Re: Romanian _abur_

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tolgs001" <st-george@...> wrote:

>
> >>course, Latin <vapor> could also have had some influence on a
> >>local substrate word.
> >
> >Latin vapor? What kind of influence? p->b or v->zero ? (see also
> >Romanian vas and Romanian acoperi :)
>
> Take into consideration that the Latin pronunciation must've
> been something like ['wa-por], and that related to this
> variants such as ['wa-bor, 'wa-bur] might have been plausible.
>
> A ['wa-bur] pronounced vapor is very closed to modern
> Romanian abur ['a-bur].

Based on Rosetti ONLY the intervocalic Latin v was w in sec II-V,
not the initial v- that was already v => this is in accordance with
Romanian and Albanian Outputs : Latin v- <-> Rom. v- <-> Alb v (I
give you an example Romanian vas) but intervocalic Latin v <-> Rom.
zero

Also wa regularly gave o in Romanian see Rom o < *wa < Latin una

So Latin va > Romanian va...never a

> Just compare the various real-life pronunciation of Italian
> words in various regions (esp. towards the South regions of

I showed you an impossible Albanian "ll"-othacism: r -> ll in
Albanian...if you would start from Latin vapor to explain Romanian
abur....
Due to such impossible Albanian evolution of avull : there is no
need to compare b/v with Italian in this case....

Marius