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

From: alex
Message: 26217
Date: 2003-10-03

Richard Wordingham wrote:

>> Then go both to Greece, Albania, FYROM and Bulgaria and
>> talk to Macedonian Romanians and carefully listen to their
>> "soft" kind of [l]s not yet transformed in [j] - i.e. kind
>> of Spanish <-ll-> or Italian <-gl->. Unfortunately for the
>> contemporary observer, the North-Romanian subdialects no
>> longer have such l^ phonetics (most Romanians are unable
>> to imitate such sounds unless they learn Italian and Spanish).
> The problem is not with the change itself - it's with its
> ramifications, and possibly with how I represent it. Does the
> reflex of l^ remain a consonant, or are there complications?
> Perhaps I do need to order a Romanian dictionary - most bookshops
> don't stock them.
> Richard.

there is no consonants in Daco-Romanian as reflex of "l^". In
Daco-Romanian this is "i" and in Aromanian is "l^".
What I wonder about is the Albanian form with "i" and not with "l^". And
one cannot say Albanian does not know "l^". The Albanian "j" is "i",
thus the word "fëmijë" will be spoken out "f&mii&".
I guess one can learn a bit more if one see how the Latin group
"li-/le-" was handled in Albanian.
To me seems a bit curios that Albanians have "-i&", Aromanian "l^&" and
Daco-Romanians "ie"; that should beworth to think that the Aromanian
"l^" in this case can be not from an older "-li" but from an "-ie". It
should be interesting to verify the reflexes in Aromanian for
derivatives of "femeie" like "femeiesc, femeiuScã, femeieSte for seeing
if there are reflexes of "l^" or is just a simply "i" too.
As for Latin *f- from PIE *dh- .... hmm. I don't want to make any
comment in the case of Pokorny #380 and Pokorny #381 :-))