[tied] Re: Balkan Serpents (was: alb. gji (breast))

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com,
"alex_lycos" <altamix@...> wrote:

> Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "alex_lycos"

<altamix@...>

> > To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 12,

2003 6:52 AM

> > Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Balkan

Serpents (was: alb. gji (breast))

> >
> >
> >> The rest what follows deosnt

have anymor with nasal to do but
with

> >> this "E" from PBR. This

remembers me of point 9 from the
rules:

> >> 9)/iea/ > /ia/
> >> And more: fervere > fierbe, but

conj. 'fiarbã'; in conjunctive form

> >> you cannot say " lasã sã

fierbe" but "lasã sã fiarbã"

> >
> > You HAVE saved the rules,

haven't you?
Alex, did you try to understand how
I coded up the rules for stressed
vowels so one could apply them using
Mark Rosenfelder's Sound Changer?
The coding also included the
Classical Latin rules.

> I have them . I just don't have

the rules with unstressed vowels.

> >
> > e > E > ie > iea > ia (if an -ã

follows), ie (if an -e follows).
Same

> > for <piardã, pierde>, <piatrã,

pietre>, etc

> >
> >> BTW, try please to derive from

Latin vitellus & vitella to see if
you

> >> get Romanian Vitsel & Vitsea.I

guess you will get everything else
but

> >> not vitsel and not vitsea
> >
> > And why the hell not? How about

trying yourself?

>
> I tried:

I discussed this with Alex.
Classical Latin vitellus (short /i/)
would yield Romanian *va~tzel;
vitzel indicates Latin *vi:tellus,
which suggests contamination with or

> /i/, /e/, > /E/

derivation from vita.
Richard
---End--of--Message

> vitella > vEtElla
>
> 2) /E/>/e/ before /m/, /mC/, /nC/
> 2b) except before /m/ or /mn/, /e/

(original or from /E/) is further

> closed to /i/ (timp, dinte , plin

, limba, gem, lemn)

> Here can be a problem with my

capacity of understanding. I am not
really

> sure if I understood right.

Therefore I tried to take both
possibility:

>
> a1) if followed by /m/ or /mn/

[em, emn] the /e/ original or from
/E/

> remains /e/ --> gem, lemn
> a2) if not followed by /m/ or /mn/

the /e/ original or from /E/ closed

> to /i/ -- dinte,plin
> for a1) it doesn't applies to

'timp'(tempus), 'limba'( lingua)

> for a2) it doesn't applies to

'des'(densus), 'cerb' (cervus)

> Therefore I thought I understood

bad so I said, OK, there it should
be

> other ways:
>
> b1) if followed by /m/ or /mn/

[em, emn] the /e/ original or from
/E/

> closed to /i/ --> 'timp', 'limba'
> b2) if not followed by /m/ or /mn/

the /e/ original or from /E/ remains

> /e/ -- gem, lemn
>
> for b1) it doesn't applies to

'gem' (gemere), lemn (lignum, BTW

> 'li:gnum' should remains in /i/

not /e/)

> for b2) ir doesn't applies to

'timp' (tempus), limba (lingua)

>
> So far I have indeed trouble to

understand if /e/ or /E/ is now an
/e/

> or an /i/.
>
> Coming to our 'vitella' we have

first a simple derivation vitella >

> vEtElla. But further?
>
> From a2 ( when no /m/ or /mn/ ,

/e/ > /i/) we can have vEtElla >
vitilla

> From b2 ( when no /m/ or /mn/ ,

/e/ > /e/) we can have vEtElla >
vetella

>
> Of course, trying to derive from

these both forms, there will be

> different results. This is why I

asked you to try to derive. I have
the

> feeling I am blind now, somewhere

I did not understood something
right.

> This is why I don't want you to be

angry on me, but simply I fail to
see

> what we have now. I tried on other

way. I said, ok Alex, forget about

> here since is no nasal in your

next words, so you have to think
just in

> this way:
>
> /e:/,/oe/, /i/ >/e/ and
> /e/, /ae/>/E/.
>
> So from Latin words we have in PBR

such new words:

> vitella > vetElla
> videre > vedere
> In these two examples is

interesting just the form 'ver-'.The
further

> development from PBR to Romanian

should be:

>
> vetElla > vitiella
> vedere > vedere
>
> Why once the /e/ from 'vetElla'

became /i/ and the /e/ from 'vedere'

> became /e/ ?
>
> This was the next stop where I

have no idea how to go further. It
seems

> with the rules in the hand I fail

to see how I have to work with them.

> >
> >> 1) I understand that neo

romance took the accusative form
from Latin

> >> but why the diminutive form

too?

> >> Why should take hard working

/hard living people take these

> >> diminutival forms from Latin

for calling the things like this?

> >
> > The use of diminutives has

little to do with how hard the
speakers

> > work. If anything, hard-working

farmers are likely to use emphati