>But, George, since we've been discussing the pronunciation difference
>between >Proto-Balkan-Romance close /e/ as in *vérde (from Lat. i) and
>open /E/ as in
>*vÉrme (from Lat. e), Alex may find you explanation confusing. It was the /E/
>or *vÉrme that tended to be diphthongised ("jäää...") and became *ie at an
>early
>date, whereas /e/ remained monophthongal ("eeee...").
I know it is a bit confusing; much the more, since in Alex's subdialect, there
are "verde" (both /e/ are the same, closed) and "vierme" (diphtong /je/ and the
second e being the same as the first) -- but beyond, on the other slopes of
the
Carpathians, in the regions I previously mentioned, there are "verde" /vaerde/
and "verme" /vaerme/ (i.e., without any diphtongation, i.e. being included in
the cases of "fer, ferbere, pept/chept" I also mentioned -- cases where only a
part of the Romanian native-speakers have diphtongized (this dipht. being later
on imposed as standard usage)).
So there is a contrast betw. the archaic "vearde" and "vearza" & the...
pig-headedness of a big number of native-speakers not to follow suit in order
to make "vierme" outa "verme", but to stick to "verme", which Alex might
perceive as archaic if at all. (Alex, relax! :)
>Piotr
George