Re: [tied] Re: Weeping (was: Latin pinso etc.)

Richard Wordingham wrote:

>
> Pretty much what you'd expect from Latin 2nd conjugation forms,
> though the (standard) Romanian infinitives don't tie up, and some of
> these verbs are 3rd conjugation in Latin:
>
> Rom. inf Latin 1s
> tunde tondeo:
> crede credo:
> vedea video:
> cadea cado:
> râde ri:deo:
> rade ra:do:

I doubt that "rade" is an inherited verb.. It seems is a loan and I
compare with the verb "a rãzui" but this one appears to be derivative
from "raz"(crowbar, blade, etc) , cf DEX < SerboCroatin "raz"

>
> Does anyone use my sound change applier at
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard.wordingham/sounds/prep5d_rom.htm
> (or the rule list therein)? I need to move the merger of unstressed
> reflexes of /o/, /o:/, /u/ and /u:/ to before the rules conditioned
> on a following /u/. I will do that this afternoon. It's currently
> mispredicting the reflex of _video:_ as *vez rather than /v&z/, i.e.
> <vãz>. However, there's no point in commenting on such matters if
> they don't affect anyone but me.

... and it is predicting right. The "&" is there just in the moment when
there is no vowel in the next syllable:
eu _vãz/vãd_ but tu vezi, el vede, noi vedem, ei _vãd_. If in the next
syllable there is a vowel, then the /e/ remains /e/ does not get closed
to /&/.

Question:
how does it happen that Latin infinitive in /o:/ has counterparts in
/-ea/ in Rom? Is there any another explanation beside some analogy?

Alex