Re: Richard's Romanian sound changer

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> I've tested Richard's Romanian Sound Change Applier against
> (most of) the examples given in Bourciez.
>
> The remaining problems that I found are (some belong in several
> catgories at once):

I assume that the format is:
{Latin word} > {Real Romanian word} not {Rom. word according to
sound changer}. If so, the following comments are to be made:

> 1) unstressed vowels
>
> pedica > piedicã not piedecã

The word <piedecã> does exist in Romanian and is widespread in
regional speech. The form <piedicã> is rather new, due to further
assimilation. Of course, short /i/ in "pedica" > /e/, which is
the regular exitus.

> pectinem > pieptine not pieptene

Same as above, with the mention that <pieptine> is not even the
recommended form.

> blasphe:ma:re > blestema not blãsfemare

Not from this one but from VL "*blastimare" (required also by
Italian "bestemmiare" < Old It. "biastimare"; Devoto reconstructs
a VL *baestimiare, maybe a misprint).

> lendina > lindinã not lindenã

PBR /e/ gradually closes to CR /i/ before /n/ (like in "bine",
"dinte", etc.).

> anellum > inel not îniel

Vocalism /1/ instead of modern /i/ is attested old DR, as in anima >
înemã > inima, last phenomenon is late DR.

> fenestra > fereastrã not fãniastrã

/n/ replaced by anticipation of /r/; evolution suggests a stressed
PBR /e/ rather than regular exitus /E/ of short CL /e/.

> 2) v ~ b ~ 0

Systematic loss of intervocalic Latin -b- or -v- is still to be
implemented; usual confusion between /b/ and /v/ cannot be summed
into a simple rule.

> deus > zeu not ze
> reus > rãu not re

For these ones maybe: final /u/ in hiatus > /w/ rather than 0.

> habe:re > avea/avere not abere

Analogical "conservation" of /v/.

> lava:re > la(re) nor lãvare

"lãua" would be a better Romanian form ("la" is too short for a
verb).

> 3) l^
> léporem > iepure not liepure

[...]
Loss of /l^/ in DR, replaced by palatal glide or nothing.

> auricla > urechie not aureache

Reduction of Latin au > o (> u) occurs only if already VL,
otherwise it remains au; there is no simple rule to give that.

> urceolum > ulciór not urcéur

/eo/ > /jo/ (palatal glide), I fail to see why the sound changer
gives stressed /u/ instead of /o/. Everything is regular, except
subdialectal dissimilation of the first /r/ in /l/ which applies
casually ("urcior" is also a modern valid form).

> fascia > fa$e not fa$ã

Modern recommended is still "fa$ã".

> 6) final -u after Cl/Cr/V
> nigrum > negru not negr
> duplum > duplu not dupl

Here that's correct.

> oclum > ochiu not ochi
> coliculum > curechiu not curechi

... but these are no longer correct since Latin /l/ gave a palatal
/j/, after whic final /u/ is still lost in modern DR, so one has
"ochi" and "curechi".

> x) others

> gu:- > gu- not b-

Only labial appendix gives /b/ (as in "lingua" > "limbã").

> conventum > cuvînt not cunvînt

Latin "conC" > Rom. "cuC" with regularity.

> mergere > merge not mierge [?]

"mierge" is still regional.

> mer(u)la > mierlã not miarlã

"miarlã" is regional.

Regards,
Marius Iacomi