Re: IE prefix "*s"

More details on inel (< anellus) :

(Rosetti ILR ->vol. IV - VI pg. 218)
" Fonetismul îrelu appare in CV(116,10); celelalte texte nu cunosc
decit pe inel.
Trecerea lui î > i a fost provocata de e accentuat urmator care a
deschis timbrul vocalei initiale."

" The phonetism îrelu appears in CV(116,10); the other texts don't
know other forms but inel.
The transformation î > i was generated by next stressed e that
opened the sound of initial vowel."

Regards,
marius


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:

>
> Hello Miguel,
>
> The rules are (of course you know them better than I):
>
> a) latin stressed 'a' followed by 'n' or 'mC' -> ã (later : ã was
> closed to î in Daco-Romanian) :
>
> b) latin non-stressed 'a' folowed by 'n' -> ã (later : ã can

passed

> to î as above)
>
>
> As result both : INIMA (< ANIMA) and INEL (ANELLUS) are exceptions,
> so they aren't good examples, because each one has its own
> exceptions) that are explained by Rosetti as below:
>
> rom. INIMA -> lat. ANIMA
> -------------------------
> (Rosetti ILR ->vol. IV - VI pg. 218)
> " Fonestismul asteptat este înemã (< anima ) .
> Timbrul înimã se explicã prin trecerea lui e neaccentuat la i.
> Timbrul i al vocalei initiale nu poate fi justificat prin asimilare
> (î-i > i-i), decît daca plecam de la formele in care î era
> neaccentuat:
> înimos > inimos ; inimã este deci un fonetism refacut prin

analogie; "

>
> " The expected phonetism is înemã (< anima ).
> The sound înimã is explained by the transformation of non-

stressed

> e to i.
> The sound i OF INITIAL VOWEL CANNOT BE JUSTIFY by asimilation
> (î-i > i-i), but if we started from the forms where î is not
> stressed: so înimos > inimos ;
> Thus inimã is a phonetism remake by analogy."
>
> rom. INEL -> lat. ANELLUS
> ------------------------
> (Rosetti ILR ->vol. IV - VI pg. 78)
>
> " dr. înel (fonetism atestat in secolul XVI,v.mai jos pag. 218)
> (cu î > i sub influenta lui e urmator) [...] < lat. anellus "
>
> "Daco-Romanian. înel (attested phonetism in XVI century, see below
> at page. 218)
> (with î > i under the influence of the next e) [...] < lat. anellus
>
>
> So the derivation would be :
> [ex]cambiare -> *[s]kãmbia -> *[s]kîmbia
>
> BUT NOT "schimba".
>
> Best Regards,
> marius
>
> P.S. Also what I said in my previous message is still available
> (and it wasn't related to 'sk' ):
>
> rom. 'chi' (see 'schimba') is obtained only from

latin. : 'clV'

> or 'culV'.
>
> I don't know any exception to this (in any case until now)
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 17:48:02 +0000, alexandru_mg3
> <alexandru_mg3@...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Hello Miguel,
> > > I try to find other Romanian word derived from Latin in

Romanian

> > >that have been transform like :
> > > sca -> *scâ -> *scâi -> schi (or similar)
> >
> > The /sk-/ has nothing to do with it. What you should be looking
> for is a
> > Latin /a/ before a nasal followed by a palatal element,

developing

> into
> > /i/, such as anima > inimã, agnellu > inel, excambiare > schimba.
> >
> >
> > =======================
> > Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> > mcv@...