Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
> We've been over this a hundred times before and you've still made no
> prpogress at all. One last time..
>
>> linum > lin
>
> long i:
It doesn't matter anymore your long or short /i/ here. These all should
have happen after PBR. So if /i:/ > i and /i:/ > e , then /i/ and /e/
and e from /E/ in PBR are supporting the same treatment. We have to
forget now the long and short vowels since they _are not more_ they are
dead, but to take in consideration just the words which are intermediary
in PBR. The Latin primary words have no value anymore since there in PBR
is no long, short anymore just the joker, this /E/. In this case it
remains just what you write here down:
> Nonsense. The rules are that after labial, s-, Cr- an /e/ before /n/
> (/nC/) becomes î. After labial and before -u, an /E/ before /nC/ also
> becomes /î/ (but /i/ in non-Daco-Romanian)
Now we are speaking about in > ân ( outgoing point stringere > strânge).
An /in/ in PBR should be just an old Latin /i:/ which remained /i/ and
nothing more. Since here is not the case, we have to see the short /i/
which became /E/ and we have in PBR the group /En/. This group /En/ is
our subject here. And for this we need just what you wrote, the
following rule:
> After labial and before -u, an /E/ before /nC/ also
> becomes /î/ (but /i/ in non-Daco-Romanian)
To remember, this is the rule 13:
"Northern Romanian only: after labial, an /i/ having developed from open
/E/ before /nC/ becomes /â/, but only if -u follows: vEntu > vânt, frenu
frân (sic) "
In the word in discussion there is the word 'stringere' with short /i/ .
Also, stringere > PBR strEngere
Since there is no -u then this could not give "ân", but it should have
remain "en" with normal evolution before nasal -> "E" > "i" before "nC"
like in "stinge"
In so far it is demonstrated that 'strânge' is not from 'stringere'
because of a missing "u". Right?
>> mensa > masã ( why lost "n" ?) ,
>
> Because -ns- was lost everywhere (Spa. mesa)
Aham. Well in this case "ns" in plâns should have been "reactivated"
somehow I suppose:-))
>> Now, there is this "jocker" the /E/
>> I do not agree with it
>
> Who cares?
He, you are right. From here is no money to make:-)
>> because there are more important examples which
>> shows an another way to handle:
>> erba = iarbã, pl. ierburi
>> epa = iapã, pl. iepe
>> eccum = iacã ( and with this is every speculation eccum-illum >ac^el=
>> not true)
>
> it's from accu-illum, as everywhere else in Romance
accu ? What should mean "accu" now? I don't seen this one in my books,
Can you please explain? Rosetti speaks just about "eccum" and not about
"accu". Or maybe Mr. Iacomi knows better where in his book does Rosetti
speak about this "accu". Mr Iacomi, could you help a bit here?
>> esca = iascã , pl. iesci
>> In so far this /i/ in stressed position diphtongued to /ia/ when in
>> the nest syllable was an /ã/ but in /ie/ when in the next syllable
>> was anything else as /ã/
>
> E > ie, before -a/-e ie > iea > ia
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
My dear, indirectly you agree that vitella and vitellus cannot give Rom.
viTea and viTel .In both of them there is not a long /i/ so the PBR
forms
should be vEtellus, vEtella.
This /E/ become an /e/ and just the nasal could close it to /i/. ( Rule
2b)
In so far the /e/ could not become /i/ and we should stop here without
to try to analyse the change of -ella. > ea
Do you agree?
If you do not agree ( which I doubt) you will show probably why you do
not agree. If you agree then , where from come viTel and viTea? We do
not know nothing about thracians, do we?:-)
Alex