Re: [tied] Re: Laryngeal theory as an unnatural

m_iacomi wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tolgs001" <george.st@...> wrote:
>
>>> I must admit "sorã" puzzles me. Thank goodness you can
>>> assure me it's a loan.
>
> As already hinted, Alex can assure nobody of something else than
> its own convictions...
>
>> I myself can't explain the *reduction* to sora [...]
>
> Miguel gave the explanation. It is to be mentioned that in old
> Italian texts one has "frate" and "sora" just as in Romanian (the
> diminutival derivatives who replaced them in present are newer).
> The form "soru" is attested in Old Daco-Romanian texts and left
> some trace even in nowdays current language ("soru-mea" `my sister`
> is a legitimate form). The same holds for "noru", present in first
> Daco-Romanian texts; both words get regularized to feminine ending.
>
> Cheers,
> Marius Iacomi

It will explain why the /o/ did not became /oa/. The forms have been
kept with the final "u" and this is why it did not became *soarã and
*noarã. Presumably the generaly lost of final /u/ made the words to
became re-adapated with an analogic /ã/ for feminine, thus this is why
actualy there are the unchanged forms sith "sor-" and "nor-" instead of
"soar-" and "noar-". I guess this is a good point which will help a
delimitation because they are indeed Latin words as form as semantism.

Alex