Re: Albanian pre and Romanian prada (was: Question on Albanian sy)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "altamix" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
> <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

>> Marius A. wrote:

> > > Piotr, the Latin Latin word was praeda and the transition was
> > > via a hiatus : Balkan Latin *pra-a-da (Rom pradã) => (the trace
> > > of hiatus is still visible in Romanian when I pronounce it
> > > correctly: pra'a-dã). So the word was tri-syllabic for sure...

> > I am not convinced.

> > 1. praeda > pre:da (Rural Latin)

Piotr pointed out that post(?)-Romance *preda and *prEda would have
merged in time for breaking. (*prEda > *prieda either could not
happen or *prieda would have simplified to *preda.)

> > 2. pre:da > *preada (Rom. breaking before a)
> > 4. *preada > _prada_

> > I'm not sure about this last change, but it might explain your
> > hiatus. ea > a after labials is a definite change, but I don't
> > know how it's affected by an intervening liquid.

> I am not sure either. The plural form shows an "ã" instead of the
> expected "e" if there has been an earier "e" > "ea" > "a".
> I should have expected "*prezi" but the plural is "prãzi" and that
> will speak for an "a" there, not for an "e".

The problem here is that the plural in -i is not original. As a
plural in -i should normally change a preceding stressed -a- to -ã-,
it may simply be analogical. But why should the word acquire a plural
in -i?

Richard.