--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "altamix" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
> Rum. relative: -the "r." should be refletect in Rum as "râ" and
> > > not "r"
>
>
> I will not talk about r. (that is 'too old'),
too old= not interesting enough or its reflex is well known ?:-)
> but only about Vr and
> rV in Romanian 'old words' (Latin or not): we have obviously 'a
> too'
> and not only rã/râ like in:
>
> Rom. márgine 'edge'
> Rom. máre 'big'
> Rom. bárdzã 'stork'
> Rom. gárd 'fence'
That is a matter of stress here. The stressed "a" remained "a", the
unstressed "a" changed to "ã" but in some conditions in "â". Why
there is once "ã" and one more time "â" should be the question.
"bárzã" but "bãrzói" is clear, augumentative suffix "oi" with change
of the stress on the vowel of the suffix. That is clear, regular,
wellknown, not disputed. But what about "â"? I cannot recall any
example of an word with "a" in root which change in "â" somehow, via
suffix or however, but there are just words with "â". Thus, the
alternation "a/ã" is a regular one, the presence of "â" is something
else and this will mean its provenience is from something else.
Alex
Alex