In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex_lycos" <altamix@...> wrote:
> Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I replied via the group page and funny things happened
>> to the encoded characters. Since it was for Alex, I'd better
>> correct the text for the sake of clarity:
>>
>> -ealã > -eawã > -ea (but with the glide preserved in sandhi
>> between the noun and the definite article)
>
> Piotr, I guess that is more better that you will explain as
> specialist in slavistic how the slavic suffix for plural (?)
> "-eli" has given an suffix in romanian for feminin singular,
> which is "ealã" [...]
Since it was meant for Alex and he looks totally confused, let's
put some timeline on that evolution. The Latin -ella never reached
a stage -ealã. The shift /ll/ > /w/ occured at some moment before
Common (Proto) Romanian. In Common Romanian, the suffix already
has the form "-eawã". First Slavic loanwords enter in Romanian at
this moment, thus they do not share the same phonetical treatment
as Latin -ll- (in -ella); nor Slavic -l- should have been voiced
(articulated) by default like its Latin counterpart.
There is no reason to speculate about potential conservation of
Latin -ll- in Romanian since the phonetical evolution is fully
sustained by Aromanian and archaic Daco-Romanian form (-eawã) in
enough many words.
Regards,
Marius Iacomi