[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- In romconlang@yahoogroups.com, "Jan van Steenbergen" <ijzeren_jan@y...> wrote: > --- habarakhe4 skrzypszy: > > > What is the derivation of Wenedyk rz compared to r? > > Sorry for being late! > > Well, it's quite simply really. Between Vulgar Latin and Modern > Wenedyk, there is a stage like "Old Wenedyk" or "Proto-Slavo- Romance" > (I don't really have a name for it, but it is an equivalent for Late > Common Slavic). > > Latin _e, e:, i, i:_ cause the palatalisation of the preceding > consonant (or _j_ if there isn't any). Thus: > > re: > r'e > rze > re > r'I > rz(e) (*) > ri: > r'i > rzy > ri > r'I > rz(e) > > (*) _I_ is a soft jer, an ultrashort, palatalising vowel. Depending > on their position in relation to other jers, they can be weak or > strong (according to Havlik's rule). A weak jer disappears, leaving > only a palatalised consonant behind, and a strong jer becomes _e_. > > See: <http://www.geocities.com/wenedyk/language/gmp.html> > > In general, I treat my rules quite liberally. In some cases, when > the rules dictate _rz_, I use _r_ instead, just because I like the > result more. This is, for example, the case with all infinitive > endings. > > Jan Could it be that the final /e/ disappeared from the infinitives before the palatalization? Jeff