From: alex
Message: 30195
Date: 2004-01-28
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3"That is a good question with an easy answer but a hard way to fix it in time
> <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hello M. Iacomi,
>> Your said that :
>> 1. " Since /*s/ > /sh/ happened for sure at some historical
>> moment in Albanian and since all Latin loanwords in Albanian
> exhibit
>> this feature, the most likely assumption is of course that the
> change
>> took place afterwards."
>>
>> This is only one possibility. And it isn't 'the most likely' in
>> this situation (viewing the moment of the slavic loans)
>> The other one is that /*s/ > /sh/ was ALREADY active on all the
>> period of Latin loans, and that 'strunga','sterp','brusture'
> etc...
>> are older than this moment
>> (but I will come back tomorrow with my detail justification on
>> this point).
>
> I wish you guys would separate /st/ from /s/ in general.
>
> There is another side to the issue. At what point did the ancestor
> of Romanian start to distinguish /st/ and /St/? If the ancestor of
> Romanian did not distinguish them, then whether the donor language
> has /st/ or /St/ is irrelevant to the outcome. It may also be
> relevant to note that the distinction might have occurred at
> different times in different positions. English can accept
> final /St/ (but it gets interpreted as containing a past participle
> ending), initial /St/ sounds foreign and will be naturalised as /st/
> (compare <Schweppes> /sweps/). Intervocalic /St/ is acceptable in
> English.
>
> Richard.