alexandru_mg3 schrieb:
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:cybalist%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Alexandru Moeller <alxmoeller@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > alexandru_mg3 schrieb:
> >
> > > e>ea and o>oa was trigered by a,&,e
> > >
> > > Why you exclude e? (> soare)
> > >
> > > Marius
> >
> >
> > first please note I will post a longer article on Balkanika about
> the
> > diphtongation of "e" and "o" in Romania. For now, please just
> remember
> > that the diphtongation btw the yotacisation stoped much eralier
> when the
> > next syllable was "e". As you said before, it seems the time it
> stoped
> > has been as the Slavs came. In the words where the next unstressed
> vowel
> > is/was "ã", it seems the the rule is stil working today, I have to
> > search a bit more for some examples.
> > I have my toughts that "e" was perceived once as "ã" or it was a
> certain
> > "e" who was perceived as "ã", I don't know exactly, I am just about
> to
> > compile some data here and that is plenty of material to verify,
> > including Albanian for seeing if there is something interesting.
> >
> >
> > Alex
>
> Alex, this is the full rule regarding Romanian ea
> I quote fully Rosetti
> ----------------------
> "ea'. e accentuat urmat in silaba imediat urmatoare de a(ã) sau e
> a fost diftongat la ea, in aceleasi conditii ca si ye (v. mai sus;
> pentru o, v. mai jos p. 42 s,.u.), in elementele din vechiul fond,
> iar in elementele slave patrunse in limba la o epoca veche, numai
> cand e era urmat de a(ã)"
>
> To resume in English:
> ---------------------
> The rule was active till the oldest Slavic layer but in addition
> for that Old Slavic layer only an a(ã) context could still trigger it.
> But for 'the ancient set of words' e/accented > ea when if is
> followed in the next syllable by a(ã) sau e.
>
> BUT EVEN MORE:
> For Hungarian Loans in Romanian (later loans comparing with
> Slavics ones): /ea/ or /ye/ are not applicable AT ALL ==> see Rosetti
> either in my previous post.
>
> In addition Magh. /ü/ in üveg is rendered by /i/ by Romanian see il&u
>
> Marius
>
> P>S> Of course, I would read what you said if you indicate me that
> message no again.



Marius, I did not write yet the article. I am just compiling data even
because the rules which are given by the clasics seems to be a bit
polished, speaks to bring them up to date.

The rule of dphtingationas are simple but there are some troubles which
I will post when I am ready

e > ea when followed by e or ã
e > ie when followed by e and it went to ia when followed by ã

the question which arrises here is why once e > ie and once e > ea. This
is a story which I will like to clarify

o > oa when followed by e or by ã but it seems there are some troubles
too .. I will revert but I want to move the discussion about this
diphtongation away from cybalist because at least for my perception,
there are tooo much messages about this story. Actually I will prefer
that one write once per day after one reads all the messages :-))

Alex