tolgs001 wrote:
> So, don't you let yourself misled so easily by
> what's written: it's no perfect... "wysiwyg". :-)
>
>> "pi" but alternative "ki"
>> Here is no palatalisation of any "cl".
>
> In cases of this kind: picior-chicior, piept-chept,
> piatra-chiatra/cheatra, piper-chiper, piersic-chiars&c,
> a pieri-a chieri, piaptan/pieptene-chiaptan etc.,
> indeed, there is no CL > C^. But the P alternates
> with the same C^. You have to have C^, and only after
> this you can have a Muntenian Sahara-dry velar-K
>
> Conclusion: p,b,cl,gl > che/chi,ghe/ghi only via
> these intermediate sounds (in Romanian, in Aromanian
> as well as in other Romance languages). That's the
> message in a nutshell
P does not alternate with C^, but "pi" alternate with "ki". We have this
alternation just when an /i/ follows after
p, b, v . It happens, "p", "b", "v", are labials all. One will think the
only labial which is not affected when followed by /i/ is "f". But this
is not true. Even this last labial (are there more labials beside
/b/,/p/,/v/,/f/?), well, even this labial is altered to "h".
fiú= hiú ; fír = hír
Even the dental "d" is affected by this /i/ becoming a palatalised "g"
"diavol"= kinf od "dg'iavol", dimineaTa= dg'imineaTa, etc.
These are the observations. I guess there must be an explanation there
and it ought we take a look at the words wherefrom these Rom. words are
supposed to derive but in the same time at the PIE root but to keep in
mind the aspect of satemisation of the ancient time.
let us take the alternation "bi"-"g'i" in the word "viu= g'iu"= alive
the PIE root *gWei-2 has given "bio" in Italic, herefrom latin "vio-",
with the latin habbit of derivation , inserting an another "w" > "vivo-"
The Rom. word is viu/g'iu. There is imediatly a big question there. What
is this? gWei-2 > g'iu or Latin vivus > g'iu?
It seems the explanation is off the hand. Just the *gWei-2 could give
them both ( viu/g'iu) not something else.
let us take "venio" and the Rom. vine/g'ine = to come.
the Latin word is from PIE *gWm-io:
We observe here too , the form with gW could give this bi(vi) and g'i .
There is no chance that the Latin already "vi" or "bi" could derive into
an "g'i" but the very ancient form is still mentained together with the
new evoluated form .On this path one will wonder but it seems this
alternance has a very good reason and it is not a matter of comodity.I
guess an analyse of these words will give some answer here, answer which
will explain the gW > b in centum languages and gW > g in satem
languages.
Regards,
alex