Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
First of all Miguel, I want to thank you for this list. I will keep it
here since it is indeed very well made, even if there are a lot of
counter examples from some points.
From all the list here, for "varza" are important just the explanations
from point 5-10.
The outgoing point here is that /E/ developed of Latin /e/ and /ae/ but
not of Latin /i/. We should keep it in mind.
---------------
> 5) 6) 7) /é/, /ié/ and /o/ > /eá/, /ieá/, /oá/ before final -e and -a
> (but not -u); d(i)récta > dreaptã but d(i)réctu > drept
---------------
here is nothing for our example since if "drept" is from Latin
"directus", then "i" was elided and doesn't play a role here.
---------------
> 8) In Northern Romanian, before -e (not -a), /ea/ and /iea/ > /e/,
> /ie/: lege > leadZe (= MRom. leadze) > ledZe; *measã pl. mese; *featã
> pl. fete; *pieatrã, pl. pietre, *piearde > pierde)
--------------
for all these examples here we have the Latin words fetum, petra, perdo,
everywhere an /e/ but no /i/
--------------
> 9) /iea/ > /ia/ (Erba > ierba > iearba > iarbã, pEtra > pietra >
> pieatra > piatrã). Likewise tErra > tiera > tieara > t,arã; sEpte >
> siepte > sieapte > s,apte)
--------------
here the same: herba, petra, septem, terra. No /i/ at all.
-------------
> 10) In Northern Romanian, /ea/ > /a/ after a labial: MRom. measã,
> featã > Rom. masã, fatã
------------
here the same: mensa, fetum , no /i/ at all.
In so far, there is no example of Latin /i/ becoming /a/ but of an latin
/e/, /ae/ which trough several transformations become an /ie/. Therefore
your demonstration should stop here. But for showing the next problem we
make so as we forgott that this /ie/ is just from /e/ and /ae/ and not
from /i/.
Now we come to your derivation:
Latin viridia -> PBR vérdia > [5] veárdia > veárzã > [10] várzã
From your /ie/ which comes from an /e/ or /ea/ but not from an /i/ you
want to get an /ea/ before /r/.
Take a look:
mel > miere, ferrum > fier, fervere > fierbe, fel > fiere. Vermis >
vierme, verres > vier
So it is right, an /ie/ is here from a short /e but remains before /r/
an /ie/and did not evolved to /ea/.
Here should be the next point where we should stop since the /ie/ does
not become an /ea/ before /r/ and the supposed form should have had its
final form as "vierza" like vermis> vierme, verres > vier. But the form
iz "varza" and not "vierza" as expected.
I agree , it can be I misunderstood something. From the way I understood
the posting of Miguel, I wrote here these observations. If somewhere I
forgive something, please show it to me. I want to tell you here is not
important to me things like "my idea" or such stuff; important is just a
good understanding of these transformations and this is all.
If I am wrong I am not ashamed I am wrong, but of course, it must be
showed where I make the failure.
Alex