Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> 09-12-03 20:52, alex wrote:
>
>> there is one, absolutely no one example of Latin /e:/ becoming in
>> Rom. "ei". The only one where you want to find it is the 3 "trei".
>
> No-one said Lat. /e:/ gave Rom. /ei/. It's just an artifact of your
> blank incomprehension. But comprehension problems are curable: just
> sit back, relax and try to concentrate. When the mist disperses for a
> minute and your inner eye begins to see clearly, read on and follow
> the light:
>
> Lat. tre:s > *tres > trei, where the palatal glide represents the
> _regular_ weakening and vocalisation of _final /-s/_ in monosyllabic
> words:
>
> VLat. t r e s >
> Rom. t r e i
>
> The fact that the vowel is /e/ is of little importance. The same
> happens after any other vowel:
>
> VLat. n o s >
> Rom. n o i
>
> Also when *-s comes from a reduced final cluster: post > *pos > It.
> poi, Rom. (a)poi; cf. also the other examples given so far.
Eureka, you got it! But.... hmmm..., take a look at all the monosilabic
Latin words which ends in "s" and their reflex in Dalmatian, Italian,
Romanian. I will note with "T" there where "Vs" > i" with "F" there
where not in all 3 EastRomance. Further , I will note with "-" the
missing word in a certain language and with "!" the word which is
derived from oblique case of Latin word
---------------------------------------------
Latin Italian Vegliot Romanian
---------------------------------------------
nos noi noi noi
vos voi voi voi
tre tre tra trei
rex re ra -
pes piede ! pi -
plus piu ple -
bos bue bu bou!
six sei si Sase
nix neve ! nai nea!
----------------------------------------------
These are the words which should confirme the rule of Vs > i; it seems
it works just for "nos" and "vos" and I don't wonder. The change Vs > i
is alien to Rom. it does not apply; If you are right, then the vords
"voi, noi, trei" _entered_ the language in that form and they are and
they do not show any known evolution from Latin to Rom. I allow me to
give you here the opinion of linguists about "noi, voi, trei" in Rom.
and their evolution from Latin. We will give the best example , everyone
heard about, thus here the opinion of Al. Rosetti:
nos > noi with "i" as being the marker for plural
vos > voi with "i" like in "noi"
tres > trei with "i" as marker for plural.
Now, I am sorry Piotr but "where the palatal glide represents the
_regular_ weakening and vocalisation of _final /-s/_ in monosyllabic
words " is unnormal for Rom. You say you are not a Romanist, Rosetti was
one. Beside the 3 example, noi, voi trei, from the table I draw here,
the examples speak for or against your idea.
>
>> It seems
>> it is enough to make a rule out of it. Do it, I have nothing against
>> it since the poor Thracians are all dead and cannot come here to
>> say: Pani Piotr, co ti tam delas^i?
>
> If it's to be Polish rather than Thracian, it should read "Piotrze, co
> tam robisz?" or (more formally) "Panie Piotrze, co pan tam robi?"
>
> Piotr
Try with Czech not with Thracian or Polish. I thought you will
understand it; the Czech use "delas^i" and not "robi" as in Polish.