Re: [tied] para

On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 18:24:37 +0100, "alex_lycos" <altamix@...>
wrote:

>For the phonetic aspect , I recommend you "Fonologia istorica a
>dialectelor daco-române" of Mr. Emanuel Vasiliu , Bucharest 1968. For
>the semantism of rom. word, I guess you have for sure one explanation
>even the corelation of "întru" versus " a intra". Just as curiosity, the
>latin word "intro" survived just in the romanian, I am wrong?

Yes: for instance Old Catalan intre (modern dintre). Catalan also has
the verbs entrar and intrar (arch.) < ENTRARE.

>So far,doesn't seem curious to you this relation here? Take a look:
>
>PIE *en > Latin en. Latin "en" develop to "in" which > Proto-Romanian
>*en , which > Romanian > ãn/ân
>
>I shouldn't say nonsense. I should just be very intrigued.The only one
>with no sense here in the chain is the "in" which IS in latin an "in"
>from an "en".Let us think a bit. The original "en" was modified in
>Vitelia. There is the geographical place where trough the influence of
>other languages or by due itself the Latin "en" became "in".
>Take a look now all around:
>French en
>Romanian än/ân
>Spanish "en"
>Portugal "en"
>but italian "in"
>It seems this "in" survived _just there_ where it was modified, in the
>Italian space.
>Does it look as nonsense ? I will take it at least as a possibility of
>indigenous speaking like they always spooked the Latin words and not as
>a late evolution of "vulgar Latin".

Nobody spooked Latin words outside Latium until ca. 300 BC.

Indo-Europoean *en became Latin in (e > i before nasal). Latin short
/i/ (and long /e:/) became Vulgar Latin close /e/. This again became
/i/ before a nasal in a closed syllable in some Romance languages, and
that's why we have Italian in, Romanian în/întru and Catalan dintre.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...