>>That is, there is no need for [oa] (or [wa]). It's a mere [O]
>>[oa] evolution within (Northern) Romanian.
>
>You confound (I mean related to their inner timeframes) 2 distinct
>phenomena in Romanian that took place in different moments in time.
>
> 1. One is wa > wã > wo > o
In the examples given, this is not necessary. Moreover, [w&] would
be an impediment. Therefore [o] in loanies from vár and vároS is
enough to explain an old Hung. [wa]. (At least this is what a
Romanian Hungarian told me 14 years ago; he told me this is what
is taught in Hungarian linguistics. I myself have never verified
this thesis by looking it up in Hung. scholar papers/books.)
>Lat. una (Aromanian unã) > uã > uo > o (fem. 'a')
This is something different, ie, not fitting the examples given
in the discussion thread. <uã> came to existence by a mere
elision of the consonant [n]. A nolens-volens [w&], so to speak.
But pay attention to the fact that here we've got [w&] and not
[wa]. I can give you a [wa] example, but which is limited to
some subdialectal area of Western Transylvania, towards the
Hungarian border: the word <ouã> "eggs" can be pronounced there
['wa-w&].
>with attested:
> nuor (attested sec XVI) > nor 'cloud'
Isn't it rather a typo? <nour> is an older variant for <nor>;
at that, a variant that hasn't yet vanished - depending on the
style of the text, anyone can still use the pronunciation and
spelling <nour> without being afraid that someone will say
"this is an error". (BTW pronunciation: 2 syllables ['no-ur]
and not [nour].)
> uo (attested sec XVI) > o fem. 'a'
I attest it for today as well: it suffices to watch Romanian
TV or listen to Romanian radio.
>So we need a 'wa' to explain Romanian 'orash' and Magh. varos.
Actually we don't: that Hungarian told me then that the Romanian
<ora$> is sufficient for them to conclude that old Hungarian
rather pronounced [war(oS)] and that [var(oS)] must be a more
recent development.
>We also need a 'wa' to explain Romanian 'oare' and Alb.
>vallë 'perhaps? maybe?" < PAlb. *wala
Again, the mass of Transylvanian and Banat native-
speakers and partially of Moldova native-speakers gives reason
to a strong doubt: these millions of people know of the diph-
tongation only at the level of the standard language, because
this is influenced by subdialects of the South-Eastern province
of Muntenia. Usually, this diphtongation is nothing else, histori-
cally, than a continuation of an "open" [o], which we here
render into ASCII as [O]. North and West of the Romanian
Carpathian range there is no <oare>, but only [Ore].
Now then, for that [o] we can find the necessary [w] in Latin,
too. Connoisseurs have said it's the assumed variant *volet
(the classic word being <vult>). Quite plausible, [wo] +
rhotacization: [r]e. (Amazing that in many cases <oare> is
translatable into German with... <wohl>, which in turn
< OHG wola, wela, wala < PIE *uelo, which is akin to the
Latin counterparts).
>(same situation with Rom. 'hora' Alb. 'valle' 'circular dance')
Why should we assume that Alb. [v] is supposed to have a Rum.
correspondent in [h]? Only because we have doublettes such as
vulpe-hulpe, viclean-hiclean? OTOH, if so, then why didn't
vatre/votre evolved into *hatra? (To me, va- in either valle
and vatra is the same, whereas the existing results in Romanian
are different.)
>2. The second one is the diphtongation of o>oa that is a later
>process in Romanian (affecting first wave of Slavic loans too so
>around sec X BC)
Of course it's a later one. Moreover, it's a phenomenon specific
even today only for roughly one half of the native-speaker
population. The other one resorts to it only officially, but
never among themselves and at home. Unfortunately, this is never
stressed in expert books (this actually has to do with...
mentality: centralism and everything that is caused by that).
>See: Rom. coasa - Sl. kosa
>
>When the dipftongation o>oa was started in Romanian the output of
>*wa was already *wo (uo in Romanian)
Only in the South-Eastern subdialects. In the other subdialects,
esp. those of Transylvania, the pronunciation has stayed ['kO-s&].
>If we take the example for 'oare' 'maybe? perhaps?' we have:
>PIE wel-2 'to wish' > PAlb *wala (before Latin contacts)>
There is no evidence for this. Lacking such evidence (and
even reasonable deduction), a vulgar Latin *volet [Wolet]
suffices the needs for a plausible assumption. This will give
in a... cozy way Rum. [wOre] which is 95%-99% identical with
<oare> in those territories I mentioned above (i.e., outside
Muntenia and Oltenia). Besides, there are quite many con-
temporary Romanians who tend to diphtongate [o] with a [w];
even in Muntenia (if I think of the pronunciation ['pwa-te]
for <poate>, which is deemed as... uneducated).
> *wãre (after Latin Contacts)
I don't think that rhotacism was induced by the Latin language,
but by something specific to the region. (Incidentally, or not
the Tosk dialect of Albanian also has this feature.)
>with a retraction of diphtongation (or a missing of it) in
>Transylvania /wore/)
I have no idea on what is based this idea (I haven't studied
the matter as experts do), but, given the highly numerous
examples where only the Southeasterners use a diphtong there,
whereas the oldest Romanian provinces don't, as well as the
fact that in texts written in Romanian cyrillic alphabet
<oa> was almost always written <ó> even in the subdialectal
"strongholds" of today's [oa], I doubt the chronology and
assume it must have been the other way round, e.g. first
[rOt&, pOrt&, mOrte, sOrte etc.] and only afterwards [roat&,
poart&, moarte, soarte] (<soarte> is older for <soarta>).
>Especially Lat. 'una' clearly shows us that the output
>of *wa is *o
Clearly shows us that [wa] is one thing, and [w&] something
different. BTW, you don't need to explain <o> [w&] to me,
since it belongs to my own subdialect: <Intelegi w& nu?>
(in standard Romanian, neither do we have the short <ori>,
namely <o>, let alone this [w&] of my region, that is
unknown to the population between Banat and the Black Sea
and from Tchernovtsy to Silistra).
Conclusion: in standard Romanian <Gãini ori ouã>, in my
subdialect <Ghin~ wã wawã>. ("Hens or eggs.")
(I wrote [n~] as in Span. man~ana.)
> Marius
George