Re: -ishte, -eshte

From: Richard Wordingham
Message: 15341
Date: 2002-09-10

--- In cybalist@..., alexmoeller@... wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
> To: <cybalist@...>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 12:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [tied] -ishte, -eshte

> -----Original Message-----
> From: alexmoeller@... [mailto:alexmoeller@...]
> Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 11:37 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [tied] -ishte, -eshte
> These are not front, either in Modern Romanian (/u/ is back
> and /ã/ is central) or historically. The palatalising ones are
> (historical) /i/ and /e/ _immediately_ following the -sk-. Got
> it?
> Piotr
> [Moeller] never ever.
> first /u/ is front not back, ã is indeed central.

So how do you pronounce 'pescuieshte'? The notation given at may be useful if respelling does
not work. However, please use '&', not '@', to prevent the
listserver mangling the pronunciation because it thinks it is an e-
mail address. Why does the word have 'u' in the spelling?

> when i or e was imediately after "c" it doesnt mater what was
> before "c" in romanian ist became groups "ce" and "ci" ro
> "che" chi"

> let us take the verb a deschide.< lat. descludere. we have
> deschide and not deshtide
> scheuna , schimba, schimonosi

We are talking about a sound change, not an ever-continuing process.
The softening /sk/ > /St/ is related to the softening /k/ > /tS/; it
is probably a two step process:

(i) /sk/ > /stS/ before front vowels - part of the /k/ > /tS/
(ii) /stS/ > /St/

The softening was completed before /kl/ changed to /ki/ (or
similar). (This is similar to the Italian change <cl> > <chi>.)
That is why you have Rom. închide < Lat. includere, not *încide. It
is also why you have Rom. deschide, not *deshtide.

> peshte <lat. piscis will tell that you are true, but is
> romanian peshte the latin piscis?It seems to be very singular
> here
> ashterne= lat. asternere
> ashtepta= lat *astectare( adspectare)
> Even in the romanian lingvistic there is nothing for "s"
> +consonant

This looks like a similar modification of the change /t/ > /ts/
before front vowels. The only slightly strange thing about it is
that the simplification seems to have gone /sts/ > /St/. It could be
a more complicated sequence of changes such as:

/t/ > /tj/ before front vowels.
/stj/ > /sjt/
/tj/ > /ts/
/sj/ > /S/

You might like to try out the sound change program at It is tedious to use if you have
to apply stress changes, gemination, degemination or feature
transfers, or impose exceptions, but its use offers the possibility
of testing and exchanging ideas on sound changes and their sequencing.

WARNING: Avoid leading and trailing spaces in the input files!

> Reichenkron supposed sk got in romanian "sh" but it is wrong.
> True is the oclusive PIE *k fallowed by "s" got a "sh" in
> romanian
> PIE *kseubh>call_it_how_you_like_if_not_thracian *shobãi>rom.
> shovãi= to be not sure what to do, to hesitate
> deom teh same PIe is the lisard too
> PIE *kseubh >Call_it shop+irela>rom. shopârla

One 'substrate' or two? Why both bH > v and bH > p?