m_iacomi wrote:
>
> Check the archive, you'll find all information needed:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/18799
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/18810
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/19300
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/19336
> and, of course, rules posted by Miguel. There is no need of
> any speculation.
>
> Marius Iacomi
I checked the archives (I must add in all these mesages is just your
opinion)and I wonder how I did not told you about your opinion at that
time.
a) msg. 19336, Quote:
---------------------------------
See the rules. /ea/ gots simplified in /a/ only if the next
syllable contains /a/ or /&/. Being final, there is no next
syllable, so it remains /ea/.
--------------------------------
So if in the next syllable we have an /a/ or an /ã/ (&) then /ea/>/a/
Take a look: zeamã, teamã
In fact the rule is that when followed by an /e/ or /ã/ the /e/ > /ea/;
thus there is no simplification but a diphtongation of /e/;
Since there in the discusion one can assume that it was a discusion
about special Latin word "terra" > Rom. "Tarã" then these are special
treatmenat since there is the kind of consonant which became
palatalised. For this kind of thoughts, I wil bring Latin "sera" >
"searã" in Rom. and not "Sarã" as expected after the example terra >
Tarã. The example with "teamã" would fit too since there should have
been expected "Tamã" (tzam&)
The next you suppose a ProtoRomanian form 'viTeaw&"; You cannot
demonstrate nothing here solong you have Albanian "vitsh" with the same
meaning which is not a derivative from Latin
b) msg. 19300, Quote:
-----------------------------------
You'll have to take into account also : post-tonic -(e)lla >
-(e)a in Daco-Romanian, -(e)au& in Aromanian. The only thing
to be noted is assimilation to /i/ from the first syllable by
the "temporary" short /i/ issued from diphtongtion (see also
message 18761). There is nothing else to be said.
------------------------------------
I am afraid I cannot understand your point of view here. Do I have to
understand you mean that the undefinite form in DacoRom /-(e)a/ is in
the Aromanian /-(e)au&/. If yes, how is the definite form for the words
which ends in /-(e)au&/ in Aromanian ?
c) msg 18810: there is nothing to see about. The plural definite form
/-le/ is genenralised; I fail to see any connection with -ella > /-ua/
d) msg. 18799: I have here some thoughts but I will let it for later
since here is something more to say.
To draw a line:
you assume that the same word "vitella" has given once "vitea" and a
second time "viteaua". Since today the forms are distinct, one marking
the indefinite form and an another marking the definite form one will
ask you why once it gave /ea/ and once /-ua/. We speak here about the
same word in the same phonological medium.
Alex