Re: [tied] Re: Goats

Richard Wordingham wrote:

>>>> the words in Rom. in the ancient words if I don't mistake,
>> but "ie-"
>>>> *ez > iez
>>>
>>> Quality matters here.
>>
>> Meaning ?
>
> Meaning you clearly need to take another look at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/18147 . You may also
> find http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/18172 of some
> interest. Open e /E/ and close e /e/ contrast(ed) in stressed
> syllables - there was no contrast in unstressed syllables.
>
> Thus _haedus_ > *Edu > _iedu_ but *e:dus > *edu.

Look Rrichard, I guess there I have a little problem. The /e/ or /E/ in
initial position is allways spoken /ie/.
The Latin examples of /E/ in initial position are: ied, iederã, iepe
(ekwos!!!!!),etc, there are many examples
Examples of /e/ which is not of Latin origin and it is stil pronunced
/ie/ because it is in initial position.
iele ( < ele cf DEX, ieftin (< Greek efthinos, cf DEX), etc, etc. There
are too many examples.

>
> Incidentally, did or does Balkan Romance distinguish the reflexes of
> unstressed /o/ and /u/?

So far I know , Rom. does not confound /u/ with /o/, thus there are
different reflexes for /u/ and /o/.

>
> Late Latin contrasted quality (primarily degrees of openness) rather
> than quantity.
>
>>>> (no diphtongation here, but iotacisation of /e/)
>>>
>>> I don't believe there is any itacisation here. Are you saying a
>>> prothetic semivowel was added?
>>>
>>> Richard.
>>
>> What do you believe it is then?
>
> I would call it diphthongisation, but when the vowel is initial I
> suppose you could instead say that a prothetic vowel was added.
> What you wrote did not make sense.
>
> Richard.

The diphtongation cannot happen in two ways. One cannot have _without
reason_ the diphtongation of /e/ or /E/ once in /ie/ and once in /ea/ ;
ekwos > iepe ( < iapa) but caepa > cEpa > ceapa.

Alex