--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
<richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3"
<alexandru_mg3@...>
> wrote:
>
> > For the Latinists:
> >
> > Please note that in Romanian: Lat accented e > Rom je > later
> > retracted to e after r (and not only after r))
> >
> > Samples:
> >
> > a) Rom. ciréS 'sweet cherry tree' > Lat. *ceresius,um > Lat.
> > *ceresus < Lat. cerasus
> >
> > b) Rom întrég 'entire, whole' > PRom *intregum < Lat. integrum
> > (integer)
> >
> > So the derivation: Latin reus > Rom rãu has an issue if we take
a
> > look at the other examples above.
>
> But the same issues as Latin deus > Rom. zãu.
>
> Richard.
>
You have ignore my examples above cireS and întreg both belonging to
an r-context as rãu, and gave as example of accented e > ã in a d
(dz)-context.
The rules are:
1. Latin accented e > Rom je
2. Next Rom je > was retracted to e after t, d, s, c, g and r
3. Next this e passed to ã after T, dz, S when in next syllable
there isn't a palatal vowel
so deus > dzãu belong to the rule 3.
Note-1: Next the other forms zeu si Dumnezeu must pe considered
remodeled from the vocative : zee and Dumnezee and from pl. zei and
Dumnezei
Note-2: the single exception remain Romanian Ses (that is not Sãs) >
Lat sessus,-um
4. Also je passed to jea and next to ja when in next syllable we
have e, ã (some linguists considering also when we have a)
Lat herba > Rom ierbã > Rom iearbã > Rom iarbã
5. after t, d, s, c (q) the first element of the triphtong jea
dissapeared after it has altered the preceeding consonant in T, dz,
S etc...
6. Later after T, dz, S the diphtong ea was reduced to a. This
change is due also to the rule 3. : e paased to ã after T, dz, S and
next ãa was reduced to a
Ex Lat terra > Rom tjerra> Rom Tjeara> Rom Teara > Rom. Tãara >
Rom Tara
NOTE Rom. zece 'ten' should have arrived to 'zace' (as Rom. zadã <
Lat *deda (=taeda)) but was reshaped based on douãzeci, treizeci
etc...)
NOTE-2 : Please note also that the diphtong ea didn't change to ãa
and next to a after an initial r : we have Rom. rece 'cold' < reace
(< Lat. recens 'fresh') and not Rom *race < rãace < reace < Lat.
recens so please note again: that this situation confirm what I said
that the ã in rãu cannot be explain 'by rules' from an original
accented Latin e. So the Analogy remains the single source of
explanation...
Hope this clarify,
Marius
P.S. To present the whole picture the ã in rãu is considered to be
sourced by analogy from the non-accented forms like rãutate, înrãi
but being 'the more used that that forms' I have some doubts
regarding this explanation. As I presented, also the semantic
shift 'Lat culprit => Rom bad' is not very usual for a country-side
people (as the Proto-Romanians were) but of course not impossible.