# Romanian: "arbore", "copac" and "pom"



## robbie_SWE

Hi! 

The word "tree" can be expressed by using three different words in Romanian: *copac* (a Dacian word), *arbore* (< Latin _arbor_) and *pom* (< Latin _pomus_). 

They don't have any major semantic differences (_pom_ is most often used to describe a fruit bearing tree). My question is why and how come? 

Is Romanian the only language in the world that has three words to express the notion of a tree and are there any other Romance languages that have similar examples (e.g. words for "tree" that are obsolete)?

Best Regards,

 robbie


----------



## SerinusCanaria3075

In Spanish we have _*árbol*_ (from Latin _arbor_) which is the most common. I've seen "_*roble*_" in the Bible but it's not very common. There's also some specific names for _chesnut tree_, _cherry tree, etc._ in the WR dictionary. 
(there's a lot of them, which are rarely heard in common speech)
Personally I find it easier to use "árbol + adjective" rather to give a name to each tree, but since our ancestors have already done so, I guess it expands our vocabulary.

I guess the Romanian _pom_ resembles "apple tree" in French (_pommier_) even though _pomus_ (or _pomum_) in Latin was a fruit tree like you said.


> _*Arbore* de dulci dulcia *poma* cadunt_.
> "_De doux *arbre* douces *pommes*_."





> _A radice sapit *pomum*, quocumque rotatur_.
> "_Toujours sent la pomme le pommier_."


From here.

Apparantly French has as many names for a specific tree (probably even more than Spanish) in the dictionary.


----------



## OldAvatar

Also, saying about _copac that is _being of Dacian origin is just a supposition. I personally do not believe in this theory. Slavs gave us the word _copaie_, which means a wooden box or a trugh made of wood. So, the presence of wood in these both similar words, probably having the same root, could say something else about the origin of the word.


----------



## robbie_SWE

OldAvatar said:


> Also, saying about _copac that is _being of Dacian origin is just a supposition. I personally do not believe in this theory. Slavs gave us the word _copaie_, which means a wooden box or a trugh made of wood. So, the presence of wood in these both similar words, probably having the same root, could say something else about the origin of the word.


 
The origins of the word copac are still heavily debated as you can see from the explanation produced by DEX. I choose to see the Slavic explanation as unsatisfactory due to the word's original meaning in Slavonic. It's like discussing what came first, the egg or the hen? Nonetheless I respect your theory . 

Another interesting thing is that a similar word is also present in Calabrese as _copano_ (“hollow tree”). It’s not likely that the Slavs passed this word on to the remote Italian region of Calabria. 

Concerning copaie, it seems to be a regional word probably present in Banat (instead of the standard *albie*). It seems to be related to _copăi _("to dig", also a regional word) and not _copac_. 

 robbie


----------



## Aleko

robbie_SWE said:


> Is Romanian the only language in the world that has three words to express the notion of a tree and are there any other Romance languages that have similar examples (e.g. words for "tree" that are obsolete)?


 
I can't help you with Romanian, but as far as I know the only way to say *tree* in Spanish is *árbol*.



SerinusCanaria3075 said:


> In Spanish we have _*árbol*_ (from Latin _arbor_) which is the most common. I've seen "_*roble*_" in the Bible but it's not very common.


*Roble* is not a synonym for *árbol.* A _*roble*_ is an _oak tree_, just a kind of *árbol*.



SerinusCanaria3075 said:


> There's also some specific names for _chesnut tree_, _cherry tree, etc._ in the WR dictionary. (there's a lot of them, which are rarely heard in common speech) Personally I find it easier to use "árbol + adjective" rather to give a name to each tree, but since our ancestors have already done so, I guess it expands our vocabulary.


Using "árbol + the name of the fruit" in Spanish—repeating "árbol" all the time like you have to do in English—would produce something like this:

*naranjo* (orange tree) -> _árbol de naranja_
*manzano* (apple tree) -> _árbol de manzana_ 
_*ciruelo*_ (plum tree) -> _árbol de ciruela_
_*peral*_ (pea tree) -> _árbol de pera_
_*limonero*_ (lemon tree) -> _árbol de limón_
_*duraznero*_ (peach tree) -> _árbol de durazno_
_*higuera*_ (fig tree) -> _árbol de higo_, and so on...

I wouldn't find it easier at all. Actually, I would find all that repetition of *árbol* just boring.


----------



## SerinusCanaria3075

Trust me, modern generations/young people (at least in the U.S.) won't understand any of those words. Specially since English is pretty much "invading" every language out there. Of course I'm not saying there's peolpe who don't know them but then again, I don't live on a farm but in any case I don't recall ever using _naranjo, manzano_...

After all, all those names were neo-Latin inventions, none actually came from Latin. 

Portuguese _árvore_ (_f_.)
_Laranjeira_, (ƒ.) 
_Macieira_, (ƒ.)

I suppose Portuguese and Italian are no exception, as far as the number of "specific" trees.

On the other hand (I'll check later) Romanian seems to have some names for trees derived from Latin (correct me if I'm wrong):
_*ghindă*_ (from Latin _glandis_)

And then of course we all have Christmas tree (árbol de Navidad, "_pom de Crăciun_"...).


----------



## Aleko

SerinusCanaria3075 said:


> Portuguese _árvore_ (_f_.)
> _Laranjeira_, (ƒ.)
> _Macieira_, (ƒ.)


I don't know if this is common to other varieties of Portuguese, but Brazilians seem to use the word *pé* ("_foot_") meaning *árvore* sometimes (at least when talking about some fruit trees):
*pé de laranja* = *laranjeira* (orange tree)
*pé de maçã* = *macieira *(apple tree)
*pé de limão* = *limoeiro* (lemon tree)

"_*Meu Pé de Laranja Lima*_" is a famous novel by Brazilian writer José Mauro de Vasconcellos.


SerinusCanaria3075 said:


> Of course I'm not saying there's peolpe who don't know them but then again, I don't live on a farm but in any case I don't recall ever using _naranjo, manzano_...


 
I live in a city, that means I'm far from being "in contact with nature", but I know the names of those and much more trees. I may not talk about all of them quite often, but I just know how to call them 'cause I learned their names in school or I was told by someone or something.



SerinusCanaria3075 said:


> Trust me, modern generations/young people (at least in the U.S.) won't understand any of those words. Specially since English is pretty much "invading" every language out there.


Young people in the US (of Latin American origin, of course) usually think they speak Spanish when all they actually speak is just different varieties of Spanglish. Their knowledge of grammar is poor, they have trouble to understand some structures a native should be supposed to get right away and their vocabulary tends to be very limited.


----------



## OldAvatar

SerinusCanaria3075 said:


> And then of course we all have Christmas tree (árbol de navidad, "_pom de Crăciun_"...).



Actually, just a few people still use „_pom de Crăciun_”. The reason is that the form is semantically wrong, since _pom _is used for trees which have useful fruits. The common expression is _brad de Crăciun_ (*Christmas fir*) or simply _brad._


----------



## robbie_SWE

SerinusCanaria3075 said:


> On the other hand (I'll check later) Romanian seems to have some names for trees derived from Latin (correct me if I'm wrong):
> _*ghindă*_ (from Latin _glandis_)
> 
> And then of course we all have Christmas tree (árbol de navidad, "_pom de Crăciun_"...).


 
It not only seems so, Romanian does have a lot of trees derived from Latin, but I think that's another thread . 

In Romanian we don't use the "English" way of naming trees. Using the examples provided by Aleko it would look like this in Romanian: 



> *naranjo* (orange tree) -> _árbol de naranja_ *portocal *(from *portocală*, "orange")
> *manzano* (apple tree) -> _árbol de manzana_ *m**ăr *(< Lat.)
> _*ciruelo*_ (plum tree) -> _árbol de ciruela_ *prun* (< Lat.)
> _*peral*_ (pea tree) -> _árbol de pera_ *p**ăr *(< Lat.)
> _*limonero*_ (lemon tree) -> _árbol de limón _*l**ămâi *(from *l**ămâie*, "lemon")
> _*duraznero*_ (peach tree) -> _árbol de durazno _*piersic *(< Lat.)
> _*higuera*_ (fig tree) -> _árbol de higo_, and so on... *smochin/fig *(< Slavic/Lat.)


 
 robbie


----------



## SerinusCanaria3075

Aleko said:


> I don't know if this is common to other varieties of Portuguese, but Brazilians seem to use the word *pé* ("_foot_") meaning *árvore* sometimes (at least when talking about some fruit trees):
> *pé de laranja* = *laranjeira* (orange tree)
> *pé de maçã* = *macieira *(apple tree)
> *pé de limão* = *limoeiro* (lemon tree)
> 
> "_*Meu Pé de Laranja Lima*_" is a famous novel by Brazilian writer José Mauro de Vasconcellos.


Thanks, I didn't know this interesting fact. I suppose it's _*pé*_ as a metaphor for _root_, the _foot of a tree_.



OldAvatar said:


> Actually, just a few people still use „_pom de Crăciun_”. The reason is that the form is semantically wrong, since _pom _is used for trees which have useful fruits. The common expression is _brad de Crăciun_ (*Christmas fir*) or simply _brad._


Thanks. Unfortunately when people search for _pom_ here, Christmas tree shows up. Then DEX also gives New Year and Chrismas tree for _pom_. Brad like you said would be the correct form for Christmas/New Year tree, unless ornaments and gifts grew from a "pom".



robbie_SWE said:


> In Romanian we don't use the "English" way of naming trees. Using the examples provided by Aleko it would look like this in Romanian:


Thanks for the Romanian translations. I figure if people in the past already gave names to certain kinds of trees it's up to us to use them or not. At least it expands our vocabulary which is already rich enough. Then of course _copac_ is a reminder of the influences from different cultures, which always surprises me how much Latin elements Romanian actually has conserved despite its location, and the proof would be _arbore_ and _pom_.


----------



## OldAvatar

> At least it expands our vocabulary which is already rich enough.


IMHO, It is already too bloody rich. 

And about location, if we're having a closer look on a map, we'd find some interesting conclusions. For example, we'll find out that there are only about 500 km between the Romanian border and the Italian one. And if we consider the Aromanian spoken deep in the Balkans, then the distance is getting much shorter. For comparison, distance between Southern Italy, (where local dialects and habits are very similar with Romanian's) and Northern Italy is more than 900 km.


----------



## robbie_SWE

OldAvatar said:


> IMHO, It is already too bloody rich.


 
A language can never be too rich (just look at English)! 

PS: if you're interested SerinusCanaria3075 I can send you a PM with a list of common trees in Romanian. Just send me a reply!

 robbie


----------



## Fray Luis

SerinusCanaria3075 said:


> I suppose it's _*pé*_ as a metaphor for _root_, the _foot of a tree_.


 
Pé in Portuguese, or its Spanish counterpart pie, not only means foot. It can also be the stem of a plant, the trunk of a tree or even a single plant or tree. Hence that Portuguese use of pé.


----------



## Ion Colțan

OldAvatar said:


> Actually, just a few people still use „_pom de Crăciun_”. The reason is that the form is semantically wrong, since _pom _is used for trees which have useful fruits. The common expression is _brad de Crăciun_ (*Christmas fir*) or simply _brad._



 "Pom de Crăciun" or "brad de Crăciun" is equaly the same! Maybe you are still young or you don't read too much, but some decades back this Christmass Tree was filled with gilded chestnuts, apples, candles, red ribbons and even pretzels.So there you have your "useful fruits".


----------



## Favara

Catalan does the same as Spanish, but assigning random genders to the trees. "Tree" is _arbre_, there's no alternative.
_Poma_ (apple) -> _Pomera_ f.
_Taronja_ (orange) -> _Taronger_ m.
_Figa_ (fig) -> _Figuera_ f.
_Cirera_ (cherry) -> _Cirer_ m. <-This one even loses a letter...
...
Sometimes things get weird; _garrofer_ (m.) is actually the female carob tree, while the male is _garrofera_ (f.). I think this one is because male carob trees are way smaller, so maybe people just assumed them to be the females. Most other trees only have one (random) gender.


----------

