On Sat, 03 May 2003 09:29:42 +0200, alex_lycos <
altamix@...>
wrote:
>Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
>> What is not true is that the common substrate material is treated any
>> differently from the Latin material
>
>Just some thoughts:
>1) non rhotacisation of the intervocalic "l"
Albanian <ll> (/l~/) is a different phoneme from Albanian <l> (/l/).
In Modern Albanian, <ll> is a velarized lateral, but I wouldn't know
what it sounded like 2,000 years ago. In any case, Albanian /ll/ is
regularly reflected in Romanian as /r/, while Alb. /l/ gives Rom. /l/
(e.g. mal ~ mal) and Alb. /r/ and /rr/ give Rom. /r/.
>2) /d/ > /z/ when not fallowed by /e/ or /i/ , see ( modhullë/mazãre ,
>vjedhull)
Albanian /dh/ gives Romanian /z/.
There is nothing strange here. (Pre-)Albanian had some sounds that
Balkan Latin did not have, and Balkan Latin had some sounds that
(Pre-)Albanian didn't have. They were substituted with whatever was
closest in the native sound system.
>I understand your logic here Miguel. The historicaly aspect though
>doesn't matches some linguistic thoughts.
>Let us take for instance the word "coxa".
>The "x" was long time an "ss" as the Romans came in Balcans.
Wrong. Latin /ks/ only became /ss/ in Italy. In Balkan Romance, it
gives /fs/ in Albanian and /ps/ in Romanian. In Western Romance, it
gives /ys^/ or /ys/, alanlogous to /kt/, which gives /tt/ in Italian,
/ft/ in Albanian, /pt/ in Romanian and /yt/ in the West. The
development was probably /kt/, /ks/ > /xt/, /xs/ with spirantization
of the /k/, then in Italy /xt/ > /ht/ > /tt/, in the West /xt/ > /çt/
> /yt/, and in the East /xt/ > /ft/ > /pt/ (unlike what I suggested in
my previous message).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...