Re: [tied] the tongue

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 17252
Date: 2002-12-22

----- Original Message -----
From: <alexmoeller@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] the tongue

The fact that Lat. lingula was etymologically a diminutive of <lingua> is irrelevant. It was no longer derived from the 'tongue' word synchronically in early Romanian and was free to develop regularly without being affected by analogical influence. There was no [-ngw-] in it, which is why no /-mb-/ developed. The new diminutive does not go back to Latin; it was formed directly from <limbã> (with /-mb-/) in Romanian.

> ... in the same manner I can say the romanian
> "lîngã"= near is too from latin "lingo"= to lick

??? Apart from being semantically implausible, such an "analysis" would ignore the fact that Lat. -ing- doesn't yield Rom. -îng-.

> But for phonological correctness:
> We see in Latin "angustus" > Rom. "îngust" where there is too an "u" and
> we should expect in "b" "imbust". Where I make the mistake then?

Same as in <lingula>. In <angustus> we have [-gu-] (with syllabic /u/), which DOES NOT give Rom. b. The latter developped only from [-gw-], i.e. <-gu-> followed by a vowel!