[tied] Re: Albanian pre and Romanian prada
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Richard Wordingham" wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@y...>Intervocalic <b> or <v> may disappear in Balkan Romance, as a well
>> 2. And another question for you : how Latin *abellona (<
>> abellana [nux] see DEX) could give Romanian aluna ?
>> Is somehow via b>zero and next ae>a ?
> Yes. Intervocalic Latin <b> and <v> usually drops in Romanian.
> Consequent contraction of the vowels to a single vowel is common -
> I don't claim to know the precise details.
known evolution (caballus > cal, pavimentum > pãmânt, *expavorere >
speria, cubitus > cot; stress plays also some role). The resulting
hiatus (not diphthong) is usually reduced (in Balkan Romance, not in
Latin) to the open vowel (/a/), if unstressed.
The stress issue is still to be remembered when dealing with vowels,
that's why all "examples" for /ae/ > /*aa/ > /a/ (already fallacious
for other reasons) cannot be taken into account for stressed vocalism
as in praeda > pràdã.
Speaking about the latter, formation of plural doesn't show anything
but the word has some centuries in the language. The same pattern is
shown by more recent loanwords as Sl. <kadI> > Rom. <cadã> pl. <cãzi>
or Germ. <Lade> > Rom. <ladã> pl. <lãzi>; but Fr. <rade> > Rom. <radã>
pl. <rade>, Fr. <fade> > Rom. <fad>, fem. <fadã>, fem. pl. <fade>. The
choice between the two ways of plural formation is essentially related
to style: the normal alternations a-ã and d-z are perceived as "rude"
because they affect the stem, so one would try to avoid them if not
already accustomed with.
PS - TILR gives actually an Aromanian form <fluér>, with emphasis on
stress position, not <flùer> as I wrote in my earlier message (with
similar stress as in DR), I apologize for hurry typing
PPS - I still think these issues have little to do with (P)IE but
with (Balkan) Romance linguistics
- [fullquote deleted]
>It's Turkic characteristic to change /u/ > /o/: Arabic <burani>I.e. in "Ottoman" Turkish, right? (Well, it might be seen as
>'some kind of meat' > Turk. <borani>, Persian <bustan> 'garden'
>> Turkish <bostan>, Persian <buza> 'some kinde of drink' > Turk.
><boza>, Per. <shurba> 'soup' > Turk. <ï¿½orba>, Persian <dust>
>'friend' (like in Dust-e man 'My friend') > Turkish <dost>,
a parallel to what's in Hungarian u > o, u-Umlaut > o-umlaut.)
>So, primary forms are always with <u>, until in Romanian andIn Romanian additionally or rather the tendency in these 3
>Albanian exists tendency to change /o/ to /u/ where first vocal
>is followed by nasals /m/, /n/, /gn/
environments to convert both u and o (and a) into circumflexed-i
(or circumflexed-a), which in Russian is written bI and in
Turkish as an i without the dot. (I can type them but now
I'm using my new Firefox 1.5 browser, and I'm afraid it won't
render the nonASCII fonts in the proper way.)
>and has nothing to do with any kind of Umlaut.In Romance idioms/dialects in the Southern regions of
former "Romania" (I mean the ancient realm lead by SPQR), the
tendency is o > u; in various phon. environments Romanian can
be seen as the number one in this "top", ahead of the Sicily
and Sardinian isles and of Portugal. In the neighboring,
germanic world, there is IMHO a similar tendency in the South
rather u and u-Umlaut, in the North rather o and o-Umlaut -
the "border" running across Germany; cf. Mueller-Moeller,
gruen-groen (incl. Grï¿½nland), Fuesse (& Fiass)-Foe:ss/Foe:t,
Blut-Bloot/Blood; Blum(e)-Bloom; pan-German & North-German
komm! ("come (on/here)") vs. Bavarian+Austrian kumm!
("Lieber Gott, mach mich stumm, dass ich net nach Dachau
kumm!" was the popular adage betw. 1933-1945, as the
average German knew of the 1st concentration camp.)
And cf. pan+standard German was ("what") [vas], South
German (esp. Bavarian+Austrain) wos [vos, vo:s], and
Yiddish wus [vus, vu:s]. (North of a Cologne-Berlin line,
the dialectal "what" is wat [vat, va:t].)