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

g wrote:

>
> And the wrong plural, but who knows whether it will still
> be wrong in 2050 or 2100:
>
> Plural: N. sorele, G. (a,al,ai,ale) sorelor, D. sorelor,
> A. (pe) sorele.

I am sorry, I am not aware of these plural forms you give here. I assume
"you heard them" somewhere....

>
>>> Need to investigate l^ > y. femeie (18642). Also rule ordering
>>> issues, to get ea > e, not a.
>>
>> me too:-)
>
> Then go both to Greece, Albania, FYROM and Bulgaria and
> talk to Macedonian Romanians and carefully listen to their
> "soft" kind of [l]s not yet transformed in [j] - i.e. kind
> of Spanish <-ll-> or Italian <-gl->. Unfortunately for the
> contemporary observer, the North-Romanian subdialects no
> longer have such l^ phonetics (most Romanians are unable
> to imitate such sounds unless they learn Italian and Spanish).

I showed once here on cybalist that even Rosetti admited that there is
an "l^" due the closing of the "i".

>
> So, in Romanian there coexist the inherited dirept+drept
> & the neologic direct -- direapta+dreapta & directa.
>
>> The variants _$apte_ and _$epte_ are
>
> And today's South-Romanian, especially a certain kind
> of Bucharest Romanian fiercely has (for decades now) introduced
> a [j] between the [S] and [Z] and the following vowel
> as well as in situations where there's nothing following:
>
> <$iase,> <$iapte> [Sja-se, Sjap-te], <ro$u> [ro-Sju],
> <ora$> [o-raSj], <sãniu$> [s&-ni-'uSj], <tzepe$> ['tse-peSj],
> <osta$> [os-taSj], <co$> [kwoSj] (note here the diphtongation
> of the [o] => [wo], as in KuoMinTang :-), <pre$edintele
> Bush> [buSj] - the latter 4 pronounced as though they
> were... plurals! (To me, being from a region at about 650
> km distance if by plane, this idiosincrasy is highly
> unnerving, esp. since very spread in audio media: radio
> and TV. Alex, by contrast, being from a region only a few
> kilometers away from the... epicenter of the unnerving
> source of radio-TV diction mores corruption, hasn't even
> taken notice of the occurrence, I'd bet on this. ;-)

This is why I wonder. I never distinguished a such pronounciation. I let
the people who read these messages and are native speaker of these
regions or from other regions to judge what you say.

> Then what on earth of old texts with the spelling
> <$eapte> or <$japte>? (Your dictionary of archaisms
> must've been concocted by... lazybones. ;-)

Rosseti mentions the form "Seapte" in an example where he quotes
G.Starka, RLiR, XX, 1956, p. 249)
It does not present a big interess to me now to analyse the word "Sapte"
since there is nothing specific Latin due the fact the PIE radical is
*sept-

>
> (And mind you: DEX's authors were/are prof.dr.dr.phil.
> & habil., i.e., professionals and Meisterdenker in the
> field of linguistics. You yourself aren't yet... an
> apprentice. So... ne sutor supra crepidam, Himmel,
> A**** und Wolkenbruch no' amoi eini! ;-)
>
> George

Ahhmm.... Hunde die bellen , die können gar nicht mehr beissen:-))


Alex