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

16-12-03 18:53, alex wrote:

> Since the discution took this path because of the supposed
> simplification of "âi" to "i" , one has to underline that there is no
> viable example which shows a such transformation, since - as I mentioned
> in the begining - once being there, the group "âi" become very strong
> and stable and does not simplify to anything more. Thus the change
> assumed by Miguel *ex-cambio > *scâmba > *scâimba > skimba appears to
> not be validated by known facts.

Well, <inel> is a known fact. Romanian has phonological diphthongs only
under stress or in final positions. Diphthongs that arose in
_unstressed_ syllables were reduced to monophthongs a long time ago.

> I agree, it is maybe easy to criticse and one has to give a solution by
> himself for the change in discution, thus to the question "why /-âne/ >
> /-âine/" and not "-âie". I don't belive in a logical phonetic change
> here; it appears that the "n" was keept consciously there in these words
> but this can be simply a wrong guess.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that we are dealing with a sporadic
change -- an occasional asynchronous realisation of *-C^- as *-iC- (a
palatal glide plus a dispalatalised consonant) after a vowel. In the
case of *-n^- the dispalatalisation of the nasal prevented it from
turning into [-j-]. That's why we get <-âin-> (<-in-> when unstressed)
rather than <-âi-> in words affected by the change. I suppose there was
no diphthongisation in in <sâni> and similar cases because <sân> (in
today's orthography) derives from Lat. sinu- > *senu- > *sin (raising
before a nasal) > sîn (retraction after /s-/ or /Cr-/), with a high
vowel throughout the history of Romanian.

Piotr