Daco Romanian Phonology

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Linguistics.

http://www.jstor.org

Towards a Generative Phonology of Daco-Rumanian Dialects Author(s): E. Vasiliu Source: Journal of Linguistics, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Apr., 1966), pp. 79-98Published by: Cambridge University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4174919Accessed: 05-12-2015 18:06 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 193.140.225.160 on Sat, 05 Dec 2015 18:06:55 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4174919

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



Towards a generative phonology of Daco-Rumanian dialects

E. VASILIU

Centrul de Cercetdri Fonetice i Dialectale, I94 Calea Victoriei, Bucharest

(Received 25 June I965)

The purpose of this paper is to outline a classification of Dacorumanian dialects, according to certain morphophonemic particularities chosen as criterial. This classification is (to be sure) only a first step, a kind of first approximation to a more detailed specification of diverse dialectal morphophonemic and phonemic structures occurring in this area.

The dialects spoken within Rumania are called 'Dacorumanian' (DRum.), in contradistinction to the dialects spoken outside this territory, i.e. the Arumanian (ARum.), Meglenorumanian (MRum.) and Istrorumanian (IRum.) dialects.1 i. The morphophonemic system of ALL the Rumanian dialects is characterized by many vowel alternations such as: /eiea/, /o-oa/, /a-.e/, /a-e/, /iti/, etc. I. i. Only some of these alternations will be taken into account below, namely: -/e-ea/, phonetically [eea']: [leg,lea'ga elege] 'to tie' (pres. ind. Ist, 3rd pers., pres. subj. 3rd pers.). -/a-e/: /faita.fe'te/ 'girl, girls', /massac me'se/ 'table, tables', /Jed--fJde/ 'to stay' (pres. ind. Ist, 3rd pers.). -/a,.e/: /mar-me're/ 'apple, apples'.

The first two alternations can be reduced to a single one: /a-%.'e/ is the alternation /e-ea/ occurring after labials.

The environment which modifies the alternation /e-ea/ also determines the alternation /;ae/.

These alternations can be explained by the subsequent phonetic changes: (i) Lt. [e] > [ei] if followed in the next syllable by an [e] or [a] (in the same

way, Lt. [6] > [ea] in the same environment). (2) After a labial [e, ea'] became [a, a'] IF there was no front vowel in the

next syllable). Thus [feata] > [fata], but [feate] > [fete] according to (i). The same rule explains the [ave] alternation: [mer] > [mar], according to (2), but [meaire] changes into [mere] according to (3) (see below); the preceding labial did not change the quality of the next vowel, because it was protected by the following [e].

[1] Editorial note. In the phonetic transcriptions in this article, IPA conventions are modified to the extent that ' is used for palatalization and the acute accent over vowels for stress.

79



JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS

(3) In a later stage of development of DRum., [ea'] > [e] when followed by an [e] in the next syllable (while [eA] followed by an [o] kept its diph- thongal status; the monophthongization did not affect [Qa] before [e]). Thus a form such as [lege] 'to tie' (3rd pers. pres. subj.) is a product of two previous stages: (i) [lege], (2) [leage]. Direct evidence for stage (2)

is provided by the oldest Rumanian texts (i6th century), which show traces of this older stage. Other evidence is given by forms such as DRum. [fipte, fJde] 'seven', 'to stay' (pres. ind. 3rd pers.), ARum. [da'ci] 'ten', from necessarily previous [fQapte, Jfade, 4Qaice] forms. The

/a/ vocalism is to be explained by the influence of the preceding /f/ or

141. 1.2. From a purely distributional point of view the DRum. dialects may be divided into three groups, according to the distribution of /e, i/ vs. /a, i/.

A. Dialects in which, after /f, 3/, only /e, i/ occur and never /a, i/. B. Dialects in which, after /J, 3/, only /a, i/ occur and never /e, i/. C. Dialects in which, after /J, 3/, the two pairs, /e, i/ and /a, i/, are in free

variation. For a moment we shall consider only two dialects belonging to A or B.

For each A and B we find two distinct sets (I and II) of morphophonemic and phonemic shapes of the following words and word forms always going together. They are, in standardized form, as follows:

(i) [fed-fez-.-faide] 'to stay' (pres. ind. ISt, 2nd, 3rd pers.). (2) [bafika, kamaifo, JaYpte, JaYrpe] 'bladder', 'shirt', 'seven', 'snake'.

(3) [uJf, Ji, gri33, ingri3i] 'door', 'and', 'care', 'to care'.

A: fle, f li, 3le, 3'i B: Jf, Ji, 30, 3i

1. (i) [J'ed-fJ'ezi'f'ade] i. (i) [f9d fJzIifdde] (2) [bef' ika, kJmdfJ'e, Ja'pte, (2) [beJliko, kamiJf, Jipte,

J'arpe] fJrpe] (3)[u'fe,fgi, gri le,itegri3"i] (3) [ulfa, fi, gr 1i3a gtgri3i]

II. (I) [J'edfJ'ezi,fJ'ede] II. (I) [f;ad,,f;zi,,fde] (z) [befJ'tka, komej le, fJ'epte, (2) [befik;a, kameja, fa'pte,

J'rpel farpe] (3) [ 'f Ie, f Ii , gri3'e, it gri 3 i (3) [ufa, fi, gri3a, itegri3i]

Table 1

In dialect A only rows I.(3) and II.(3) are identical, while I.(I) & (2) and IJ.(I) & (2) are different.

8o



TOWARDS A GENERATIVE PHONOLOGY OF DACO-RUMANIAN DIALECTS

The differences within the dialects having THE SAME distribution of vowels after /f, 3/ must be explained by the different chronology of the depalatalization of /f'/.

The relative chronology of this depalatalization is already established. We must assume a 'sharp' quality for Common Rumanian (CRum.) /I/, since this consonant is the product of the palatalization of Lt.[s] before an [1] or VLt.[j]: Lt.sic > Rum. [fi] 'and', Lt. septem > CRum. [*sjepte] > [*fljepte] > [f'epte] 'seven', Lt. camisia > VLt. [*kamesja] > CRum. [*komef'ja] > [*kame'fa].

All CRum. [a] changed into [e] after a palatal consonant: CRum. [*pal 'a, *kudn' } (Lt. palea, cunea) became [*pal'e, *ku'nle]. The same change occurred when /a/ was preceded by /f'/: CRum. [*kome6'f > *kame'fe]. The stage [*kamefle] must be postulated for CRum., since it underlies both DRum. and ARum. forms.

The voiced phoneme corresponding to /f/ (i.e. 13/) is perhaps later than CRum., but its distribution is quite parallel to that of /f/ in dialects which have both /f/ aind /3/.

In many DRum. dialects /f '/ lost the 'sharpness' and became COMPACT (as opposed to /s, z/ which are acute and noncompact). When /J'/ became compact,

/e, i/ > /a, i/ after it. 1.2.1. In some DRum. dialects /f'/ became compaCt BEFORE the change (2)

(-[pa, e] > [a', ] after labials), and then forms like [*kamteafle, *bef iko] became [*kamefaJ, befJka]. Under such conditions according to (2),

[kamoeafa, befika] > [kamafa, baflika] because the syllable following [pa, e] no longer contained a front vowel.

At the same time, forms like [*f leade, *fleapte, *flearpe], resulting by (i) from previous [*flede, *flepte, *fJlerpe], became [fade, fapte, farpe], perhaps through the intermediate stage [*fpade, *fpapte, *f;arpe]; forms like [f'ed, fJezi], which, normally, did not change by (i), became [fad, jazi]. 1.2.2. In other dialects the loss of 'sharpness' by /f'/ occurred after change (3).

In these dialects [kamea4'fe, bef'ika] were not affected by change (2),

because the next syllable contained an /e/. Forms like [kameaJ'e, f'leade, f'leapte, f'earpe] became by (3): [kme'f'e,

f'ede, f'epte, f'erpe]; when /f'/ lost the 'sharpness' they became further [kamefa, fade, f6pte, fArpe]. 1.2.3. The difference in the relative chronology of the depalatalization of /f'/ explains the differences arising between the sets I.(i) & (2) and II.(i) & (2) in dialects belonging to B.

The differences arising between I.(i) & (2) and IJ.(i) & (2) in dialects belonging to A are to be explained as follows:

Some of the dialects which lost the sharpness of /f'/ before (2), repalatalized /f/ in a later stage of their development and therefore [kama'f, bafika, fad, faz'] became [kamaf'e, baffika, fled, flezi] together with [uifa, fi] which

8i




became [uif'e, f 'i]. The vocalism of words like [f'ade, flapte, f a'rpe] was not affected by this change.

Some other dialects belonging to A NEVER lost the sharpness of /f'/; under such conditions, [kmoeafle, bef'ika] were not affected by (2) because they contained an /e, i/ in the following syllable, whereas forms like [f'leade, f'eapte, f'earpe, kameaif'e] changed to [f'ede, J'epte, J'erpe, kameJf'e] by (3).

It is easy to see forms I.(i) & (2) for A and B are chronologically more related than A. I & II and also that II.(i) & (2) for A and B are also chronologically more related than B.I & II.

Let us conventionally call dialects I. A, B Muntenian type dialects (because they are spoken mostly in Muntenia) and dialects II. A, B Moldavian type dialects (because Moldavia is included in the area in which they are spoken). 1.2.4. The dialects belonging to C (where /e, i/ are in free variation with /a, i/ after /f, 3/) are either of Muntenian or of Moldavian type: Muntenian type where the REPALATALIZATION Of /f, )/ is not consistent; Moldavian type where the DEPALATALIZATION of /f', 3'/ is inconsistent. We have therefore to expect: (a) for Muntenian type: [fipte, Jarpe, faide] and, in free variation [kama'f, bafika, fad, fazi] and [kamaJ'e, bal'ika, fed, J'ezi] (but never [kmeJfa, befika] or [kmefI'e, bef'ika]); (b) for Moldavian type: [f6pte, f6rpe, Jfde, kamefa, befika, fad, flzi] in free variation with [f'epte, Je'rpe, f'ede, kme'f'e, bef'ikk, f'ed, fJezi] (but never [kama'fJ] or [kamaJf'e], [bafiko] or [bfl'fka]. I.3. In some DRum. dialects replacement of /e, i/ by /a, i/ after /c, s, z/ also occurs. This change is characteristic of Moldavian type dialects and for some Muntenian type dialects. For dialects in which this change does occur, literary Rumanian forms such as [mirsea'samirese] 'bride', 'brides', [boteavz--boteze] 'to baptize' (pres. ind. 3rd pers.) (pres. subj. 3rd pers.), [varsa-verse] 'to pour' (pres. ind. 3rd pers.) (pres. subj. 3rd pers.), [invaic.iinvece] 'to learn' (pres. ind 3rd pers.) (pres. subj. 3rd pers.) cor- respond to: [mirieasa-mireso, botieaza-.-boteza, varsa-versa, invaca-inveca]. This change MUST follow (I), (2) and (3) in all the dialects.

If it was earlier than (2) we would expect forms like [*vairsa, *invaic9] instead of the actual [versa, inveco] (i.e. homophony between present indicative and present subjunctive in the 3rd person).

The old forms [*veajrse, tnveice] resulting from (i) would have become [*vetarsa *inveaco] (following the assumption that [e, i] > [t, i] after [c, s, z] preceded (2) and later, by (2), > [*varsa, *invaca].

If the change which we are concerned with was earlier than (3), we would expect forms like [*boteajza, *mirea'sa] instead of the actual [boteza, miresa] (i.e. homophony between indicative and subjunctive in the 3rd person present). The old forms [*boteaze, *mirea'se] resulting from (i), would have

82




become [*boteaza, *mirea'sa] and therefore could not have been affected by (3) I.4. Some Moldavian type dialects may furnish some evidence (weak evidence, of course) for a special chronology of the vowel change after /c, s, z/, (more precisely, only for /s/, but in order to obtain the most compact statement, we may assume the same development for /c, z/). These dialects have the form [Jfaso] (like Mluntenian) but [f6pte, fJde, kamefa] etc. It is hard to assume that [flasD] was simply borrowed from Muntenian dialects, for naturally we should then expect the borrowing of [faipte] also, or some 'refashioning' of either [fJpte] or [a'so] on the pattern of the borrowed form.

Moreover, these dialects do not show any homophony of the kind discussed above which would enable us to consider this change as earlier than (s).

In order to explain this situation, we might assume that the change /e, i/ > /a, i/ after /c, s, z/ occurred BEFORE (3) but that it DID NOT affect vowels separated from /c, s, z/ by a morpheme boundary (symbolized below as &).

Thus, wvhen ['lease] > [fresa], a word like [mireas&e] was not affected by the change, for /e/ was an inflexion.

Therefore [mireas&e] became [mirese] according to (2), whereas [fpisa] could no longer be affected by the change (2); when /f'/ became 'nonsharp', i.e. AFTER (2), [flea's] > [fa'so].

2. The situation outlined above suggests that the DRum. dialects can be described largely in terms of THE SAME RULES ordered differently. For our purpose, which is not chiefly historical, we shall not begin with the CRum. phonemic system (which, perhaps, did not contain two central vowels but a single one, or which contained sharp consonants or tense phonemes: (e.g. /i, 1, fi/ as opposed to lax /r, 1, n/ etc.). 2.I. The distinctive-feature matrix is given in Table 2. Notice that we will put into the dictionary words like [frpte, kmeJfe, Ji] etc. without specifying the vocalic feature which is predictable in terms of the preceding consonants; therefore we shall leave aside the specification ACUTE for non-compact non-flat vowels occurring after sharp consonants. The specification of acuteness will be accomplished by means of a special rule. 2.2. The rules to be applied are given in Table 3. We now discuss these rules and their effects.

Rule (A) specifies the feature ACUTE after sharp consonants including If, 3/ also. It is the only MS rule (whereas all the following are phonemic rules) and must be applied BEFORE rule (B) which requires a fully specified /e/.

Rule (B) is a reformulation of (i). Rule (C) substitutes the feature /+compact/ for the feature /+sharp/,

expressing in this way the main change which differentiates the two groups of dialects.

83



a u i t o e c n d t g' k' g k m b p 3' f' z s h v f r 1 Cons f-Cons + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Voc /-Voc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - + + 0

Comp /-Comp + - 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + + +- --0 0 0 0 + 0 _

Diff f-Diff o + + +- o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Flat f-Flat o +- - +- o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

0Acute -Acute o o + -o +- + + +++ +++- -- o o ? 4 Stop f-Stop o o o o o o o + + + + + + + + + + + + +- - - -+ -

Sharp f-Sharp o o o o o o o + + - - - -+ + + + - -o o o o o 0 Strid f-Strid o o o o o o o o o + - - -o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o c0 Nasal -Nasal o o o o o o o o o o + - o o o o + - o o o o o o o o o Voiced-Voiced o o o o o o oo + - o + +- +-o + +- + - o + - oo

Table 2




Rule (D) is a consequence of (C): it shows that /e, i/ are replaced by /a, i/ after the depalatalization of If', 3'/. This vowel substitution has great im- portance for the morphophonemics only if (C) is ordered BEFORE (E-F). In such a case, all the following steps of the derivation are affected (positively or negatively) by this rule. If (C) is applied AFTER (E-F), only the final arrangement of phoneme strings is determined by it. This fact is expressed in our grammar by a special ordering: the consequences of (C) are no longer specified by rule (D) but by means of the rules (H), (I); the consequences of the rule (C) are of the same range as the consequences of the STRIDENCY, introduced by means of rule (H).

Rule (E) is a restatement of (2), and (F) is a restatement of (s). Rule (G) reintroduces the feature /+sharp/ instead of /+comp/. The rule

is stated for the Muntenian dialects only. On the other hand, the application of (G) makes possible a new application of (A), but at a very low level so that, this time, rule (A) will not affect the morphophonemic structure.

Rules (J) and (K) are stated in order to obtain strings representing the ACTUAL phonemic sequences: to move the stress of such sequences as */ea, oa, 6a/ to /a/ and to delete /a/ in sequences of /sa/.

3. In this section we shall try to classify DRum. dialects according to the rules stated in ?2, Petrovici (I943) is the corpus which furnishes us with the data we have taken into account. In the next section we shall give, not the data, but only the points on the maps in Petrovici (I956) representing the villages where the different dialects are spoken. The corresponding data may be found in Petrovici (I943) under the points specified (together with the name of the village). 3.. I Muntenian type dialects can be defined as the totality of dialects characterized by ordering rules (C-D) before (E-F). The order of rules is: (A-B-C-D-E-F).

There are three main varieties of this type. 3.II. The first variety, A, is represented by the dialect which DOES NOT

repalatalize /J, 3/. That means that this dialect does not apply rule (G), but only rule (H). On the other hand rule (A) does not apply twice.

The whole set of rules is the following.: (A-B-C-D-E-F-H-I-J-K) The dialect is represented by points 872 and 79I (Muntenia) I72, 157,

235 (Southern and Central Ardeal). 3.12. The second variety, B, is characterized by the PRESENCE of rule (G) and the recursiveness of (A) after (G). That means that this variety repalatalized /f, 3/.

We can further divide this variety into two subvarieties: (a) in which rules (H), (I) do not apply; (b) in which rules (H), (I) do apply.

85



- Cons (A) [ ]-[+Acute]inenv. [+Sharp] - Comp

-FlatJ

- Diff - (B) 0 -Cons ] in env. +Stress ---([+Cons .. ]) Diff +Comp |+ If/Acute/l Flat o

00 t/Flat/

[-Voc30 (C) [+Sharp] --[+Comp] in env. - Stop

- Voc 1 (D) -* [-Acute] in env. -Stop - Cons

+Acute - Comp + Comp_l

- Voc - Cons 1 r- Cons (E) [ ] [-Acute] in env. - Acute - Diff ([+ Cons ..]) i- Acute

- Comp _ -- J



- Cons

(F - Cons - Duff [ Cons (F + C ]0 n nv +Acute | -- [Cons .. ]|- Diff]

+Stress + Acute J

-Voc z (G) [+ Comp] -+ [+Sharp] in env. - Stop

Acute >

- Voc

-Stop]

(H) [ ] --[+Strid] in env. +Acute 0

-4 I -' I 0Sharp

0

(I) [ ] t- [-Acute] in env. [+Strid] >

Cons - Cons - Cons - Cons (J) | I- Co np +Comp -| - Comp +Comp

Stress - Stress - Stress +Stress

- Cons

(K) -Acute [-C ons> I >0 inenv. -- - LK Flat J [+Comp ] 1

Table 3 u,




Dialect Ba is defined by the subsequent set of rules: (A-B-C-D-E-F-J-K-G-A). Notice rules (G)-(A) must be applied AFTER (J) and (K) because otherwise we should again obtain forms like [feairpe].

On the other hand we must mention that, at some point, rules (G)-(A) are OPTIONAL; that means that speakers vacillate between pronunciations [fe, fi, 3e, 3i] and [fo, fi, 3a, 3i].

Variety Ba is represented by the following points: I30, I82, I92 (Southern Ardeal); 762, 769, 723, 728, 705, 899, 928 (Muntenia); 682, 987 (Dobrogea).

Dialect Bb is defined by the addition (sometimes optional) of rules (H) and (I). That means that, in this dialect /e, i/ became /a, i/ after /c, s, z/. In some villages the speakers vacillate between the two pronunciations.

The set of rules defining this subvariety is therefore: (A-B-C-D-E-F-H-I-J-K-G-A). Rules (H)-(I) have to be applied before (J)-(K) so that forms like [caapa,

s0ara] (resulting from the application of rules (H)-(I) to [cetapa, steara] 'thorn', 'evening', will be converted to [caipa, sa'ra] together with forms like [miasa, faada] etc. (resulting from the previous application of (C)-(D).

The dialect just described is represented by the points: 836, 848, 8Iz, 876, 886, 784 (Muntenia and Oltenia). 3.2. Moldavian type dialects. The dialects belonging to this type are characterized by the absence of rule (D) and by either ordering (C) AFTER rules (E)-(F) or by the complete absence of (C). We have already seen that we may state the consequences of (C) by rules (H)-(I), if (C) is ordered after (F).

There are two main varieties of this type: 3.2I. The first variety, A, is characterized by the sharpness Of If, 3/ which is retained. After /c, s, z/, /e, i/ become /a, i/.

The data offered by our corpus indicate the stage /fe, Ji, 3e, 3i/ together with /Ca, sa, ZG, ci,C t, zt/ at points 334, 325, 3I6, 64 and 310 (Western Ardeal), but there is no clear evidence which will permit us to decide whether this stage is a conservative one or not. Only by corroboration of the data offered by Pop (I938), which, indeed, does not includethe same points asPetrovici, (I943), can we see that our points belong to the same area in which the stage with sharp /f', 3'/ is archaic (see our map I).

We can, therefore, infer that this dialect is characterized by the absence of rule (C). The full set of rules will be:

(A-B-E-F-H-I-J-K). 3.22. The second variety, B, is characterized by the loss of sharpness of f, 31 (C) and the change /e, i/ > /a, i/ after /c, s, z, f, 3/ (H-I).

Sometimes rule (C) is optional and we get fluctuations between /fe, fi, 3e, 3i/ and /fo, fi, 3a, 3i/. The effects of (C) are stated only by means of (H)-(I).

Therefore we may define variety B by the following set of rules: (A-B-E-F-C-H-I-J-K).

88




The dialect with which we are concerned is represented by: 365, 386, 414,

520, 55I, 537, 514, 53I, 574, 605 (Moldavia); 228, 2I9, 362, 353, 284, 250,

26o, 346, 272, 279, 349, 95, I02, 105, I4I (Ardeal). Some points belonging to Moldavian type B are characterized by the

presence of /jasa/ beside /jfide, fJrpe/ etc. (see ?I.24 above, points 2, 36, 53 (Banat) ).

If other, stronger evidence were found, we could provide for the chronology of these dialects a particular ordering of rules as follows. In order to obtain

/Jaisa/ together with /fa'de/ we must apply rules (H)-(I) twice: first BEFOR,E

rule (F) and before the deletion of /&/. In such a way rule (F) does not affect words like [mirea's&e] because /e/ after /&/ does not become /a/ by rules (H)-(I) which apply only within a morpheme. Second, AFTER the rule deleting /&/; under the above conditions, rules (H-I) can be applied to such forms as [mirese, invece] which then become [miresa, inveco].

Without any stronger evidence supporting this special ordering of rules, we think it is safer to regard points 2, 36, 53, together with 47 (where we find

/fapte/) and 27, 29, 76 (which belong approximately to the same area but do not show the 'diagnostic' word /fdisa/ or even /fJpte/) as loan forms coming from neighbouring Muntenian dialects. 3.3. In the dialect represented by point 833 rule (E) does not apply and therefore we get forms like [mea'sa], [mbjatk], [pomjaina] corresponding to [maisa, imbaita, poma'no] 'table', 'to get drunk' (pres. ind. 3rd pers. sg.), 'alms' from the other dialects.

Rule (C) does apply and it follows rule (F), as in the Moldavian type dialects; the change /e, i/ into /a, i/ after /f, 3/ is stated by rules (H) and (I). The ordering of (C) after (F) is supported only in a negative way by a form such as [Jfpte] 'seven'; this forrx proves that rule (C) cannot be ordered BEFORE (F), because, otherwise, we would expect [fipte]; in the particular case of [ffpte], [e] does not change into [a] after /f/, because it is protected by the /e/ from the following syllable; this contextual restriction in application of (I) is not specific for this dialect (see below ?3.4).

The whole set of rules characterizing this dialect is: (A-B-F-C-H-I-J-K).

3.4. We omitted point 836 from our classification because the corpus does not give enough evidence. In this dialect /J, 3/ are sharp and followed by /a,i /.

The phonemic structure of this dialect may be interpreted as a Muntenian type influenced by Moldavian type B (then /a, i/ occur after /f , 3'/ but did not change /a, i/ into /e, i/ after them).

Our description also has not dealt with all the details of the morphophonemic or phonemic structure. For instance, in some dialects belonging to the Moldavian type we find [Jfpte, fJde, sxeera] but [fad, Ji, sari] etc. That means these varieties of dialects have a supplementary rule which imposes a

89



cu OAA~~~~~~LA A A~jA A ALP? A A AA~

AAAA? AAA

A ~ ~ 0-

AAA (U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A

Q~bsin A A ~A O ? 0 AL A bef~~~A

A = b~~~~~~~~~~fin ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Map z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c

(basedon Pop A98

as2 3



Muntenian AH

- - j I ~~~~~~~~~~~Muntenian Bb 346

3 386 Muntenian Ba>

+ ~~~~~~362 414 Moldavian A :

121 -12 ~ 365o~Petrila>

27 272 5 1unassigned ' 1-4- ~~~~ ~~~260 21

316 ~~~~284 537 unmarked =Moldavian B + ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~228

+ S 1

53~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3

14 76

105~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

36 0 C

% 25~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7 2 5

tll

812 Ma2

Geographical repartition of DRum. dialects c




contextual restriction on rules (D), (I): before a syllable containing an /e/, rules (D) & (I) do not apply.

We also have not specified various phonetic realizations of the inflexion /i/, conditioned by the quality of the final consonants of the stem, i.e. the realiza- tion of /&i/ after /c, s, z, f, 3/.

It is obvious that an ever more refined classification could be reached in direct relation with the number and diversity of peculiarities taken into account. 3.5. The geographical location of the dialects described above is shown on map 2.

Theoretically, map 2 is supposed to agree in many respects with map I.

(i) The area marked by A of map i might be expected to cover the area of Muntenian A dialect of map 2.

(ii) The area marked by 0 of map i might be expected to cover the area of both Muntenian Ba- ahd Bb dialects (because these two subvarieties, Ba and Bb, cannot be distinguished by means of the data offered by map i).

(iii) The area marked by 0 of map i might be expected to cover the area of Moldavian A dialect of map 2.

(iv) The area marked by A of map i might be expected to cover the area of Moldavian B dialect.

As a matter of fact, maps i and 2 conflict in certain respects: (i) The SW and Central area in which dialect Moldavian A (marked by 0) is

supposed to be spoken, according to map i, is not represented on map 2.

(2) The whole Southern area in which Muntenian A (marked by A ) is supposed to be spoken, according to map i, is not represented on map 2.

The differences mentioned above must be explained in the following way: (a) The network of points included in map i is different from that of

points included in map 2: the former is based on maps 92 and 93 of Pop (1938), whereas the latter is based on Petrovici (I956). The villages in which the fieldwork was done for the two atlases are different. Under such conditions, the differences between the two maps could be interpreted as showing real dialectal differences.

(b) The network of Pop (I938) is more compact than the network of Petrovici (1956). Under such conditions, we may expect a more refined delimitation of dialects according to the data offered by a map based on the former. In such a way, we can explain why the narrow Moldavian A South- Western area and Central area (marked by 0 ) is not represented on map z; a quite similar explanation is required by the absence of the Muntenian A South- ern area from the map 2.

(c) Map 2 represents the geographical distribution of the data offered by texts (i.e. a large enough corpus from each point) whereas map i represents the geographical distribution of the various answers to a SINGLE QUESTION of the

92




fieldworker. The texts show in many cases vacillations between the old pronunciation and the innovating one. In such cases, one of the pronunciations may be more frequent than the other, and this situation may be described as the result of the optional application of a given rule. The dialectologist is in this case able to assign the dialect to a type, taking account at the same time of either pronunciation. Considering only the answer to a given question, this kind of vacillation may not be observed by the dialectologist or, at least, may not be represented on his map. If for instance, the fieldworker gets at question nr. X the answer [kamiaJ] from an informant, there is nothing to guarantee that the same informant does not use also forms like [ufe, ingri3i] etc.

Therefore, the two areas which are not represented on map 2 are not necessarily representatives of Muntenaian A (Southern Area) or of Moldavian A (SW and Central area). Map i does not guarantee that, if rule (G) does not apply to the form [bafina], it does not apply also to any word; it does not guarantee that if rule (C) does not apply to the form [beJina], it does apply to any word. In such a way, the two areas could belong either to Muntenian B (with optional rule (G)), or to Moldavian B (with optional rule (C), respec- tively).

The consideration of full texts (as against the consideration of a single answer to a given question) has enabled us to EVALUATE the data. For instance, at points I72 and 157 of map 2, we found a few times the form [fi] 'and', together with a very consistent distribution of [a, i] after [f, 3] (to the exclusion of /e, i/). We considered that this is not sufficient evidence to assign these points to Muntenian B. The pronunciation [fi] could be interpreted as simple influence of the neighbouring dialects (points I92, i82, 784, I30 belong to Muntenian B type); the fact that point 235 (which has no contact with dialects with sharp [f, 3]) is more consistent (it has no cases where a front vowel occurs after [f, 3]) supports our interpretation.

4. We are now able to represent our previous classification in a synthetic fashion, defining each dialect, variety and subvariety by means of a set of rules (examples are given in Tables 4-7):

Muntenian A : (A-B-C-D-E-F-H-I-J-K) Ba: (A-B-C-D-E-F-J-K-G-A) Bb: (A-B-C-D-E-F-H-I-J-K-G-A)

Moldavian A: (A-B-E-F-H-I-J-K) B: (A-B-E-F-C-H-I-J-K) 833: (A-B-F-C-H-I-J-K)

4.I. Rules (A-B-E-F-J-K) are common for all dialect types and varieties, except for point 833, where rule (E) is lacking.

93



Muntenian A fIs*d fiE*d f;a'*de kame'fs* befIf*ka miresa mirese inveca invece boteza boteze

A fled J'eda fe'de kameJfe befIika B - f'eada f eade kam6afIe - mir6asa mirease inveaca inv6ace boteaza boteaze C fed fJada f6ade kameafe befika - -

D Jad f6ada Jaade kameafa bef-ka E - kamaaJa baftka - tnvaca - - F - mirese invece boteze HI - - - miresa inveca boteza J - Jaada faade kamoaaf - mirea'sa invaaca- botetizaz-

0 K - fida fide kamfaJ - - - inva'ca - - -

Table 4 z

0 Muntenian Ba t

F Jad f6ada J6ade kamaf3a bafika mireasa mirese tnvaaca invece boteaza boteze J - faida faa'de kamaifa - mireasa - invaca, - boteiza - c K - Jida fade kmaf - - - invaca - - -

G fad fIAda f'Iade kamif4Y baf' -ka - -

A f'ed - - kama'e baf'k - - lQk

Muntenian Bb F Jad Jaada J6ade kamoafa baftka mireasa mirese tnv6aca tnvece boteaza boteze HI - - - - miresa, inveca - boteza J - faida faide kamaaif;a mireasa - invaica - boteaza -

K - fida fade kamifa - inva'c -

G g'ad fIadda fade kamafJI baf'tk - - - --

A f'ed kamaJ'e baf't ka

Table 5



0

Moldavian A 0 f I*d JI*do fI*de kame'f'* befIf*ka mirese mirese tnvece tnvece boteza boteze >

A f'ed f'6da f'ede kamef'e beJ'ik - - - - - - B - f'eada Jfeade kameaf'e mireasa mirease inveaca inveace boteaza boteaze Z E - - - - - - - inv6aca - - - F -JIe'ede kameJf'e - mirese - invece - boteze < HI- - miresa - invcca botezza

kz- f'ead - mireasa - invaaca - boteaiza -

K - nva'ca - z 0

Table 6 r 0 0

Moldavian B F f'ed J'eada f'ede J'else kameJ'e bef'ika mireasa mirese tnvwaca invece boteaza boteze n C fed f6ada Je6de fJse kamefe befika - - - - - - HI fad. f$ada Jfde Jfsa kamefa beftka - miresa - invecca boteza c J - J3ad3 - - -a- mirea's - invaa'c - botea'za - K- fid - - - - - invaca - Z

Table 7

r)




Muntenian dialects are characterized by the addition of rules (C) and (D), and Moldavian type dialects are all characterized by the ABSENCE of (D); one Moldavian variety is characterized by the presence of (C) and the other by its absence. When (C) is present, it is ordered (in contradistinction to Muntenian type dialects) after (F).

In Moldavian type dialects, rules (H-I) are always present, whereas in Muntenian type (H-I) characterize only some varieties.

The main Muntenian varieties are characterized by the PRESENCE VS. ABSENCE

of Rule (G), which, by its presence, determines the recursiveness of rule (A). Rule (G) never occurs in Moldavian type dialects. 4.2. The traditional historical approach to Rumanian phonetics and dialec- tology stated the relative chronology of the depalatalization of If, 3/ and the distinction, from this point of view, between Moldavian and Muntenian dialects. This chronology suggests to us the system of classification given above.

On the other hand, the relative chronology of the change /e, i/ > /a, i/ after /c, s, z/ as it was established by some scholars requires some clarification; we may not assume that, for instance, this change was common for DRum. dialects without getting into trouble. We should not attempt to explain, in such instances, WHY and HOW alternations such as /mireassa-mirese, invacca- invece, boteaza,boteze/ were kept, nor WHY and HOW the dialects which 'innovated' from /stngur, sari/ to /singur, seri/ never changed /so, sari, carm, ztna/ to /*se, *seri, *cerm, *zfina/.

The rules stated above suggest that the change /e, i/ > /a, i/ after /c, s, z/ in such words as /sin, c{ca, cars, cari, carm, zin~/ is old; these forms are common for both DRum. and non-DRum. dialects, but this has nothing to do with the present stage attested in many DRum. dialects. The present stage is the result of an OBLIGATORY application of rules (H-I) to ALL words and in ANY position, whereas the forms above mentioned must be explained by the OPTIONAL status of this rule which did not affect the inflexions in a very remote linguistic stage. Thus, we no longer need to say that the dialects in which rules (H-I) do not apply are innovating: they represent THE CONSERVATIVE

STAGE.

4.3. Our system of classification combines the traditional historical classification with the synchronic, distributional one in a system of ordered rules.

The generative approach seems to be more powerful than the purely historical one and more powerful even than the synchronic distributional one.

It is more powerful than the first because it does not limit itself to estab- lishing only WHEN a change occurred in relation to another, but its aim is the inference of all the STRUCTURAL consequences resulting from the different ordering in time of changes X and Y. In such a manner, the generative approach enables us to establish a direct and coherent relationship between historical

96




change and its synchronic implications. Relationships of this kind are not expressed in the traditional historical classification.

In contradistinction to the purely distributional approach, the generative approach enables us to set up a strong hierarchy among the different features considered. In purely distributional terms we might consider the Muntenian dialects whose morphophonemics do not contain the cycle A-I-K-G-A to be Moldavian dialects, because /J, 3/ are followed by /a, i/ and not by /e, i/; we may also say the Moldavian dialects whose morphophonemics does not include rules (C-D) are Muntenian dialects. But we are unable to assign in a non-arbitrary way to the Moldavian or Muntenian type those dialects which show fluctuations between /e, i/ and /a, i/ after /f, 3/ and therefore we must establish a third class of dialects, in which /e, i/ are in free variation with /a, t/. All these solutions are not INCORRECT but are less comprehensive than another, which takes into account the fact that there are Moldavian dialects where we can find /fad, f5zi, f6de/ and 'apparently' Moldavian dialects where we can find /fod, f6zi, faide/. In such cases how do we decide which criterion has to be chosen as primary and which as secondary: the distribution of /0, i/ and /e, i/ or the vocalic alternation pattern?

Our approach establishes an explicit hierarchy between these two criteria: THE ORDERING of the rule stating that the occurrence of /a, i/ after If, 3/ among the other rules is much more important than THE SUBSTITUTION of /a, i/ for /e, i/ in itself. According to this criterion we have classified the Moldavian A (which do not contain rule (C) ) with Moldavian B (which do contain rule (C) ) as together opposed to Muntenian type dialects in whose grammar rule (C) is located at a very high level.

We can say, in our case, that the generative approach is more powerful than the purely distributional since: (a) it enables us to establish a hierarchy among various criteria of classification; (b) according to this hierarchy we can put together dialects showing deeper morphophonemic identities (or only simi- larities) disregarding the more superficial distributional dissimilarities; the distributional differences are taken as secondary criteria of classification; (c) in terms of a generative model we can detect DIFFERENT RULES BEHIND

IDENTICAL DISTRIBUTIONS; mutatis mutandis, we can say that it is a specific case of describing (and defining) structural ambiguity by means of a generative model.

REFERENCES Densusianu, O. (1929; I938). Histoire de la Langue Roumaine, vol. i, Bucarest: Institutul

de Filologie ?i Folklor; vol. 2, Paris: Ernest Leroux. Fodor, J. A., & Katz, J. J. (i964). The Structure of Language: Readings in the Philosophy

of Language. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Halle, M. (I964a). On the bases of phonology. In Fodor & Katz (I964: 324-33). Halle, M. (I964b). Phonology in generative grammar. In Fodor & Katz (I964: 334-52).

97




Jakobson, R., Fant, C. G. M. & Halle, M. (1952). Preliminaries to Speech Analysis. Cambridge, Mass.; M.I.T. Press.

Petrovici, E. (I943). Texte dialectale. (Supplement to Atlasul Lingvistic Romdn, Vol.2.)

Leipzig: Sibiu. Petrovici, E. (I956). Atlasul Lingvistic Romdn, Serie Noua, vols. I & 2. Bucarest: Editura

Academici Republicii Socialiste Romania. Philippide, A. (I927). Originea Romdnilor, Vol. 2. Iasi: Tipografia 'Viata Romaneasca'. Pop, S. (1938). Micul Atlas Lingvistic Romdn, Partea 1. Cluj: Muzeul Limbii Romane. Rosetti, A. (I964). Istoria Limbii Romane, vols. I, 2, 3, 6. Bucuresti: Editura StiintificA.

98



Daco Romanian Phonology

Documents

Transcript of Daco Romanian Phonology