--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>Your plea for considering the value of the dialects has been
>duly noted.
Thank you.
>This is also easily explained if we look at the dialects. The
>transition of /ín/ to /în/ is recent and Daco-Romanian only
>(and hasn't spread to all dialects, from what you tell me).
No, I don't tell that, since my knowledge of AR, MR, IR tends to
nil (I don't understand much more of these southern dialects
than I understand Dutch based on my knowledge of German plus
a vague idea of some Plattdeutsch <wat-dat-et-maken> occur-
rences :-)). The examples in my previous post actually refer
to the DR frame.
>Bourciez says this:
>
>"C'est au contraire, lorsque les deux groupes de population
>[South and North, or Cis-Danubian and Trans-Danubian] furent
>séparés,
He certainly refers to the main AR+MR branch versus DR.
However, Cis-Danubian vs Trans-Danubian is highly ambiguous,
since the dialectal "belt" South of the Danube (I don't know
how wide -- but at least 100 km) also belongs to DR! Namely
in Croatia, Serbia and Bulgaria (esp. the so-called Serbian
Banate Romanians, the Timoc Valley Romanians and the "Tri-
balians"). The AR communities are farther in the South, in
South Bulgaria, FYROM, Albania, and Greece. (I don't know
whether there are AR communities in NE Bulgaria, in the
so-called Quadrilater, after the Romanian-Bulgarian exchange
of populations in 1940.)
>que l'/i/ secondaire issu de /é./ + /n/ simple passa a
>/î/, mais seulement au Nord, derrière labiale, derrière
>/s/, ou cons. + /r/: roum. vînã = ve:na, sîn = sinum,
>frîn
(vb. <a frâna> and fem. noun <frânã> + <frâu> "reins")
>= fre:num (mr. vinã, sin). Au Nord seul aussi appartient
>le passage à /î/ (derrière labiale) de l'/i/ provenant
>de /É/ + /n/ + cons., mais à la condition que la voyelle
>de la syllabe finale fût une voyelle vélaire: roum.
>vînt = ventum (mr. vimtu), cuvînt = conventum (mais pl.
>cuvinte)."
... as well as indicative pres. 3rd pers: <cuvinteazã>,
along with standard and more frequent <cuvânteazã>.
Perhaps, these should also be added: <vânãtor> "hunter",
and <tânãr/ã> "young;" but: plur. m. <tineri>, plur. f.
<tinere>, noun <tineret> "youth," vb. <a întineri> "become
younger" (Worth mentioning: in Western parts of DR [I] in
"young" doesn't turn [i] in the plural: <tânãri>. In
the same region, <intrã> "enters" is <întrã>).
OTOH, [I] has an even stronger relationship with [&].
In some areas <grâu> "wheat" < Lat. granum is still
pronounced <grãu> [gr&u], which seems to be the older
form. On top of that, esp. the entire greater subdialectal
region known as Moldavia (whereof the contemporary Republic
of Moldova is only less of 1/2 of the historic region)
has a strong peculiarity: much confusion in innummerable
cases betw. [I] and [&], where the rest of the DR dialect
is much stricter in this respect [[but there are some
doublettes, too, that coexist even in the standard/official
language, both being correct: <mânãstire>-<mãnãstire>
"monastery; cloister", <sânãtate>-<sãnãtate> "health"
(here the latter is nowadays the most frequent>, <mânu$ã>-
<mãnu$ã> "glove".]]
E.g. chiefly Moldavian <pãnã>, <întãi> [In't&j] vs.
<pânã>, <întâi> in other subdialects + standard DR. (BTW:
an extreme opposite of both of them is the regional
<intie> [in'ti-e] in small Western areas of DR.)
>Miguel
George