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

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:08:47 +0100, alex <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
>> 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.
>
>"inel" has the stress on "e": inél
>The advantage here is that we do not work anymore with supposed data but
>with recorded words.
>In the XVI century the words are attested as "ânel" and "ânema"; from
>the XVI century until nowadays there is no form recorded as "âinel" and
>"âinema". That is the dissavantage of having recorded data; there is no
>place anymore for suppositions.

inel and inimã are of course also recorded...

>Rosetti explains the change of "â" > "i" due influence of open timbre
>from "e" respectively "i" in the next syllable.

Unless he was incompletely quoted, Rosetti fails to explain why we have <e>
instead of <ie> in inel (ânel). Lat. anellu should have given *âniel,
which is the pre-stage if inel. I would think attested ânel is is a
mixture of regular *âniel and rhotacized ârel (the loss of /j/ after /r/ is
regular).

>For trying to make the knot with "schimba", one has to assume there has
>been an word "*scâmbea"

Why -ea???


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