Re: -ishte, -eshte

From: George S t a n a
Message: 15344
Date: 2002-09-10

> >let us take the verb a deschide.< lat. descludere. we have
> >deschide and not deshtide
>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:

That what he mentions above ("deshtide") is not quite true.
"deschide" /deskide/ is the standard variant. But there are the
subdialectal variants "de$chide" /deSkide/ and "dã$chide" /d@$kide/
throughout Romania. And esp. in Western Romania (i.e. in the
provinces of Transylvania and Banat) "dã$chide" /d@$k^ide/ (where
/k^/ is even "softer" than the /t/ in... "Putin").

A similar phenomenon in "$chei", the plural of "schiau" or "$chiau",
i.e. the old Romanian word for "Slav(ic)" (< sclau(inus). This plural
is a toponym, too. A suburb of the city of Bra$ov, $chei.
But its counterpart in Western Romania (about 60-70 km away from the
Romanian-Hungarian border) is called $tei. Spelled with a "t".
Exactly because the subdialect there, in this or similar phonetic
circumstances, does not differentiate between /k/ and /t/, the
sound being a /k^/. The same applies for /g/ and /d/ in similar
circumstances. (And this is so in spite of the fact that both the
Romanian spoken in the former and that in the latter area belong
to the same Transylvanian subdialect. The eastern variants of
Romania, spoken in cis- and trans-Pruth Moldavia have these
peculiarities, too, but to a lesser extent. By and large, in Romania,
these phenomena decrease until they vanish from North to South.
In the southernmost regions, subdialectal pronunciation is a mere
/k/. Whereas in Northern areas, even the... reversal of
/kw > k^/ > /p/ is extremely strong still today: k^ept, k^eatra,
instead of p(i)ept, peatra/piatra < Lat. pectus, petra; and
k^iper instead of piper (pepper), esp. in Moldavia.)

Since these phenomena aren't inherent in Alex's own subdialectal
Romanian, no wonder he doesn't pay too much attention to them.

>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.

As you see above, not quite. And I underline that the /S/ is there
in all areas where the "ch" is pronounced as a genuine /k/. That is:
in Alex's area of subdialect as well.

(I hope there's no need to point out that a standard language
is only one aspect of the language. :)

> > peshte <lat. piscis will tell that you are true, but is
> > romanian peshte the latin piscis?
>The only slightly strange thing about it is
>that the simplification seems to have gone /sts/ > /St/.

That's typical in Romanian: sce/sci tends to turn $ce/$ci
and then /Ste, Sti/. The most frequent occurrences in flexion
forms of verbs. e.g. (I+they) "iubesc" (you, s/he) "iube$ti,
iube$te"; "pasc"; "pa$te"; "cresc"; "cre$te" (in all such verbs,
"-esc" <-> "-e$ti + - e$te"). Easter = "Pa$te" & "Pa$ti". (Almost
nobody pronounces "fas-cist" but "fa$cist" or "fa$$ist". Due
to this occurrence, some native speakers even use a wrong
plural for "fresco", Rum. sing. "fresca", plur. "fresce" ->
*fre$te. :) So, no wonder that Lat. accusative "piscem" >
Rum. "pe$te". But the fisher = "pescar", to fish = "a pescui",
with the /sk/ preserved. Also cf. sing. "musca", plur. "mu$te" (fly),
"gâsca", "gâ$te" (goose), "broasca", "broa$te" (frog), "basca",
"b@$ti" (Basque cap, beret), "masca", "m@$ti" (masque),
"ga$ca", "g@$ti" (gang, band). &c.

> >Reichenkron supposed sk got in romanian "sh" but it is wrong.

But a "scl-"!...

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