[tied] Re: Against the theory of 'Albanian Loans in Romanian'

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

> Richard Wordingham wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3"
> > <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.
>
> That is a good question with an easy answer but a hard way to fix

it in time

> .
> The difference between "st" and "St" should have been felt as

different

> sounds begining with the palatalisation of "s" when the group "st-

" was in a

> palatal medium.
> For me the question is here if the later (?) change od "sk /+"
> "St" was
> made due the fact there was already in langauge the group "St-" or

not.

> Maybe some words will help here, words which begin with "St-". I

will give

> as usual their accepted etymology given by DEX:
> Sterge , to wipe out < Lat. extergere
> Sterpeli, to steal < unkn. etym.
> Stevie, patience < Sl. s^tavije, Bg. s^tavel, Scr. s^tavlije
> Sti, to know < Lat. scire
> Stimã, mitholog. pers. < Neogr. shima
> Stioalfã, injurious adj. < unkn. etym.
> Stir, a kind of plant < Bg/Scr s^tir
> Stirb, toothless < Sl. s^trUbU
> Stiucã, pike < Bg/Scr s^tuka
> Stiulete, corn cob < unkn. etym
> Streang, nose, halter, rope < Germ. strang

sk /+ > sts or stS is Romance; Romanian went for the latter. I
think an allophonic change st /+ > St would encourage the
simplification stS > St. The contrast between initial /st/ and /St/
would, I think, have remained allophonic, but that requires further
thought. I'm not sure how breaking would have interacted. I have a
few things to sort out, e.g.:

Why didn't the vowel of _$terge_ break to yield something like
*$targe (my implementation of the rules gives *$tzarge, but that
doesn't seem at all right).

Why do we have _stinge_ 'extinguish' instead of *Stinge? Is it a
recent loan?

Richard.