather infantile argument, someone must still provide an explanation on how English and Latin/Romanian both kept Volunteer/Volonta and Voie/Need in separate meaning, while Slavic languages merge these meanings into one? 

Is someone here trying to convince us that Slavs know what they want to be what they need? Credo quia absurdum est.


----------



## OldAvatar

Sulius said:


> That being said, the explanations that "Ne" stands for "we" are too far fetched and unsupported not only etimologically but also logically.



Sorry, I don't understand... <Ne> means <We> in Romanian. At least in its genitive/dative forms.


----------



## Sulius

OldAvatar said:


> Sorry, I don't understand... <Ne> means <We> in Romanian. At least in its genitive/dative forms.


 
Noi-Italian
Nous-French
Ne-Romanian
Ne -Albanian

All for "we". The explanation that "ne" is affixed to "voje"/"voie" does not stand. All the more if we "agree" that a Romanian "us" is affixed to a Slavic root "volja".


----------



## M_Rossi

Uhm I believe that the my example on dialect ,maybe,was not exactly the best .

 However,i ll try to give you some other input ,i do not speak slavic languages ,so you can re use my informations.

 On italian there are 5 ne.

 One of them come from inde (Latin),*Inde *which is an adverb of A) place B) time C) cause D) movement.This ne should have (i have not verified) the same meaning of inde.

 Another ne ,if i have understood well, has the same meaning of romanian  ne .Ne dative form (it and rom) to us,even if it is an arcaic/poetic  form.

 Other two ne are ,uhm, a variation of in.

 Another ne means neither.


 On Latin we have two nec, which have a negative function,grossly nec=not.

 On Latin we have also 5 ne .

 4/5 have a negative function,"grossly",ne=not,and in some cases they are in an enclitic form.

 This is could explain ,why on dialect (but also on italian ex: ecco*ne*) there are these enclitic ni, tu*ni* (you) ,cca*ni* (here).In this moment i m unable to create/ remember a sentence with tu*ni* or cca*ni *. But on dialect they have ,apparently, no function.Probably with a context ,it could be easier explain these enclitic *ni*.

 The last (latin) ne means surely,really,sure etc etc.

 I thougth that i have "examined" all possibilities,when i have found this book on google,

books.google.com/books?id=E-JAJUXnNLEC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 Which ,istead of,erase some possibilities,on the contrary,it has increased the possibilities .

A last thing ,in my previous examples , that *ni* (tu ni vu or ni vu  etc),it is never (from what i remember) in an enclitic form.


----------



## Sulius

_Do the following latin phrases look like enclitic forms?_

Tu*ne* id veritus es?
Potes*ne* mihi succurrere quaeso?


----------

