Re: [tied] Re: Richard's Romanian sound changer

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:55:18 +0000, m_iacomi <m_iacomi@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
>> I've tested Richard's Romanian Sound Change Applier against
>> (most of) the examples given in Bourciez.
>>
>> The remaining problems that I found are (some belong in several
>> catgories at once):
>
> I assume that the format is:
>{Latin word} > {Real Romanian word} not {Rom. word according to
>sound changer}.

More accurately {Latin or Vulgar Latin word} > {Real Romanian word as given
in Bourciez} not {Rom. word according to sound changer}.

>> lendina > lindinã not lindenã
>
> PBR /e/ gradually closes to CR /i/ before /n/ (like in "bine",
>"dinte", etc.).

Also when unstressed?

>> anellum > inel not îniel
>
> Vocalism /1/ instead of modern /i/ is attested old DR, as in anima >
>înemã > inima, last phenomenon is late DR.
>
>> fenestra > fereastrã not fãniastrã
>
> /n/ replaced by anticipation of /r/; evolution suggests a stressed
>PBR /e/ rather than regular exitus /E/ of short CL /e/.

If n > r predates /E/ > /je/ (not necessarily /E/ > /íe/), the result is
regular:

fenEstra > feríestra > ferjéstra > feréstra > fereástrã.

>> 2) v ~ b ~ 0
>
> Systematic loss of intervocalic Latin -b- or -v- is still to be
>implemented; usual confusion between /b/ and /v/ cannot be summed
>into a simple rule.

As a first step, we should have -b- > -v- as everywhere in Romance.
Special developments seem to be: -br- > -vr- and -rv- > -rb-.

>> deus > zeu not ze
>> reus > rãu not re
>
> For these ones maybe: final /u/ in hiatus > /w/ rather than 0.

These actually belong with the cases of non-loss of -u after V.

>> habe:re > avea/avere not abere
>
> Analogical "conservation" of /v/.
>
>> lava:re > la(re) nor lãvare
>
> "lãua" would be a better Romanian form ("la" is too short for a
>verb).

I was already suspicious of this form, given by Bourciez.

>> 3) l^
>> léporem > iepure not liepure
> [...]
> Loss of /l^/ in DR, replaced by palatal glide or nothing.
>
>> auricla > urechie not aureache
>
> Reduction of Latin au > o (> u) occurs only if already VL,
>otherwise it remains au; there is no simple rule to give that.

That's solved by assuming *oricla as the original form. The problem is
with the stressed vocalism: I suspect -kja > -kje first, and then -ea- >
-e-. Rule ordering.

>> urceolum > ulciór not urcéur
>
> /eo/ > /jo/ (palatal glide), I fail to see why the sound changer
>gives stressed /u/ instead of /o/.

There's someting wrong with the jotification rules. Urceolum should give
an intermediate form /urcjólu/, but the sound changer apparently opts for
incorrect /urcéolu/.

>> fascia > fa$e not fa$ã
>
> Modern recommended is still "fa$ã".
>
>> 6) final -u after Cl/Cr/V
>> nigrum > negru not negr
>> duplum > duplu not dupl
>
> Here that's correct.
>
>> oclum > ochiu not ochi
>> coliculum > curechiu not curechi
>
> ... but these are no longer correct since Latin /l/ gave a palatal
>/j/, after whic final /u/ is still lost in modern DR, so one has
>"ochi" and "curechi".
>> x) others
>
>> gu:- > gu- not b-
>
> Only labial appendix gives /b/ (as in "lingua" > "limbã").

This is a coding question: ":" is recognized as a vowel, so the rule guV >
bV- kicks in, where it shouldn't.

>> conventum > cuvînt not cunvînt
>
> Latin "conC" > Rom. "cuC" with regularity.

There's already a rule ns > s.

>> mergere > merge not mierge [?]
>
> "mierge" is still regional.
>
>> mer(u)la > mierlã not miarlã
>
> "miarlã" is regional.

Any reason for the StdR forms?


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