Re: [tied] Re: IE prefix "*s"

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 04:29:18 +0000, 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; "

Exactly. The same applies to schimba, where I think the /i/ first arose in
unaccented position (inf., ptc., 1/2pl. schâimbá > schimbá, ptc. scâimbát >
schimbát, 1pl. scâimbám > schimbã'm, etc.), and spread from there to the
other forms.

When /â/ was always accented, we see /âi/ instead of /i/ as the
palatalization result: pâine "bread", câine "dog". These forms are also
analogical, since the palatalization spread from the plural pâni(i) >
pâini(i), câni(i) > câini(i).

>" 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 ;

Better: "The sound /i/ of the initial vowel can only be justified by
assimilation (/î-i/ > /i-i/) if we start from those forms in which the /î/
was unaccented".

> 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

Surely Rosetti must also say something about the loss of /j/. The expected
form would be anéllu > *âniél (and then *âinél > inél).


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...