g wrote:
>> Yep. You should distinguish between Romance /e/ (in the handbooks
>> mostly written as e with dot underneath) which is a closed /e/ like
>> French /é/ in été or German /ee/ in Idee, and Romance /E/ (in the
>> handbooks written as e with ogonek/cedilla underneath), which is an
>> open /E/ like French /è/, /ê/ in être or German /e/ in Elbe, or like
>> a sheep's bèèèè
Well, here it ought Miguel will explain why the short Latin "i" remain
"i" in Romanian and do not diphtongued or changed or what ever. This
should be very interesting because it seems from the almost exhaustive
description of the proto-balcano-romance vocalismus ( what a
term!),there is the short Latin /i/ which remains /i/ in Romanian.
Of course, there are example needed since without examples people wil
think just the long /i:/ gave an "i" in Romanian, or , how results from
Miguel's demonstration, there is no short Latin /i/ which remains /i/.
Miguel said as follow: Latin /e:/, /i/, /oe/ >rom /i/ by 2b
2b) Except before /m/or /mn/, /e/ (original or from /E/ -- Alex reminds
thath E is given from /e/ ot /ea/--) is further closed to /i/ (timp,
dinte, plin, limbã, but gem, lemn)
I am carefully here since in the example we have here there is no /i/
which shows this transformation but just an /E/ which derives from /e/
or /ea/.
I repeted once again this aspect because only here we see that miguel
see an Romanian /i/ from a Latin short /i/. I see in the examples no
latin /i/ and no /E/ which could derive from /i/ since Miguel said that
/E/ is coming just from /e/ and /E/.
In so far, I really don't understand which /i/ is the one here because I
cannot see one. So please excuse my insintence but it seems to be
important toclarify and the another aspect. The aspect I talk about is
the one of Latin short /i/ remaining an /i/ in Romanian and not becoming
an /a/ or something else.
As usual in all these examples I don't discuses the semantic difference
between Latin and Romanian there where they are, but just the
phonological aspect. I mention here I won't use reconstructed words
since they are reconstructed "as wished". For the words where I
personally I don't think are "inherited" but borrowed something later, I
used after the word the (!)-mark. Let us take a look.
Latin words with short /i/ in the words which are given by DEX to be the
parent of Romanian words:
lingua > limba, alvina > albina, appropiare > apropia, ericius > arici ,
asinus >asin (!), attingo > atinge, attineo > atsine,audio > auzi,
umbilicus > buric, cingo >(în)cinge, cingula > chingã, convinco >
convinge, vitricus > vitreg , etc, there is plenty of them.
How are they to explain? Normally there should be no /i/ at all; due the
fact we have one, there must be an explanation which was not given in
the previous post of Miguel. Which is the explanation then?
Regards,
Alex