Re: [tied] derivations of rom. and -

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:58:50 +0000, m_iacomi <m_iacomi@...> wrote:

>> For unstressed /o/ > /&/ there are numerous examples in Romanian
>> for words of Latin or Slavic origin [...]
>
> If we take a form accented on the first syllable from the very
> beginning (*dépost), we might expect to see the normal development
> of unstressed /o/, namely /u/.

Were it already a unbreakable compound from the very beginning, I
think that should have been the case, indeed. Instead of that, it
followed the normal evolution of unstressed /o/ in unstressed
monosyllabs like "nos" > "nã" (> "ne"), "vos" > "vã", etc.

> A form *dépu would be nice to explain the /u/ in the first
> syllable of <dupã>, but does it work to explain the -ã?

Actually, Aromanian forms suggest that phonetics of this word
was not completely fixed and different subdialectal variants
arised even since Common Romanian stage.

Regards,
Marius Iacomi