Re: to kill; and "Rom. trii"

Hello Roger,
Did you ever listened to a romanian 'tri' ?

Do you have to do this, before to say :

"speaker is unaware of what he's doing ...." ?

Could you simple imagine a case when is no DIPHTONG in
Romanian 'tri'? Is this a case that you have to check before to say
what you sdaid above?

Please read what the others said in more precise fields like the
semantic fields of romanian 'copac' and 'pom', or the using
of 'arbore' in the romanian NW dialect before to trust what they said
here...These things can be more easy been checked by you.

Or you speak and hear romanian like they used to do? (seems not as
native speakers in that area)

Regards,
marius a.

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Mills" <romilly@...> wrote:
> "Exu Yangi" wrote:
>
> >The occi- is an ancient root.
>
> >It shows up in Anatolian aki- (to kill), without a trace of >the
> strange -g- . Does anyone know the origin of the >final -dere (I
assume
> originally -dese) ?
> ---------------------------------------------
> I have no idea why the Romanian reflex of Lat. occi:dere should end
up with
> a -g-... but no-one has yet ponted out that occi:dere is a compound
of ob +
> caedere 'to cut'; in the compounded form, the ae diphthong reduces
to long
> i. There is no root occi-, no inexplicable -dere.
>
> I remember well, in Latin class, the confusion that arose between
occidere
> (short vowel in all forms, < cadere 'to fall') and occi:dere (long
V in all
> forms < caedere). From the former -cid- we get _occident(al),
deciduous
> etc._ , from the latter -ci:d- such words as _decide, incise,
incision et
> al._.
> ----------------------------------------
>
> A further comment, if I may, on the "Is there a diphthong or not in
Rom.
> tri(i)?" discussion-- As Piotr pointed out, even English speakers
are
> unaware that our tense vowels are generally analyzable as
diphthongs. One
> can demonstrate to the average native speaker that /ej/ (or /e:/ in
another
> system of phonemicization) and /ow/ (or /o:/) are in fact
diphthongs simply
> by drawling them-- the offglides become readily apparent.
Perhaps /ij/ and
> /uw/ are another matter, but can be demonstrated instrumentally.
>
> The average native speaker of English (even educated ones) will be
> flabbergasted, annoyed and probably argumentative when a linguist
points
> out, for example, that the "p" in pit is not _phonetically_ the
same as the
> "p" in spit; or that what we learned in school as "long i" is in
fact
> another diphthong starting on [a] and ending on [j], or that our
beloved
> "long a" is in fact the /ej/ diphthong. Sadly, phonetic analysis and
> terminology are not part of most US grade- or high-school curricula
(if they
> were, perhaps there'd be more jobs available for linguists.....)
>
> Certainly it would be presumtuous for a linguist to _correct_ a
> foreign-language speaker's pronunciation of his own language, but
it is
> perfectly in order for the linguist to point out _how_ the speaker
is
> pronouncing things, even if said speaker is unaware of what he's
doing (and
> no reason why he should be aware). Sometimes a linguist _does_
know more
> about a language. :-))
>
> <return to lurking mode>