[tied] Re: derivation rules from later latin to romanian

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

> Richard Wordingham wrote:
>
>
> > hospitem > oaspete, not ospete. Why? Cybalist 18582.
>
> /o/>/oa/ if in the next syllable an /ã/ or an /e/ folllows: see

soare,

> doare, intoarce.

The issue here is that it was given in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/18147 as

'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.'

Is there any reason for the word 'final' in the formulation?

> > Dropping of final -r Cybalist 18557 and account of sora.
>
> about "sora" see up. About droping of final "r" there is no

explanation

> ( see Alb/Rom "mãgar"(donkey) and other examples)

Didn't these words once have final '-u'? That would protect them
from the application of the rule.

> > Need to investigate l^ > y. femeie (18642). Also rule ordering
> > issues, to get ea > e, not a.
>
> me too:-)

For these it is just a matter of detail. Some of the developments
leading to _femeie_ seem to be vary from subdialect to subdialect,
whence the variant forms. The variants _$apte_ and _$epte_ are
another example where the ordering of the rules is crucial, and
seems to vary between dialects.

Richard.