Re: Rumanian uger and Latin u:ber

alexandru_mg3 schrieb:

>
>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:cybalist%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Alexandru Moeller <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
>
> > Phoneticaly I don's see problems, the problems I see are more of
> > chronological nature of some changes. To be honest, even today I am not
> > able to say if there has been a time where CommonRommanin have had an
> > c^(tsh) first or an c (ts) first.> Alex
> >
>
> My point is the following:
> 1) c^, g^ existed in Common Rumanian because /c^wara/ 'crow' (and not
> only) has a c^ both in Arumanian as in Rumanian
> 2) The Arumanian ts, dz alternance versus Daco-Rumanian c^, g^ is
> originated from some of the dy, ty, ky clusters -> for all these
> clusters I suspect a Common-Rumanian ts /c/, dz /3/ first, and a later
> c^,g^ in Rumanian for some of them (some others remaining ts, dz
> depending on different contexts)
>
> I said this, because:
> a) once we assert that c^, g^ existed in Common-Rumanian based on
> /c^wara/ 'crow' that exists with c^ both in Rumanian as in Arumanian
> b) a later reduction of c^, g^ to ts, dz in Arumanian would have been
> reduced also the c^ of /c^wara/ 'crow' to <ts> /c/ too...
> BUT this didn't happen.
>
> Marius

By myself I have no information about any work of someone who already
made a comparation between these dialects in order to establish
which are the contexts, time lines, conditions, etc. the common c^
versus alternativer c^/ts. Also, it seems that one must consider
Albanian as well since it can be that Albanian "s" in the common words
is from the reduction of the "ts". Maybe we will know more after
comparing some more facts but that meanss there is some work to do there
before beeing able to say anything. Or maybe a such work is already done
and someone knows about and can be so kind to let have the adequate
references.



Alex