Re: [tied] Romance Relatives of Latin _gingi:va_

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" wrote:

> Still don't forget that we deal with is unstressed vocalism and

the

> confusion between /i/ and /e/ (long or short) appears (as

irregular)

> in inscriptions from the 3rd century a.D. on. So one can expect a

few

> words not fitting canonical rules.

So, in a 4 front vowel scheme, are you suggesting a possible
*gi:ngí:va (gingíva in the 3 front vowel scheme of E e i)? Would
its regular outcome be _gingíe_.

> You proposed a Latin reconstructed *gíngi:va.

<Snip>

> In Late
> Latin the stress could technically be possible because of quantity
> loss;
> ipso facto, the word shouldn't be written with /i:/. But in that

case,

> the first /i/ should have evolved already in (closed) /e/.

Otherwise:

> the quantity loss (and consequently /i/ > /e/ in the first

syllable)

> must precede any hypothetical stress shift. So this possibility

cannot

> realistically give "*gíngivä" but "*géngivã".

But *géngiva, with the front vowels written E e i, would have
given "*gíngivã" just as *géngeva would have given "*gíngevã".

> Another one would be to infer that stress shift has preceded Latin
> quantity loss; in that case, for some reason the second /i:/ _must_
> have turned short /i/; therefore its natural exitus would be /e/

for

> the very same arguments as for the first /i/ above. Hence, you

should

> have reconstructed some something like "*gíngevã".

As I said, I did, but I rejected it. I rejected it because I think
(but am by no means sure) that that would have yielded *gíngea.

Richard