Re: [tied] evolution

----- Original Message -----
From: "altamix" <alexmoeller@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] evolution


> 1) so, the right answer is that the "z" is an accidentaly
developement.Germanic developed it before 3 century BC and latin
spoked in east of europe, 600 years later.OK, I will keep it in my
mind then.

Which "z"? The initial consonant in <sagen>? If so, Germanic did not develop it before 300 BC. Germanic retained PIE *s with more or less its original pronunciation, and most of the modern Germanic languages still have it -- for example, the English cognate of <sagen> is <say>, with [s-], not with [z-]. s- > z- is a much later phenomenon, restricted to some West Germanic languages and dialects. The development of Latin di- to Romanian zi- is an unconnected and differently conditioned change that took place at a different time in a different language. Accidental similarity just happens. One of the Polish verbs meaning 'say' is conjugated as follows (<rz> is pronounced [Z] = "zh", <cz> is pronounced [tS] = "ch", <e,> and <a,> are nasal [e~] and [o~]):

rzeke, rzeczesz rzecze rzeczemy rzeczecie rzeka,

How similar to Romanian! Even the stem-final /k/ is palatalised in the same forms! This, however, is merely the consequence of Proto-Slavic and Latin (and their descendants) having inhherited similar elements of verb morphology, so that palatalisation-causing front vowels pop up in the same places in some conjugations. The root itself is entirely unrelated, since Polish rzek- < Proto-Slavic *re^k-.

> 2)let alone the toughts latin di,de>zi,ze in romanian. There are many
examples which shows that latin "di/de" did not became zi/ze in
romanian.We discussed here on cybalist once but it seems you forgot
about. Here some for refreshing the memory. ( latin/romanian).

You'd do well to refresh your own memory, Alex. It was explained to you that some Latin roots were _inherited_ by Romanian (in which case /d/ was palatalised whenever appropriate), whereas others were _borrowed_ from Latin too late to be affected. Hence the difference between, say, <zece> 'ten' and <Decembrie>, both containing Latin <decem>.

> diarrhoea/diaree, dentis/dinte, dirigere/dirigui, december/decembrie,
> dedere/deda, *diffamiare/defãima, defoliare/defolia,
> degelare/degera,digitus/deget, dementis/dement, *depanare/depãna ,
> depilare/depãra, depre(he)ndere/deprinde, deponere/depune,
> deradicare/deretica, dis/des,densus/des,deasã,
> *discaballicare/descaleca, diregere/drege, directus/drept,
> discarricare/descarca,discantare/descânta, disclavare/descheia,
> discludere/deschide,
> discunerare/descuia,*disculceus(=disculceatus)/descultz,
> *dispartire/despãrtzi,desperare/dispera, *despicare/despica,
> dispoliare/despuia, desertus/deshert, diserrare/deshira,
> de-excitus/deshtept, detonare/detuna, disglut(i)nare/dezbina,
> *disbracare/dezbrãca, disglaciare/dezghetza, *disglubicare/dezghioca.

> You will wonder about latin "des+root" and romanian "des or dez
+root".I wonder too. It seems that "s" became sometimes "z" and
not "d" which is more probable because "s" almost "z":-)

It became [z-] before voiced stops by voice assimilation -- one of the most commonplace phonetic processes. What makes you think that anyone would expect *[d-] here? (Please don't answer this purely rhetorical question.)

> Diana/zânã, jacere/zãcea, deus/zãu, exbatttere/zbate,
> *exbelare/zbiera, *exvolare/zbura, zema/zeamã, decem/zece,
> dextrae/zestre, deus/zeu, *scaberare/zgâria, dies/zi, dicere/zice,
> *exventare/zvânta.

Why restrict your data to word-initial cases? You might easily add a number of non-initial palatalisations, especially in derived environments, like auzi < audi:re. In linguistics, vota ponderantur, not enumerantur. A few good examples are enough to establish a rule. It should not surprise you that the inherited Proto-Romance lexemes were outnumbrered by new Latin loans in more recent times. The same happened to most other European languages during the time when Latin was an influential international language. Nearly all your "counterexamples" are prefixations with <dis-> or <de:-> or their allomorphs. This means that you artificially clone your data by including many occurrences of the same morpheme. You conclusions are too absurd for words. Sorry, Alex, but I must ask you to discontinue this thread.

Piotr