Re: Romanian _abur_

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tolgs001" <st-george@...> wrote:

>
> >>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 :)
>
> Take into consideration that the Latin pronunciation must've
> been something like ['wa-por], and that related to this
> variants such as ['wa-bor, 'wa-bur] might have been plausible.>
> A ['wa-bur] pronounced vapor is very closed to modern
> Romanian abur ['a-bur].

that won't be a simply "aburealã" if there won't be Alb. "ll" & "v".
in this case we have to assume "p" > "v" in Alb. and "r" > "ll" in
Alb. and parallel, "p" > "b" in Rum. and "wa" > "a" instead of
expected "o". That appears too be too much differences for two
languages which shows almost same phonetical changes.

> v<->b common occurrence in many languages. <Sã aibã> has a
> popular subdialectal variant (esp. in Southern Romania):
> <sã aivã>. Look it up, it can be googled. (In German, you
> can compare this with aber<->owa and äwer (cf. Google) and
> lieber<->leewer (cf. Google), where the 2nd, unstressed,
> syllable is pronounced almost as in Romanian in aivã [-v@],
> and hoiwe (halbe "half"), Koiwe (Kalb "calf"), Lewerkas
> ['le:-v@-ka:s] (for Leberkäse ['le:-b@-ke:-z@] a specialty
> containing meat, but neither "liver" nor "cheese") in the
> Bavarian-Austrian dialect of German (cf. Google).

there is no problem with "aivã/aibã" due "v" in "a avea".

>
> >in Latin rubeum > Rom roib, because 'there is no need of any
> >additional hypothesis' isn't it? :)
>
> The b<->v is by no means a... must. Some native-speakers
> consider <sã aivã> a natural pronunciation, whereas the
> same ones will deem <roivii> instead of<roivii> as unnatural,
> namely an error. (Idem <robii> vs. *<rovii>.)
>
> >marius
>
> George

well.. let us learn the people they can say "*abocat" for "avocat"
"*bie" for "vie" and "*vavã" instead of "babã", "*vacalaureat"
instead of "bacalaureat", "*voloban" instead of "bolovan" etc.
There won't be any trouble at all less we just create a new language
with this kind of possible changes which are to find in all the
languages of the world.
All the changes you speak about are theoretically possible. Yet, they
do no characterise either Alb. nor Rum., thus they are not of use ,
regardless how big is the wish to derive it from Latin a Latin "vapor"

BTW, "burã" should be seen too from a Latin "*pora"?

Alex