--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tolgs001" <st-george@...> wrote:
>
> >These are the reasons that we are obliged to suspect wa
> >not o>oa in Romanian /c^wara/
> >
> >Marius
>
> The Romanian diphtong <oa> here (which is by no means
> correctly rendered by the narrow transcription /wa/) is
> a very late occurrence - a few centuries old, and specific
> only to the south-eastern ("muntenian") subdialect of
> Romanian.
<snip>
> George
>
does anyone forget the diphtongation of "o" to "oa" is
present in Arumanian as well ??!! :-)
The change should be more as a few century old since in Arumanian
_and_ Moldavian dialects there are forms as "oaminji/oaminii" and
that means the diphtongation is older as the change of "e" to "i"
before "n", thus _older_ as the first literar testimonies and of
course, not restricted just to some Wallachian (Muntenian)
subdialects.
P.S. I think that what literary is showed as "oa" is in fact the
said "wa". Or is there any posibility for you to distinge
between "wa" or "oa"? I have to recognise I cannot make the
difference .
Alex