[tied] Re: Albanian pre and Romanian prada

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...> wrote:

> > Yes. Intervocalic Latin <b> and <v> usually drops in Romanian.
> > Consequent contraction of the vowels to a single vowel is common -
> > I don't claim to know the precise details.
>
> Intervocalic <b> or <v> may disappear in Balkan Romance, as a well
> known evolution (caballus > cal, pavimentum > pãmânt, *expavorere >
> speria, cubitus > cot; stress plays also some role). The resulting
> hiatus (not diphthong) is usually reduced (in Balkan Romance, not in
> Latin) to the open vowel (/a/), if unstressed.

excuse me but this is mostly wrong derived. The Rom. "cal",
Alb. "kalë" are not derived from Latin caballus but they are cognate
with Latin "celeres" and with Greek "keles".
The word "pãmânt" could very well derive from "pigmentum" thus
the "pavimentum" appears more as "wished" latinom, "cot" can derive
from "cubitus" but there is no evidence for lost of "b". The
derivation here can be "cubitus" > "cuwEtus" > "cuEtus" > "cuãtus"
where "uã" _can_ give "o" due the opening of "u" due next "ã".
From all examples I studied, the only one word which appears to
confirm that "b" intervocalic dropped is the word "ierta" presumed to
derive from Latin "libertare" since until now by myself I could not
find something else to derive this word from.
This subject can be found discussed very large here:

Part I http://groups.yahoo.com/group/balkanika/message/874
Part II http://groups.yahoo.com/group/balkanika/message/877
Part III http://groups.yahoo.com/group/balkanika/message/880
Part IV http://groups.yahoo.com/group/balkanika/message/887

> The stress issue is still to be remembered when dealing with
> vowels, that's why all "examples" for /ae/ > /*aa/ > /a/ (already
> fallacious for other reasons) cannot be taken into account for
> stressed vocalism as in praeda > pràdã.
> Speaking about the latter, formation of plural doesn't show
> anything but the word has some centuries in the language. The same
> pattern is shown by more recent loanwords as Sl. <kadI> > Rom.
> <cadã> pl. <cãzi> or Germ. <Lade> > Rom. <ladã> pl. <lãzi>; but Fr.
> <rade> > Rom. <radã> pl. <rade>, Fr. <fade> > Rom. <fad>, fem. >

<fadã>, fem. pl. <fade>. The choice between the two ways of plural

> formation is essentially related to style: the normal alternations
> a-ã and d-z are perceived as "rude"
> because they affect the stem, so one would try to avoid them if not
> already accustomed with.
>
> Regards,
> Marius Iacomi

the point with the plural was not mostly the "e" or the "i" plural
but the stem vowel of the word. The stem vowel in the plural form
shows the initial vowel which has been in the word. Since
Latin "feta" > Rum. "fatã" but one has pl. of "fatã"="fete", thus
the "e" in the Latin word is confirmed due the "e" in the plural form
of "fete".

The "prada" word does not show this "e" and it should show it if the
word from which it derives was "praeda". If this "e" is not present
in plural form of the Rum. word, then most presumabely the
word "prada" does not derive from "praeda" _or_ and I stress
this "or", the change "ae" > "a" happened already in Latin and it
entered the Rum. lang. with "a".

>
> PS - TILR gives actually an Aromanian form <fluér>, with emphasis on
> stress position, not <flùer> as I wrote in my earlier message (with
> similar stress as in DR), I apologize for hurry typing

word which was re-loaned into Alb. and has the form "floere" (my
assumtion)

>
> PPS - I still think these issues have little to do with (P)IE but
> with (Balkan) Romance linguistics
>

the outgoing point was the paar "fluier"-"fyell" should be cognate or
not. And ( I will add) if they are to be derived from an "*bhloh3-".
Still a lot IE here. The "romance" aspect is just a helping point in
showing what is possible to be from Latin and what not.

Alex