Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>>> This is the plural form (ghetzuri).
>
> But is <ghetzuri> also the plural in places where the
> singular is ghiatzã /g^ac&/? Or is is <ghiatzuri> there?
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
Material:
1) cheag < *clagum (=coagulum)
2) cheie < clavis
3) chema < clamare
4) cheotoare < *clautoria (*clautus=clavutus)
5) chiar < clarus
6) chingã < *clinga (=cingula)
1) gheaTa < glacia (=glacies)
2) gheb < *glibbus (< *gibb(u)lus < gibbus)
3) ghem < *glemus (=glomus)
4) ghindã < glandis
5) ghioc < *cloca(=cochlea)
These all the words in Rom. language which beginn with "ghe , ghi" and
with the "che, chi" words which are
supposed to be inherited from Latin. There are 11 words.
Considerations about phonetic aspect:
-from the 11 words , 6 are reconstructed for matching the Rom (only?).
phonetism.
-considerations about semantic aspect do not worth to be made since
the
semantism is different again in over 50 % and to speak about semantism
is a more free space for speculations.
It is eassy to observe that there where are not reconstructed words we
do not have to deal with the groups "gl" or "cl" alone but with the
sequences "gla-" and "cla-" in Latin Language.
The output of Latin sequence "cla-" and "gla-" in Rom. appears to be
"che-" and "ghe-". That is:
clear velar "k" + e , clear velar "g" + e
Comparative with Italian where the output is "chia-" and "ghia-" ,
there is apparently unexplanable reduction of "a" and that an "l'"
does
not yeld an "i" as in Romance usual the way is ( see Spanish &
Italian )
but it yelds an "e". About the phonetic proability of "l'">"e" one has
to discusse separte.We just observe here the difference.
Since the reconstructed words are "re-constructed" for matching an
actualy phonetism in one or more languages, I prefer to deal with
the known words. That is from the amount of 11 words one has to
consider
-without semantical implications; we will put one "!" to show that
there is a semantical difference. Further we will consider just
Italian
language as paralel comparative Romance for the same Latin word since
between all Romances, Romanian and Italian are considered to be twinn
languages. Further I will mention that I do not intend to go in
further
problems as how "clavis > cheie" with "-vis > ie". I just want to keep
the considerations of the subject of interest here, and this one
should
be the change "gla-/cla-" to "ghe-/che-"
So we have as follow:
Latin Italian Romanian
-------------------------------------
clavis chiave cheie
clamare chiamare chema
clarus chiaro chiar (!)
glacia ghiaccia gheaTã (<*gheTa)
glanda ghianda ghindã (<*ghenda)
glandula ghiandula ghindurã ( *ghendurã)
The comparation is self-explaining and it should speak for or against
the discussion about how
"glanda" > "ghinda" or how "glandula" > "ghindura".
It appears there is no "â" at all but the regular "e" > "i" before
"nC" and no Ablaut and no "ja".
To repeat: a palatal "l'" yelds an "i"; we see it in Italian, we see
it in Spanish. We do not see it in Romanian. I do not say "it does not
yelded an "i"", but I say "we do not see it".
Beside of this we see there is missing the "a". The "a" is lost too.
These two things are two aspects which will have to be cleared.
In fact, all this introduction and all the story until here is made
just for one question:
-how is phoneticaly possible to have "la-" > "e".
Alex