On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:34:12 -0000, "Richard Wordingham
<
richard.wordingham@...>" <
richard.wordingham@...>
wrote:
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "m_iacomi <m_iacomi@...>"
>> See the rules. /ea/ gots simplified in /a/ only if the next
>> syllable contains /a/ or /&/. Being final, there is no next
>> syllable, so it remains /ea/.
>
>I don't recall this constraint on the absorption of vowel elements.
>For 'seven', I had septem > sEpte > siepte > sieapte > $ieapte >
>$eapte > $apte. Presumably '$apte', rather than '$epte', should now
>be regarded as deviant, as '$ea' will simplify back to '$e' under the
>influence of the final 'e'.
We can treat -tieáuã > -tzeá as a special case, but that's not
satisfactory.
Bourciez says: "Derrière <t,>, <s,> (résultant de l'absorption du
<y>), la réduction aboutit à <a> probablement par une étape <ãa>:
roum. et mr. <t,arã>, <s,apte> pour *<t,earã>, *<s,eapte>." And:
"Derrière une palatale l'<e> ne se prononce pas dans roum. ceapã =
ce:pa, sãgeatã = sagitta". If in both these cases ea became a through
ãa, the development of vitella may have gone through *vitieáwa >
*vitzeáuã but then /e/ failed to become /&/ in the context /eaã/ or
/eao/ (wã > o, as in the feminine indefinite article <o> < u(n)a).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...