Re: -ishte, -eshte

--- In cybalist@..., George S t a n a <gs001ns@...> wrote:

>
> > >let us take the verb a deschide.< lat. descludere. we have
> > >deschide and not deshtide
> >
> >We are talking about a sound change, not an ever-continuing

process.

> >The softening /sk/ > /St/ is related to the softening /k/ > /tS/;

it

> >is probably a two step process:
>
> That what he mentions above ("deshtide") is not quite true.
> "deschide" /deskide/ is the standard variant. But there are the
> subdialectal variants "de$chide" /deSkide/ and "dã$chide" /d@$kide/
> throughout Romania. And esp. in Western Romania (i.e. in the
> provinces of Transylvania and Banat) "dã$chide" /d@$k^ide/ (where
> /k^/ is even "softer" than the /t/ in... "Putin").
>
> A similar phenomenon in "$chei", the plural of "schiau" or "$chiau",
> i.e. the old Romanian word for "Slav(ic)" (< sclau(inus). This

plural

> is a toponym, too. A suburb of the city of Bra$ov, $chei.
> But its counterpart in Western Romania (about 60-70 km away from the
> Romanian-Hungarian border) is called $tei. Spelled with a "t".
> Exactly because the subdialect there, in this or similar phonetic
> circumstances, does not differentiate between /k/ and /t/, the
> sound being a /k^/. The same applies for /g/ and /d/ in similar
> circumstances. (And this is so in spite of the fact that both the
> Romanian spoken in the former and that in the latter area belong
> to the same Transylvanian subdialect. The eastern variants of
> Romania, spoken in cis- and trans-Pruth Moldavia have these
> peculiarities, too, but to a lesser extent. By and large, in

Romania,

> these phenomena decrease until they vanish from North to South.
> In the southernmost regions, subdialectal pronunciation is a mere
> /k/. Whereas in Northern areas, even the... reversal of
> /kw > k^/ > /p/ is extremely strong still today: k^ept, k^eatra,
> instead of p(i)ept, peatra/piatra < Lat. pectus, petra; and
> k^iper instead of piper (pepper), esp. in Moldavia.)

A. Is the smaller, widespread change basically s > S before ke, ki,
te, ti?

B. The larger change sounds like a new palatalisation. Is it simply
a case of k, t > k^ before front vowels, with p > k^ also in some
areas? I presume /g/, /d/ and /b/ are softening similarly.

> Since these phenomena aren't inherent in Alex's own subdialectal
> Romanian, no wonder he doesn't pay too much attention to them.
>
> >The softening was completed before /kl/ changed to /ki/ (or
> >similar). (This is similar to the Italian change <cl> > <chi>.)
> >That is why you have Rom. închide < Lat. includere, not *încide.

It

> >is also why you have Rom. deschide, not *deshtide.
>
> As you see above, not quite. And I underline that the /S/ is there
> in all areas where the "ch" is pronounced as a genuine /k/. That is:
> in Alex's area of subdialect as well.

> >The only slightly strange thing about it is
> >that the simplification seems to have gone /sts/ > /St/.
>
> That's typical in Romanian: sce/sci tends to turn $ce/$ci
> and then /Ste, Sti/.

I was referring to the changes /ste/ > /Ste/ that Alex quoted, such
as Rom. ashterne < Lat. asternere. This would seem to be covered by
Change A above and not to be related to the old change /te/ > /tse/,
except that /ste/ did not undergo that change.

Richard.