Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>> Rosetti: The different threatament of the group "cs" _is not_
>> because of the accent
>> He gives the examples : latin texere > Rom ."t,ese". "Latin "dixit" >
>> Rom "zise"
>
> Verbs are nor very reliable as evidence in this respect. Even without
> influence from the variant texé:re, there are plenty of forms with the
> accent after the <x> (e.g. ptc. praes. t,esând, ptc. pret. t,esut,
> impf. t,eseam, pf. t,esui, etc.). The Rom. preterite zise is derived
> from the participle zis. It does not directly continue dixit
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
Well herer he speaks indeed about verbs. I quote him:
"Intr-adevar, cercetarea tratamentului lui "cs" in conjugarea verbelor
ne arata ca formele de perfect in "cs" ( zise < dixit) nu au fost
influentate de acelea de participiu (zis) ci, dimpotriva, formele de
perfect au influentat pe acelea de participiu. Tratamenul grupuli lat.
"cs" in românã, ca si a grupului lat. "ct" este deci independent de
accentuarea cuvantului fonetic".
I try to translate as good as I can. I gave the original text in
Romanian for allowing to the other Romanians or people who understand
the language to correct my translation:
"Indeed, searching for the threatment of "cs" in the conjugation of the
verbs shows us that the perfect forms in "cs" (zise < dixit) have not
been influenced by the forms of the participium (zis) but, on the
contrary, the perfect form have been the forms which influenced the
participum forms. The threatment of the Latin group "cs" in Romanian, as
well as the threatment of the Latin group "ct" is independent of the
stress on the word."
If we take in consideration words as "a spune"= to say which is assumed
to comme from Latin "exponere" as Mr Iacomy say, then we will see that
indeed it doesn't matter where the accent is and we have indeed an "s"
from "x".
Maybe this is a bad example and "spune" is not from "exponere" but this
one I got now in my mind.
For the semantic sense, unfortunately I don't have now at hand all the
senses of exponere. knowing just actions of " to show" ( see english
exposition, exponent). From to show in Latin for " to say" in Romanian
well... yes.. the semantism is ( I regret I have to say it once again)
explained as usual. That means the semantism is possible.
to show= to let see; to let see= to let know. So if one shows you
something then he let you know so he say something to you, also he say.
I am not so happy with this explanation but let it be my problem:-))
Fact is that thix "x" ( here begun the discution ) could not arrive in
the Balcans since it was already an "ss" in Roman Empire at that time
and the "copsa" is not a derivative of "coxa". And that will fit
historicaly too, not only linguistic.