Re: [tied] Romanian Development of /st/ (was: Against ... 'Albanian

Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:52:36 +0000, Richard Wordingham
> <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
>
>>> /j/ is regularly lost after /r/: *grEvu > *grievu > greu.
>>
>> Why did you quote the seemingly simpler development:
>>
>> "4) /E/ > /ie/, except after /r/ (e.g. *grevum > greu). The /i/
>> becomes a feature of the consonant after k/g/t/d: tEstu > tiestU >
>> t,est; gElu > gielu > gel)"
>>
>> in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/18147 . Was it
>> merely for 'simplicity'?
>
> Yes. The Romance development /E/ > /ie/ was presumably a breaking of
> the open vowel (/E/ > /�e/, like /O/ > /�o/). The falling diphthong
> /�e/ later became the rising diphthong /j�/. Only at the stage /j�/
> does palatalization of the preceding consonant apply. Palatalization
> of /r/ was subsequently lost, as it often is.
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...

only in initial position? In final position the palatalisation of /r/, /l/
and even /n/ was not lost at all but fulfield fully.
I assume there is too no chance to put it on the time line when exactly
these changes did happen in Romance, is it?

Alex