Re: [tied] Re: Late Proto Albanian *3 /dz/ = Early Proto Romanian

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 18:49:54 +0000, alexandru_mg3 <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:

> " None of these words derive directly from Latin ra:di:ce(m) and
>its variants, which would have produced *rãzice.We have to depart
>from a basis *radece, as also found in Catalan arrel "root" (< (la)
>raEl < raDEu < raDez < radece). "
>
> Why we have to depart from a root *radece? ....You exclude from
>the beginning what you have to proove by excluding the case BASED on
>the assumption that we have ALWAYS /3i/ and never /di/.

It's not an assumption. It's a fact that has been established time after
time, thousands of times. Sound changes apply without exceptions. You
can't just say: "they had problems with /di/ sometimes, and sometimes not",
that's not linguistics. If the Romanian form is rãdãcina, then it simply
cannot come from ra:di:cina.

>BUT This is what you have to proof here....
>
>Lat. radicula -> Rom. ridiche
>-------------------------------
>English : little root.
>
>Romanian Linguists that derived it from Lat. radicula:
> PuScariu : radicula
> Cioranescu : radicula
> Romanian DEX : radicula

Well, as long as there's no length mark on /i/, I have no problem with
that.

>None but you derived rom. ridiche from Lat. *radece (a reconstructed
>form, based on some Catalan words...Where this form is attested?)

It was starred. That means unattested.

> We have in italian : radicchio (i - not e).

Right. Except for Catalan and Romanian, all other Romance forms neatly
reflect ra:di:ce and its derivatives.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...