Re: Romanian _abur_

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

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" wrote:
>
> >> For Romanian abur <-> Alb avull, Hamp indicated < PIE
> >> *n.bh(u)lo from PIE root nebh- 'fog' [with n.>a in Early-PAlb]
> >
> > The problem I see is that the *b has not dropped in *Albanian*.
>
> Actually, Rom. <abur(e)> has uncleared origin.

Hamp considers it from Proto-Albanian *n.bh(u)lo, Rosetti from
Balkan Substratum....that is quite the same thing.

> Some Romanian
> linguists proposed that /b/ was exceptionally preserved in order
> to avoid a potential unpleasant homonymy with <aur> `gold`.

'Exceptionally preserved'? :) What kind of linguistic could be
this?

> Of
> course, Latin <vapor> could also have had some influence on a
> local substrate word.

Latin vapor? What kind of influence? p->b or v->zero ? (see also
Romanian vas and Romanian acoperi :)
And next Albanian avull? What you would propose here: an
Albanian "ll"-othacism? like r -> ll in Albanian?

> > The preservation of /b/ in _aibã_ is an Eastern Romance issue, not
> > just a Romanian one. The corresponding form is _abbia_ in

Italian,

> > again with unexpected preservation of /b/. Some of the simple

past

> > forms of this verb also preserve /b/ in Italian - 1s. _ebbi_, 3s
> > _ebbe_ and 3pl. _ebbero_.
>
> In the paradigm of <avea>, the labials are mostly analogically
> restored, there is no need of any additional hypothesis.
>
> Regards,
> Marius Iacomi

So habeam>ajea>ajbã : b->zero => zero->b? so a kind of 'ping-pong-
ping' ?
And next we could find a second 'analogical' influence of Rom. <a
avea> in Latin rubeum > Rom roib, because 'there is no need of any
additional hypothesis' isn't it ? :)


marius