Print

Print


On Sat, 1 Dec 2001 19:15:11 +0200, michael farris <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>"Donald J. HARLOW" wrote:
>>
>Zamenhof explained it
>> as a back-formation from "kronprincedzino" = German "kronprinzessin", the
>> wife of the crown prince. From this, Z created the super-long suffix
>> "-edzino", "wife", from which (by deletion of the Esperanto suffix -IN-)
he
>> got the suffix -edz-, "husband".
>
>
>This is awkard (I was hoping somehow it was related to the Hungarian
>root edz- (trainer).
>
>But I'm confused, there's no -edz- (or -ec- for that matter)
>anywhere in the German (that I can see).

The translitteration of "Kronprinzessin" would give: "kronprincesin".

There you can easily discern "kron", "princ" and the rest: "esin".
Supposedly "in" was already determined as feminin suffix, there was
only "es" to be determined. There is the theory (by Waringhien? I don't
remember) that the word "es" in this early version of Esperanto had already
a different meaning. So Zamenhof had to alter the "es" of "kronprincesin".
There were three possibilities:

1. es > ez
2. es > ec
3. es > edz

The theory is that the first and the second possibility was already used by
another word, so Zamenhof had to use possibility 3.

If there is interest I could go and search for the article and the details.

Mersí

--
Sebastian