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

From: Richard Wordingham Message: 18762
Date: 2003-02-13

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com,
"alex_lycos" <altamix@...> wrote:
> Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "alex_lycos"
<altamix@...>
> > To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 12,
2003 6:52 AM
> > Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Balkan
Serpents (was: alb. gji (breast))
> >
> >
> >> 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"
> >
> > You HAVE saved the rules,
haven't you?
Alex, did you try to understand how
I coded up the rules for stressed
vowels so one could apply them using
Mark Rosenfelder's Sound Changer?
The coding also included the
Classical Latin rules.
> I have them . I just don't have
the rules with unstressed vowels.
> >
> > e > E > ie > iea > ia (if an -ã
follows), ie (if an -e follows).
Same
> > for <piardã, pierde>, <piatrã,
pietre>, etc
> >
> >> 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
> >
> > And why the hell not? How about
trying yourself?
>
> I tried:
I discussed this with Alex.
Classical Latin vitellus (short /i/)
would yield Romanian *va~tzel;
vitzel indicates Latin *vi:tellus,
which suggests contamination with or
> /i/, /e/, > /E/
derivation from vita.
Richard
---End--of--Message
> vitella > vEtElla
>
> 2) /E/>/e/ before /m/, /mC/, /nC/
> 2b) except before /m/ or /mn/, /e/
(original or from /E/) is further
> closed to /i/ (timp, dinte , plin
, limba, gem, lemn)
> Here can be a problem with my
capacity of understanding. I am not
really
> sure if I understood right.
Therefore I tried to take both
possibility:
>
> a1) if followed by /m/ or /mn/
[em, emn] the /e/ original or from
/E/
> remains /e/ --> gem, lemn
> a2) if not followed by /m/ or /mn/
the /e/ original or from /E/ closed
> to /i/ -- dinte,plin
> for a1) it doesn't applies to
'timp'(tempus), 'limba'( lingua)
> for a2) it doesn't applies to
'des'(densus), 'cerb' (cervus)
> Therefore I thought I understood
bad so I said, OK, there it should
be
> other ways:
>
> b1) if followed by /m/ or /mn/
[em, emn] the /e/ original or from
/E/
> closed to /i/ --> 'timp', 'limba'
> b2) if not followed by /m/ or /mn/
the /e/ original or from /E/ remains
> /e/ -- gem, lemn
>
> for b1) it doesn't applies to
'gem' (gemere), lemn (lignum, BTW
> 'li:gnum' should remains in /i/
not /e/)
> for b2) ir doesn't applies to
'timp' (tempus), limba (lingua)
>
> So far I have indeed trouble to
understand if /e/ or /E/ is now an
/e/
> or an /i/.
>
> Coming to our 'vitella' we have
first a simple derivation vitella >
> vEtElla. But further?
>
> From a2 ( when no /m/ or /mn/ ,
/e/ > /i/) we can have vEtElla >
vitilla
> From b2 ( when no /m/ or /mn/ ,
/e/ > /e/) we can have vEtElla >
vetella
>
> Of course, trying to derive from
these both forms, there will be
> different results. This is why I
asked you to try to derive. I have
the
> feeling I am blind now, somewhere
I did not understood something
right.
> This is why I don't want you to be
angry on me, but simply I fail to
see
> what we have now. I tried on other
way. I said, ok Alex, forget about
> here since is no nasal in your
next words, so you have to think
just in
> this way:
>
> /e:/,/oe/, /i/ >/e/ and
> /e/, /ae/>/E/.
>
> So from Latin words we have in PBR
such new words:
> vitella > vetElla
> videre > vedere
> In these two examples is
interesting just the form 'ver-'.The
further
> development from PBR to Romanian
should be:
>
> vetElla > vitiella
> vedere > vedere
>
> Why once the /e/ from 'vetElla'
became /i/ and the /e/ from 'vedere'
> became /e/ ?
>
> This was the next stop where I
have no idea how to go further. It
seems
> with the rules in the hand I fail
to see how I have to work with them.
> >
> >> 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?
> >
> > The use of diminutives has
little to do with how hard the
speakers
> > work. If anything, hard-working
farmers are likely to use emphati