Richard Wordingham wrote:
>> It remains apparently odd the
>> lost of "n" in that position of the word but keeping it in another
>> position in Latin and this is why I wonder about because I compare
>> with Rom. where the "ns" is kept, regardless its position.
>
> In what position is Latin -ns- preserved into Romanian? You might
> have some examples in highly transparent compounds, e.g. in + s- > în
> + s-, but that would be a result of the compound being reformed. In
> the same position, we have Latin _insula_ > Old French _isle_ >
> French _île_, English _isle_.
I dont think here at compounds like in +sera > însera" but mostly at
final positions where the "ns" is keept anyway if there is an "n" in the
root like in participium forms of the verbs:"tunde-tuns,
plânge-plâns","unge-uns"
There can be me made out a rule where verbs which ends in "-VnC" have a
participium in "-Vns" but it appears to be to quick made a such rule
since other Latin verbs does not act like this. For example:
vinde > vândut and not *vâns
For your example there in Rom. the word "insulã" which < Latin _insula_
but I assume this word entered the language in the medieval times othere
way the phonetic is not to explain.
>
> The selective loss of nasals before certain fricatives has
> precedents. West Germanic lost nasals before /x/, but while pre-Old
> English lost nasals before all voiceless fricatives, German and Dutch
> kept them before other fricatives.
Excuse me Richard, but what has the loss of nasals in a certain language
with the loss of nasals in another language to do? Do you intend just to
point out that this is a phenomenom which if once happen in one
language, then it is not at all strange if it happens in one another
language an another time? Of course a such statment is absolutely
teoretical correct but I doubt if this shows us something more beside
the fact "it can happen".
>
>> 2) /ns/ > /s/ in "snake" topic? I ahve to re-see it. I honestly do
>> not remember about and I don't recal any /ns/ in "snake"
>
> It was pretty much an aside. A couple of us wondered why a
> development path serpens > *serpen > *serpe was being considered when
> the path seemed obviously to be serpens > serpe:s > serpe.
>
> Richard.
A such wonder can appear just when one want to derive a word from a
certain word and nothing else. I did not paid too much atention at that
time that Albanian form is identicaly with the Rom. form and there are
at least two words which are irregular into their derivation from Latin
(even if these irregularities are explained due some kind of generosity
which bear nice names as analogy, assimilations, disimilations, etc..).
I speak here about Alb."gjarpër" / Rom. "Sarpe" and Alb. "gjashtë" /
Rom. "Sase" and I am sure if one looks well one will find more such
examples.
The simply acceptation "it must be simply Latin and nothing more" is the
idea which let no way free and thus, one has to accept "exceptions" and
weierd forms for explaining some phonetical changes. And that seems to
be a poor/lazy way to solve the things out.
Alex