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

From: m_iacomi
Message: 26221
Date: 2003-10-03

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

> 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.
> there is no consonants in Daco-Romanian as reflex of "l^". In
> Daco-Romanian this is "i" and in Aromanian is "l^".

To be more specific: exitus of Common Romanian /l^/ (also written
/l'/ by most linguists) is the same palatalized _consonant_ /l'/ in
all Romanian dialects (in Aromanian texts being sometimes written
as "lj") except for Daco-Romanian which innovates transforming it in
- semivowel [y] (written "i") as in "lepore(m) > l'epure > iepure",
"libertare > l'ertare > iertare";
- palatal element of another consonant as in "glacies > gl'aTã >
gheaTã" (with initial [g'] instead of [g]), "oric(u)la > ureacl'ã >
ureche" (with [k'] instead of [k]);
- absorbed in the (front) vowel as in "linu(m) > l'in(u) > in"
In these last two cases, the exitus is not written as phoneme.

> To me seems a bit curios that Albanians have "-i&", Aromanian "l^&"
> 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".

There is nothing curious about that: natural tendency of articulation
is to simplify, not to insert sounds. If the pronunciation in another
language slightly differs from one's own, then phonemes are not
as if they were the same. As a matter of fact, Catalan "ll" sounds
like [y] if one does not pay too much attention, the same goes for
Aromanian "lj" (and, probably, Balkan Romance /l'/), there is no rub
in deriving an Albanian /y/ even if the language had its' own /l'/.
The timeline arrow is again crystal clear, supported by phonetic laws
and common sense (BTW, Aromanian "fumealje" means also `family`, not
only `woman, wife`, conserving the ancient meaning).

> 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.

There is no derivative with /i/ (or /y/) instead of /l'/.

> 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 :-))

You are not supposed to make any comment on a phonetic law you
obviously ignore (about Italic exitus of initial PIE voiced aspirated
stops). About Pokorny 380 there is nothing to be said relative to
this discussion. Pokorny 376 & 381 hint out that Latin words are not
related to the same root. Albanian word is not inherited and cannot
be used in speculations about supposed substratal word similar to
Latin "familia". The same Pokorny 381 hints out that PIE *dh > Alb.
/dj/ (in "djalë"), no way for /f/, end of the story.

Marius Iacomi