Re: [tied] Romanian Development of /st/ (was: Against ... 'Albanian

Richard Wordingham wrote:

>>> However, _cre$tin_ is exactly what you would expect from
>>> *cristi:nus, as in the English girl's name _Christina_, once you
>>> realise that /sti/ > <$ti>, not <$Ti>.
>>
>> Expeted should have been "cr�Stin" here, remember "creationis" which
>> is supposed to give "cr�ciun". But that is a minor thing.
>
> Actually, your forgetting 'the rules' is a major irritant. I don't
> see the analogy. The postulated development, phonetically, is
> <creationem> = /krea:ti"o:nem/ > /krja"tjo:ne/ > /krja"c^one/
>> /kra"c^une/ > /kr&"c�ne/ = *cr�ciune.

Actually your phonetic rules will give you from Latin "passionem" the Rom.
"p�Sune" and you will agree this is simply joke, but not the true.
The working out of "cr�ciun" from "creationem" looks very fuss regarding the
vocalism. It is not known in Rom. that /ea/ or /ja/ develop to a; what do
your rules do with "e" or "j" here? Why does it get lost?Just for reaching
an /a/ for opbtaining the requested & ? I don't see another explanation. The
second thing is what did happened with the final "e"? Why is this gone too?
These are phonetical questions which are secundary to the dream of
"creationem" giving "cr�ciun". In fact, this should be excluded from
begining from a such analysis since for "creationem" the Rom. people have
their own word. And this is "facerea".

>
> The development of *cristi:nus is <christinus> = /kris"ti:nus/
>> /krestinu/ > /kreStin/ = <cre$tin>. No contradiction!

About "crestin"; this is actualy a by-syllabicaly word in Rom. Lang:
creS.tin
The latin word would be divised by me as chris.ti.a.nus; the unstressed /e/
( < i) should have yelded & if I do not mistake here, thus the expected form
shold have been *cr&Stian
I guess we don't need to speak about this word too much since there are
already the mentions that the word has in all Romance curious phonetic forms
in comparations with what should have been expected due regular development.

>
>> Is there a demonstrative "iest"? I don't know it even as regional
>> form. There is "�st-", "aist-", eventually even "ist-" but not
>> "iest".
>
> DEx on-line ( http://dexonline.ro/search.php?cuv=iest ) gives it as
> a regional from.

My DEX does not show this word, I am not aware of this word as well. I want
to consulte my archaic and regional dict. to see what about. So, let's see
it....
Yeap..the word is listed: iest, i�st�, ieSti, i�Ste; I was not aware of it,
never heard about. I wonder in which region it is used, maybe that "Dacia
Felix" eventualy?:-)

>>
>>>
>>> The regular plural forming pattern is exhibited by (just, just�,
>>> ju$ti, juste) 'just, correct'.
>>
>> the word is a neologism but it shows the regular forming. Note stV
>> StV
>> gust when v= /i/ or /y/. It seems /e/ is not enough for building
>> palatal medium, thing expected in fact since /e/ is the unrounded
>> form
> of /o/,
>
> Fronted as well as unrounded.
>
> However, I am inclined to agree with you. I am beginning to think
> that the /S/ in <$terge> < <extergeo> 'wipe off' is due to the
> breaking: stErge > stiearge > $tearge > $terge. I'd like to
> assemble more examples, though.
>
> Richard.

Me too. Since we discussed the postion of "S" at the end of the word and I
gave here the derivative of chitara > chitarist but no cetera > *ceterist, I
would like to point out that the one who play on "ceter�" is a "ceteraS".
Poghirc , Phillippide, Pascu, even Rosetti think the suffix "-aS" is a
substratual one ; the suffix is to find in .. South Slavic as well but it
has a different funnction, in South Slavic this suffix making diminutival
forms.

Alex