Re: Dacian Sounds Laws - (1) Short Vowels

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" <richard@...>
wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@>
> wrote:
>
> > As you know we can have 'in the same time in the same context'
> > only one phonetic rule => please take a look on the twpo
> > supposed below rules (one of them for sure is not true)
> >
> >
> > 1. Latin kw/a,o > Rom ca,co /ka,ko/
> > ===================================
> > I quote here 'the official' etymologies (DEX -> see dexonline.ro)
> >
> > Rom. ca < Latin quam
> ...
>
> > On the other hand :
> >
> >
> > 1. Latin kw/a,o > Rom pa,po
> > ==========================
> > is based on:
> >
> > 1. Rom. apã < Latin aqua
> ...
> > 4. potârniche > Lat. *perturnicula (< per[dix] + *[co]turnicula)
> > or *quo-turnicula
> ...
> > 5. pãresimi < Lat. quadragesima
> > Note: In contradiction with Rom. codru if from Lat. quadrum
> >
> > There are no others supposed Lat qua,quo > Rom. po,pa examples
>
> Three points:
>
> 1. The qua/o > ca/o examples are word-initial (plus one phrase where
> it is morpheme-initial), while the qua > pa examples are mostly
> intervocalic.

mostly? which are these? The given examples where the supposed
Latin "qua/quo" > "pa/po" is in the initial position, not
intervocalic. OK, I will give you a help here, but we don't talk
about "qua/quo" in this case since I dont remember ad hoc about any
example where "qua/quo" is not initial ( beside the word which is in
discussion, the said "aqua"). The hlp consist in the other labiovelar
which is said to have been lost earlier in Latin. see here:
interoguare > "intreba". The aches with this one are evident.. gW > b
but Latin lost the labial aspect of "gW" very early and .. and the
intervocalic "b" remains in Rum.

>
> 2. Unfortunately, irregularities abound. It is just that an
> etymology is weaker if it depends on an irregularity. In this
> case, /kw/ can be instantly reconceptualised as /k/ or /p/, so the
> psychological argument for regularity of sound change does not
> hold. In this respect it is similar to the interchange of /k/
> and /g/, which can be distressingly common, or the development of
> Latin <ae> and <au>, where a failed sound change merged some of
> them with /e:/ and /o:/.

I hope this is just a general statement but not a special statement
for our discussion. With this kind of assertion you can refute
everything, don't you?

>
> 3. qua/o > ca/o is overwhelmingly a change in one morpheme,
> interrogative/relative /kw/.
>
> Richard.
>

which are the relative /kw/ here? about the interrogative, in the
examples given by Marius, are indeed some of them but sweeping them
out, there remains some:

Rom. ca < Latin quam
Rom. cam < Latin quam magis
Rom. cã < Latin quod
Rom încã < Latin unquam
Rom. niscai < Latin nescio qualis
Rom. cã < Latin quod
Romanian codru < Latin * quodrum (-> quadrum) (I really doubt)

for "încã" I doubt as being from "unquam" since is the same word as
Italian "anque", French "ancore", thus there has been an "a" and not
an "u" and the "anC" > "ânC"-rule worked as expected.



Alex