Re: [tied] Re: Albanian pre and Romanian prada (was: Question on Al

Richard Wordingham wrote:

>>> 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.

feminine nouns which ends in "-dã" made the plural in "-zi" in a certain
timeframe
in another time, the same nouns with the same endings made the plural in
"-de"

Alex