Re: [tied] Re: Balkan Serpents (was: alb. gji (breast))

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 11:27 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Balkan Serpents (was: alb. gji (breast))


On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 19:32:19 -0000, "P&G" <petegray@...>
wrote:

>> > > Miguel derives it as *SerpE >
>
>> Why is the derivation being started as serpens > serpen > sErpe? My
>> recollection is that Classical Latin Vns is a reversion, and that
>> Proto-Romance always starts from V:s,
>
>Shouldn't the starting point be the stem (or the accusative)
serpent(em)
>in which the e in ent- is by nature short? We don't then need to
shorten
>the long e of the nominative

In the case of Romanian <s,arpe>, a derivation from SERPENTE is
impossible: the stress is on the first syllable in Romanian, the
development /E/ > /ie/ > /iea/ > /ia/ only happens under the stress,
stressed /é/ (/É/) would have given /í/ before /nt/, and final /-e/ is
not normally lost. SERPENTE should have given Romanian *<sãrpínte>,
not <s,árpe>

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

as from ferve:ntis > fierbinte ?
serpe:ntis
ferve:ntis
In this case why not "fãrbinte" as in *sãrpinte but "fierbinte?


The rest what follows deosnt have anymor with nasal to do but with this
"E" from PBR. This remembers me of point 9 from the rules:
9)/iea/ > /ia/
And more: fervere > fierbe, but conj. 'fiarbã'; in conjunctive form you
cannot say " lasã sã fierbe" but "lasã sã fiarbã"
The same for perdere > pierde but 'piarda' ( dialectal piarzã, but not
"parzã how you get in derivation for "varzã" from viridis);
The same for perere > pieri but 'piarã' ( to perish)
eccum= iacã ( semantically perfec. DEX gives it as ia+cã)
epa = iapa
ferveo = fierbe but conjungtiv 'fiarba'
em! ( imperative) = ia
herba > iarba
ego > iao > io (literally "eu")


BTW, try please to derive from Latin vitellus & vitella to see if you
get Romanian Vitsel & Vitsea.I guess you will get everything else but
not vitsel and not vitsea.
Questions:
1) I understand that neo romance took the accusative form from Latin but
why the diminutive form too?
Why should take hard working /hard living people take these diminutival
forms from Latin for calling the things like this?
In Rom vitsel, purc^el, vitsea, cãtsel, cãtsea ( vitellus, vitella,
purcellus, purcella, catellus, catella) are _not_ diminutival but
principal forms which have their own diminutival forms.For everyone is
clear the words are very closed to each other but with phonetical rules
it doesnt works very properly. Just for comparation of forms with non
diminutival forms in both languages:
non diminutival diminutive
porcus = porc
porculus = purcel (purc^el) porcellus > purcelus (purc^eluS)
porca = purcea (purc^ea) porcella > purcelusa (purc^eluSa)

vita(live)= vita ( cow)
vitulus = vitsel vitellus > vitseluS
vitula = vitsea vitella > vitseluSa or vitsica

canis (old latin cf. Varro)= cane > rom "câne" > câine

catulus = cãtsel catellus = catseluS
catula = catsea catella = catseluSa

It seems very interesting that ROm. took the diminutival forms for
making their own principal forms, but later, they put again suffixes for
giving siminutival forms in Rom. Lang which are almost the same as in
the Latin. How is that to explain?

2)It seems that Eastern Romance lost the "o" final too.
ego perdo: > io pierd or io pierz. Where from palatalisation of "d" here
and why lost of "o" too?


Alex