Re: [tied] Re: -ishte, -eshte

----- Original Message -----
From: "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 9:49 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: -ishte, -eshte


alexmoeller@... wrote:

You have. Even in Bucharest some uneducated people prefer to
use the form "dă$kide".

[Moeller] daschide = YES da$chide= NO. I am afraid some people
from George's subdialect were the people you heard speaking
with "sh". In Bucharest are a lot of people from every part of
the country, and a lot from other countries too:-)


>
> [Moeller] I dont put any dacian words here. I just observe
the
> inconcordances . And the word grevis doesnt exist in latin.

Try to convince Catalans that "greu" (same spelling &
meaning)
doesn't come from vernacular Latin *grevis.

[Moeller] I dont try to convinge no one but myself.And grevis
is not gravis. I have no ideea if for other romance language
is grevis the form or gravis the form. In italian is gravo, in
french grave. I dont know in spanish and protugal. But in the
2 I know about is an "a" and not an "e". So is it. With a:-)


> It was "re-modeled" after levis. That is all. Is there for
french
> , spain, portugal the same grevis ? Or the "re-modelation"
was
> made just for romanian?

You may try also for Occitan "greu/greva".

[Moeller] Yeap. I told once, i say once again
"Meyer-Lübcke-demonstration"
You will compare 7 language and there you will find something
like in romanian. And of course you will be the one who means
he is right. I dont bother with that. I am very OK. There are
too much others there which need a properly explanation. And
of course, a bit latin is not bad, is it?Every language has a
bit latin. Sure romanian has it too:-))))