g wrote:
>
> In today's D aco-Romanian subdialects (esp. in Moldova and to
> a lesser extent in Transylvania), there is still a schwa in many cases
> where the standard language has [î]. So, that these two vowels are
> actually very close. So that Aromanian "ãmi, ãtzi, ã$i, ãi" don't
> sound that strange/outlandish to Romanians. In some Romanian
> regions peasants say a "grãu," not "grâu" (wheat). And even
> in the standard language there are variants, equally accepted:
> "mãnãstire - mânãstire", "sãnãtate - sânãtate", "mânã (hand", but
> "mãnu$ã" (glove), "pârâu" - pãrãu, parãu (brook, rivulet). So,
> I actually don't understand why Alex is so impressed by î/â
> versus ã [&] in Romanian.
Not this is the point. I very accept the /e/ & /a/ becoming /ã/ and this
/ã/ becoming /â/.
Where I have trouble is to see an /i/ and this /i/ becoming /â/.
The word "intra" has the same form as "între" being bisilabic. This is
the actualy status of the words. If we search about their origins we
will see as follow:
intra= from Latin 'intrare'
între= from Latin 'inter'
Assuming the chronologicaly evolution, the "-re" from the Latin verbn
was lost somehow and we have intrare > intra
for the "inter" is nothing to be lost, eventualy since this is ending in
a conosonants it should have lost the "r". But it did not so we have in
a certain stage the words "intra" and "inter".
We accept the metathesis here of "inter" > "intre".
Now the two words we have are "intra" and "intre".
Why the "in" from "intre" become "ân" in this case (I write with /â/ for
a better visualisation of the sounds) and the another one, "intra"
remains an "in" when the phonological medium is the same?