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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

>
> altamix wrote:
>
> > 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".
>
> Not if we assume that the effect of /pr-/ is similar to that of /p-

/,

> which retracts an unstressed *e (as well as *ae, *i, e:, *oe) to ã,
> cf. <pãcat>. Cf. also Rom. prãdá < praeda:re.
>
> Piotr

it doesnt mathc. Let see "prehendere" which yelded in Rom. "prinde"
via "prende" ad today Italian word. If the "e" > "ea" >"a" in a such
constelation, then the word should have been today "*prândã" but
not "prinde". Thus the "pr-" has not a such effect and I even doubt
of any effect of "p-". See the examples given before where "pilum "

> "pãr" but the plural is stil "peri" which will show the "e" which

was once there. Even in "parã" ( the fruit) is the same:
"parã" - "pere"

I would be more cautiously as usual since in words as "praeda"
and "pecatum" seems to have some Latin words which can be loans and
the vocalism of Latin can be not the original one. Possible, these
words have been originaly with an "&" there and Latin rendered it
as "ae" ?

Alex