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

From: m_iacomi
Message: 26202
Date: 2003-10-02

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" 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?
> Miguel constructed a bit unlucky the sentence. There should be
> "when in the next syllable an /e/ occur" and not "before final
> /e/".

Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> Bourciez says:
> "Ces sons [e, ie, o accentués] devinrent respectivement ea, iea,
> oa devant a ou e latins finals, tandis qu'ils restaient intactes
> devant u".
> In <oaspete>, it doesn't happe to matter if we formulate the rule
> as such, or as "... before a or e in the next syllable", but I
> guess that's not always the case.

Actually, Romanian linguists do not mention the word "final":
according to most of them, diphthongation occurs if a stressed
/ye/, /e/ or /o/ is followed in the next syllable by /a/, /e/ or
/&/; the phenomenon is Common Romanian but survives also in some
modern Romanian alternances (as for instance "profesor/-oarã"),
not in recent loanwords: "clonã", "geodã", etc.). Diphthongation
does not occur when the next vowel is /o/, /u/ or /1/.
Because a final (unstressed) Latin /a/ or /e/ leads usually to
/a/, /e/ or /&/, Bourciez' formulation covers practically the
case of paroxytones (by far, the most important ones numerically),
but fails to explain "oameni", "oaspete", articulated plurals as
"picioarele", "coamele", or some (ex-)verbal forms as "scoatere",
"coacere", etc.. I can't think at any inherited word showing no
diphthongation in above conditions, with /a/, /e/ or /&/ even not
being final.
Initially being a phonetic variant of an unique phoneme [ó], [oá]
became independent, in oppositions as "tonã" (`ton`) / "toanã"
(`mood`) or "costã" (`[it] costs`) / "coastã" (`rib`).

> in oaspete the stress os on /o/ and now is on /a/, the word
> being: oáspete

There is no information contained in this phrase, since in a
diphthong the stress falls on the open vowel if any (that is: on
/a/, in any combination).

>>>> 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.
> We musst assume they have had the final /u/ for explaining the
> actual form.

As far as "sorã" is concerned, the assumption is based on some
1. Aromanian form "soru";
2. Late Medieval Daco-Romanian texts attesting the form "soru";
3. survival of /u/ in the (Daco-Romanian) compound "soru-mea";
4. normal result of unstressed Latin /o/ is /u/; see also:
Final "u" was felt by first Romanians as natural for masculine
ending -- at least at the level of graphical tradition (in first
Romanian texts, there is a final mute /u/ even in loanwords in
which its' presence is not justified).
Actually, there is no rule about dropping final -r. The message
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/18557 does not
mention such a rule, it just says "frate < frater" without
specifying the intermediate steps (see also Strasbourg Oaths and
my answer http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/18582).

> We can observe "it became mute" but the answer "why became mute"

"why became mute[?!]" is not an answer but a question; the answer
of this...

> should be a more interesting question.

...is "because that was (Daco-)Romanian speakers' will". In other
dialects, final -u is alive & kickin'.

>> 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.
> Well, if it is accepted that familia > femeie because the woman
> in fact having a family,

Not quite. Latin "familia" `family, household` evolved into Romanian
"femeie" `woman` (with all dialectal and subdialectal forms) _because_
speakers incidentally have linked having a normal family with the main
step of getting a woman in the house as a wife. Linguists accept this
proposed evolution because 1. it fits phonetical laws; 2. semantical
evolution is straightforward; 3. dialectal forms feed up the scenario
with crucial arguments. So don't (alta)mix the issues.

> the Albanian senses fo the word (fëmíjë) are 1)"child", 2)family,
> 3)wife; the derivatives are just regarding the "child" ( fëmijërí=
> childhood).

Most likely, Albanian word is just a loan from Latin (or,
speaking, from Balkan Romance). Phonetics gives the sense of the
Albanian word meaning `woman` is actually "femër"; for `wife` there
"grua", "zonjë" and "shoqe".

> It seems to me that the Latin word "familia" is a loan word from a
> language where initialy it meant "wife" and is deep cognate with
> "femina".

Why? According to Pokorny (376), "familia" has something to do with a
root *dhe:- (`setzen, stellen, legen`), while "femina" is related to
something about `becoming`, `bringing into being`, *dhe:(i)- (381 --
`saugen, säugen`), also related to "fetus", "felix", "fecundus", etc.

> A honest observation about the semantic development is here highly
> required. Is more probabil to have woman > family or more probably
> to have family > woman ?

There is no "more probable" arrow in this case, on this basis. It
happened one way and the arrow is fixed by dropping phonemes according
to phonetic laws, not creating them according to one's will.

>> The variants _$apte_ and _$epte_ are another example where the
>> ordering of the rules is crucial, and seems to vary between
> "Septe" is IMO a hyper-urbanismus. In my dictionary for archaisms
> regionalism there is no such form as "$epte" but DEX gives this form
> meant it is a regionalism and not a hyper-urbanism. Unfortunately
> is no indication in which region should be "$epte".

George already answered you on that point.

Marius Iacomi