> Richard Wordingham wrote:To be more specific: exitus of Common Romanian /l^/ (also written
>>> 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 me seems a bit curios that Albanians have "-i&", Aromanian "l^&"and
> Daco-Romanians "ie"; that should beworth to think that the AromanianThere is nothing curious about that: natural tendency of articulation
> "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 forThere is no derivative with /i/ (or /y/) instead of /l'/.
> 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 anyYou are not supposed to make any comment on a phonetic law you
> comment in the case of Pokorny #380 and Pokorny #381 :-))