--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> Richard Wordingham wrote:
>
> > 1. praeda > pre:da (Rural Latin)
> >
> > Middle English _preie_ from Old French suggests a Proto-Romance
high
> > vowel /e:/ rather than a low vowel /E:/.
>
> It doesn't matter for the discussion of <pradã>, since both vowels
yield
> Proto-Balkan Romance *e after a rhotic. On the Albanian side, it's
of
> course PBR *preda --> PAlb. *preda > *preë > pre:
>
> Piotr
>
A. What is the Rule
====================
I will quote here first the rule at Rosetti because if I put my doubts
directly seems that the 'experts' here didn't follow back all the
path...
Rosetti ILR pag. 37. Common Romanian 'e accented'
"The Passage of e to ã in vãrs , is generated by the labial oclusive
that preceeded the e (mãrg in sec XVI is only dialectal). But in
Aromanian the passage to ã didn't happen because in Aromanian the
labial oclusive doesn't have any action on the quality of the next
syllable (cf. ar. mer, per, vinã that are opposed to daco-romanians
mãr, pãr, vânã). This difference between the dialects of North Danube
and South Danube are dated from the oldest times. "
To resume with some examples we have:
1. Rom. mãr pl. meri;
Ar. mer pl. meare
< Balk. Latin me:lum (attested)
2. Rom. pãr pl. peri 'pear tree'
Ar. per pl. peri
Romanian parã pl. pere 'pear'
Ar. per pl. peare
< Latin pilus
3. Romanian masã pl. mese
Ar. measã pl. mease
< Latin mensa
Comclusion: => So for Latin i,e,e: you can see in Aromanian everywhere
an e/ea.
B. In what consist the exceptions regarding Rom.pradã
========================================================
And now to present the exception that we have regarding Lat. praeda
4. Romanian pradã Pl. prãzi (attested also as prade sec XVI -> so
this seems to solve one of the issues but only apparently)
Because
Aromanian pradã Pl. prãdz (Papahagi) first with a not with e and
next with dz in Aromanian that shows the fact that the pl. *prãdzi
in -i is old because is present both in Romanian as in Aromanian
So the exceptions are:
1. Aromanian sg. form should be *preadã and it isn't because is
pradã
2. Aromanian pl. form should be *predz(i) and it isn't because is
prãdz
3. Romanian pl. form should be *predzi (see Rom pl. cireSi) and it
isn't because is prãzi, if the ending with i is old (and is old, even
is true that Rom. pl. prade is attested too (sec XVI) , the Aromanian
pl. prãdzi with dz shows an ancient ending in -di ; so the plural in -
i is old because is present both in Romanian as in Aromanian)
C. What explanation we can found for these Romanian and
Aromanian "Exceptions"?
=================================================================
We have another example of Latin ae > Romanian a => Lat.aeramen > Rom.
aramã <-> Alb. rem 'copper'
This ae > a was considered a transformation by assimilation
"ae <-> a => aa<->a" => a<->a => this assimilation supposed that ae
was Still Distinct in Latin (so it wasn't Yet e) because we cannot
find this kind of assimilations in e<->a words
Now we can apply the same assimlation for 'pradã' too because we have
the a in the next syllable :
Lat. praeda > Balkan Latin *pra-a-da > Common Romanian *pra(a)da
From here the derivation of Rom. pradã/prãzi based on Blakan Lat. *pra-
a-da is regular like in :
Rom. falcã / pl. fãlci (Ar. falcã ) < Lat. falx; falcem
So the Rom and Aromanian forms can be well derived based on Balkan
Latin *pra-a-da
D. Did this 'exception' has and impact on Albanian pre?
=========================================================
Of Course that this has an influence. The Proto-Albanians have loaned
their words from Balkan Latin (>Common Romanian) not from Classical
Latin so we need to start from the Common Romanian form (sec VI CE
(thanks Miguel for CE)) next to go back first to the Balkan Latin (see
above) and only finally to explain from there how the Albanian prej
was derived
Once again (as in case of fluier<->fyell) to ignore Romanian and its
dialects when we try to explain Albanian derivations is a big
mistake ....
E. Derivation of Albanian pre
==============================
So from Latin praeda > [assimilation ae <->a => aa->a as in aeramen <-
> aarama > Rom. aramã] > Balkan Latin *pra-a-da > [change to i-stem in
pl in PRom see Rom. pl. prãzi <-> Ar. pl. prãdz] PRom pl *pra-a-di >
[loaned in PAlb] > Alb. pl.*pra-a-di > [Umlaut a>e when in the next
syllable we have an i; d>zero in tri-zyllabic words] > Alb. pre(j)
(next the e of the plural was next propagated to the sg. too: 'Umlaut
generalization to the sg. form' (as in Alb. bredh (see Romanian brad)
and in Alb qen < Latin canis)
Next the Albanian plural became prej-a (with the New pl. ending a like
in a lot of 'umlaut forms' to make a 'clear' distinction from the
singular....
NOTE: What is strange to 'the experts' :) is that they derived
Albanians forms not starting from Common Romanian (<Balkan Latin)
but from Classical Latin (see another example with Lat. ma:lum >
Balkan Latin me:lum) .
On the other hand, when they arrive to explain the Romanian
Subtratum they consider the Romanian substratum-words as 'later loans
from Albanians' and of course with no link with Proto-Albanian(/Daco-
Moesian?) :)
So Piotr, the explanation above is my own one but is very probable the
right one....of course you can close the thread with the 'lost of
intervocalic d' if we want, but we still need a 'second example' for
di-syllabic words because Alb. va could well be inherited...so please
don't close this thread...because it's real status is 'open'
Best Regards,
Marius