On Thur, Feb 5, 2004, at 06:30 PM, Miguel wrote:
>>> lendina > lindinã not lindenã
There is a variant <lindenã> (plur. <lindeni>). This
is mentioned in the Rum. dictionary, in the entry
<lindinã>.
>>> 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/.
The DR dictionary dedicates the entry to <urcior>, plur.
<urcioare> (the other notion, from Lat. <hordeolum>, has
the same sing. and plur. forms!). <Ulcior> is mentioned
within the definition for <urcior> as a mere variant
thereof.
I deem worth mentioning Rum. <ulcea> or <ulcicã>, plur.
<ulcéle> < Lat. *ollicella < Lat. olla; as well as Rum.
<ol>, <oluri> < Rum. <oale>, i.e. plur. of <oalã> < Lat.
olla. (<olár,-i> < <ollarius>).
>>> fascia > fa$e not fa$ã
>>
>> Modern recommended is still "fa$ã".
In standard DR and most of its subdialects, this
endings is always -$ã (in the singular) - except
for esp. in Oltenia (and to a lesser extent in
various other areas) where people prefer -$e,
e.g. <mãtu$e, cãma$e, u$e, pãpu$e... fa$e>.
>>> 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".
All these -chi things are in older DR -chiu. This
is why, the Romanian orthography until Apr. 1954
included a rule saying that nouns and adjectives
ending in -i (singular) had to have a... mute -u
added. Therefore -chi as well: <ochiu, unchiu, vechiu,
$fichiu, genunchiu> etc. (Esp. in Transylvania, -chiu
is palatalized [k^u] or [k^ju].
Subdialectally, this -u is still pronounced in some
areas (I mean the singular without defin. article).
George