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

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:21:39 +0100, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

>16-12-03 23:19, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
>> 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).
>
>Is there anything wrong with *âniél > *ân^él (no rhotacism because of
>the palatality) > *âinél (too late to be rhotacised) > ânél/inél, with
>variable outcome of diphthong reduction?

There *is* a rhotacized form ârel (also Istro-Romanian arel), which means
that /n/ could be rhotacized even before /ie/. There is a difference
between Vulgar Latin /n^/, which gives Rom. /j/, and secondarily
palatalized sequences such as /nE/ > /nie/, /-ni/, which I think have the
tendency to go to /jn/, except I can't think of too many examples right
now.

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