Re: [tied] sunt & sint [Re: a help...]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] sunt & sint [Re: a help...]


On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 20:56:49 +0200, George S t a n a
<gs001ns@...> wrote:


This is plain silly. Nobody knows how "they are" was said in
Daco-Thracian
(note that Vinereanu also avoids giving a specific form). The
Skt. for "they
are" is <sánti>, not *<santhi>. It is not true that rounded
vowels never become
unrounded in Romanian (u > i after palatalized consonant:
[in]clu:do: >
[in]kl^ud > Arom. kl^id, Rom. închid). The form sînt (old
Rom: sîntu) is indeed
unexpected, but Aromanian has <suntu>, as expected (is
Vineranu implying that
Aromanian is Romance, but Romanian not?). For <sînt(u)>,
Bourciez suggests
influence from Slavic <so~t(U)> "they are", which I guess is
possible.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...


[Moeller] Miguel, would you please make the difference between
the supposed _inherited_ words from latin and new loans?
If you will tell me include is a inherited word I go drink
tonight:-))))