Re: sanskrit "bhuman"

From: m_iacomi
Message: 16133
Date: 2002-10-10

--- In cybalist@..., "Richard Wordingham" wrote:

> --- In cybalist@..., "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...> wrote:
> And talking of bHu:man **> pãmînt:
>> Of course, nobody but Vinereanu supports this word derivation.
> Are you suggesting that Alex is indeed a deranged program and not
> a person? :)

Lol. :)
Of course, I was speaking about linguists.

>> Phonetically, the Logudorese "pamentu" proves there is no problem
>> of derivation: a vernacular late Latin form "*paumentu(m)" should
>> be the "missing link" [...] Unstressed /e/ > /&/ (<ã>) and
>> stressed /e/ before /n/ (or /m/) > /1/ (<â>) are regular in
>> Romanian.
> Do you need a preceding labial (e.g. the /m/ we have) to get /1/
> and not /i/? I am thinking of dinte < dentem and 'CinV > C1nV
> if C labial', as Miguel cited in
> .

Huh? I checked up the message and it doesn't mention any of these
I would like to recall you the message:
where I stated some rules.

When -ent(u) becames the last syllable, (stressed) /e/ > /1/
and not /i/; a frequent case is the Latin -mentu(m) > -mânt
as in monumentum > mormânt. <-mânt> is productive in Romanian,
see asezãmânt, zãcãmânt, invãTãmânt, etc., for plurals we have
the expected alternance with /i/ in asezãminte, zãcãminte,
invãTãminte. See also ventum > vânt, conventum > cuvânt (pl.
cuvinte; but vânturi, under the influence of closed /u/ from
the last syllable).

Marius Iacomi