On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:10:02 +0200, alex
<
alxmoeller@...> wrote:
>Assuming the gl > ghi' before a >â then we have:
>glánda > ghéanda ( conform glacia > gheatsa )
>this form should have remained the same as "geana"< *ginna, with no
>further transformation except final "a" > "ã"
>
>assuming the a > â before gl > ghi then we have:
>glánda > *glânda ( with stress on â, cff. rulles stressed a > â before
>nC)
>*glânda > ghiândã; the "â" was absoerbed by "i" since i-â-n is almost
>i-0-n, thus > in
>In this manner we will have an nice explanable glanda > ghindã
>That will explain the Albanian "glën-" as well loaned in a time where
>the Romanian word was *glân-" already.
The relative order of gl- > gj- vs. a > â really doesn't
matter. As long as they are both before the j-umlaut (as
they are).
As a matter of fact the order of the soundlaws was probably:
1) gl- > gl^- (this is shared by Romanian with Italian, and
was over before the Slavic loanwords, such as clopot).
2) an > ân (shared by all Romanian dialects, and affecting
part of the Slavic borrowings: stãpân, but ranã).
3) -a > -ã (all dialects)
4) gl^- > gj- (not in Aromanian)
5) jâ > i (not in Aromanian?).
[/glánda/ > /gl^anda/ > /gl^ïnda/ > /gl^ïnd&/ > /gjïnd&/ >
/gind&/ = ghindã]
As to *glacia, the ordering of the rules is the same:
1) kj > c (shared with all of Romance)
2) gl- > gl^-
3) -a > -ã
3) gl^- > gj-
4) ja > e (not in Aromanian: kl^ae, not cheie "key")
[/glakja/ > /glaca/ > /gl^aca/ > /gl^ac&/ > /gjac&/ > /gec&/
= ghetz-]
This is the plural form (ghetzuri). Singular gheatzã is, I
suppose, analogical after ceatzã, cetzuri (< caecia) and
other words with etymological ea ~ e "Ablaut".
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...