Re: [tied] Re: latin viridis (it was green albanian)

----- Original Message -----
From: "alex_lycos" <altamix@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: latin viridis (it was green albanian)


> What do you mean here with "verde > vearde >varza "? The trnasformation I guess it should be vir(i)dia > virdia > vierdza >
> verdza > vear(d)za > vardza. Beside the palatasion there is " i > ie > e > ea >a". But did an "ie" monoftongued to "e"? The substrate vord "viezure" shows the contrary.

Alex, all the regular changes needed to derive <varzã> have been explained to you in the past -- more than once, I think. Miguel laid them out for you a long time ago; I mean in particular the behaviour of etymological _short_ /i/ (or /e/, or /e:/, with which it merged) in a stressed syllable before /a/. In the appropriate environment it changes into Modern Romanian /a/ as follows:

Lat. i > e (merger) > ie (diphthongisation) > iea (breaking) > ia (triphthong simplification) > a (loss of glide after a labial).

But if you haven't memorised those changes yet, you probably never will, so what's the point of repeating the whole thing ad nauseam?

> About these supposed transformations I doubt ever they happened and not in the short time from Latin until nowadays.

A short time indeed! It leaves us with as little as 300 years per vowel change, on the average. It's a real pity you seem so determined to make a fool of yourself.

Piotr