>>>> hospitem > oaspete, not ospete. Why? Cybalist 18582.Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>>> /o/>/oa/ if in the next syllable an /ã/ or an /e/ folllows: see
>>> 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
> Bourciez says:Actually, Romanian linguists do not mention the word "final":
> "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.
> in oaspete the stress os on /o/ and now is on /a/, the wordThere is no information contained in this phrase, since in a
> being: oáspete
>>>> Dropping of final -r Cybalist 18557 and account of sora.As far as "sorã" is concerned, the assumption is based on some
>>> about "sora" see up. About droping of final "r" there is no
>>> ( 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.
> We can observe "it became mute" but the answer "why became mute""why became mute[?!]" is not an answer but a question; the answer
> should be a more interesting question....is "because that was (Daco-)Romanian speakers' will". In other
>> For these it is just a matter of detail. Some of the developmentsmeans
>> 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
> the Albanian senses fo the word (fëmíjë) are 1)"child", 2)family,Most likely, Albanian word is just a loan from Latin (or,
> 3)wife; the derivatives are just regarding the "child" ( fëmijërí=
> It seems to me that the Latin word "familia" is a loan word from aLatin
> language where initialy it meant "wife" and is deep cognate with
> "femina".Why? According to Pokorny (376), "familia" has something to do with a
> A honest observation about the semantic development is here highlyThere is no "more probable" arrow in this case, on this basis. It
> required. Is more probabil to have woman > family or more probably
> to have family > woman ?
>> The variants _$apte_ and _$epte_ are another example where thedialects.
>> 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 "$epte" but DEX gives this formand
> meant it is a regionalism and not a hyper-urbanism. Unfortunatelythere
> is no indication in which region should be "$epte".George already answered you on that point.