Re: [tied] Re: derivation rules from later latin to romanian

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:01:46 +0000, Richard Wordingham
<richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
>> Richard Wordingham wrote:
>>
>>
>> > hospitem > oaspete, not ospete. Why? Cybalist 18582.
>>
>> /o/>/oa/ if in the next syllable an /ã/ or an /e/ folllows: see
>soare,
>> doare, intoarce.
>
>The issue here is that it was given in
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/18147 as
>
>'5) 6) 7) /é/, /ié/ and /o/ > /eá/, /ieá/, /oá/ before final -e and -
>a
>(but not -u); d(i)récta > dreaptã but d(i)réctu > drept.'
>
>Is there any reason for the word 'final' in the formulation?

Bourciez says:
"Ces sons [e, ie, o accentués] devinrent respectivement ea, iea, oa devant
a ou e latins finals, tandis qu'ils restaient intactes devant u".

In <oaspete>, it doesn't happe to matter if we formulate the rule as such,
or as "... before a or e in the next syllable", but I guess that's not
always the case.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...