Re: spylian (romance part)

From: g
Message: 17518
Date: 2003-01-11

>Talking about the rhotacism , in the sub-dialect of people which used
>the rhotacism the sound "n" was the one who was rothacised but not the
>"l". I allow myself to give you a text from "Codicele Voronetian", wrote
>in the middle of XVI century.:
>" Supuretsi-va amu lu Dumnedzeu Si protrivitsi-va dracului si fugi-va de
>la voi. Chenuitsi si laclamatsi! Plangetsi!Nu va clevetiretsi urulu
>alaltu, fratsi ca cela ce cleveteSte Si lega osândeSte."
>It is enough to see that "n"= "r" but in words like "cela", "urul",
>"alaltu" there is no rhotacism of "l".

Why do you throw 'em in the same bowl? The rhotacization of N is
something quite different: it is not a fenomenon having occurred
1,500 years ago and "frozen" a couple of centuries later -- it is a
phenomenon that coexists -- alive and kickin' in January 2003 in
big subdialectal chunks of Western Transylvania and Northern
Oltenia and Northern Muscel -- with the "n" forms. That is: inima
with irima/irema, cununa with curuna and many other examples.

(The medieval text you quote from belongs to the Transylvanian
group of subdialects - esp. to those outside (to the West) of
the Transylvania proper. In the excerpt above, only "supuRe"
(supune < *sub-pune), "uRul" (unul = the one) are of relevance.)

Whereas the other one, the L-rotacization, ceased to be productive
1,000-1,500 years ago.

>Interesting too, should be the word "laclima"= teardrop where the corect
>form is "lacrima" as the Latin form of the words.

It would be interesting only when you were sure "laclima" is
indeed the correct transliteration.



Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur.