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

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

>
> I suppose that the last /r/ was weak pronounced if final.And the PIE
> root should be something like *ster.

In PIE, it was *h2ste:r (*h2st(e)r-). But if you start with Latin
stella (< *h2ster-lah2), you get the correct derivation of the
Romanian word. No need to indulge in fantasies.

> Trough dyphtongation of /e/ we got an ster > stear
> Because of the accent on "ea" the "r" was almost mute so it got lost, so
> from stear > stea
> The definite article here is not "a" since without article is "stea",
> but it is "ua"
> Funny.,
> porc+ea > purcea with article purcea-ua
> catsã + ea > catsea, with article catsea-ua
> mãs- + ea > masea, with article masea-ua
> It is to compare with other words like:
> viperã - viper-a
> casã - cas-a
>
> I have to make up my mind about. With every example it seems the
> actually romanian words have a better connection with Old Latin as with
> Latin and this is very curious.

Don't be riduculous, Alex. What's Old Latin got to do with it all?
<-ella> developed regularly into Rom. -(^)ea. The "u" of the difinite
form, which you're so curious about, is a phonetic trace of the
vocalised lateral (l > w, as in Polish, Portuguese dialects, or London
English): -ealã > -eawã > -ea (but with the glide preserved in sa=
ndhi
between the noun and the definite article).

Piotr