Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>> Apparently something is not so easy to explain. The fem. vocative
in
>> Rom. is made with the help of a long "o" in the same manner as the
>> masc. vocative is made with a long "e". How is to explain the use
of
>> a long "o" in Rom. if originaly there has been a Slavic short "o"?
>
> The same way we explain why the masc. voc. has a long /e/ (if
> that's what it has, I don't recall vowel length being
> phonemic in Romanian), as opposed to Slavic (and Latin, and
> PIE) short /e/.
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
>
Somehow I have the feeling there is an amibigous area when speaking
about "lenght", "intensity", "quality" of the vowels. Reverting back
to Rom, you are not recalling since they are not classified as such
except maybe Petrovic who tried to show an absolutely Slavic vocal
system in Rom.
Fact is, there are differences in the way how a vowel sounds and the
generaly acceptance is that there is no "lenght" but an another
"intensity". Maybe is a bit hard to me to accept that an word has two
kind of stress in the same time; the normal stress and the intensity
stress, the one who change the "quality" of the vowel.
At least so I recall from the explanation about the difference sound
which has a certain vowel ( a, e, o ,u, ã) in vocative and imperative;
the "i" is anyway a special case since it has at least 3 lengts.
Alex