Re: [tied] Re: *gwistis

----- Original Message -----
From: "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 5:01 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: *gwistis


> > As a matter of curiosity, how do you know this?
>
> He doesn't, he thinks he does. It isn't.

[Moeller] well explain me the form of deSti in rom and giSt in
albanian with the same "St" of your latin digitus. Did in
albanian gi from latin went too St?

> >> Any idea how to explain that? ( ge >de)
>
> No need to.

[Moeller] well, for you sure, no need to.

>
> > Latin digitus seems to be exactly the sort of word that
would
> > syncopate, digitus > *digtus > *dictus. However, I am not
sure
> > that it did, for while French doigt - the g' has been
silent since
> > it was re-introduced - is consistent with vulgar Latin
*dictus, I
> > would expect Spanish *decho, not dedo as we actually have.
>
> From Latin to Romance languages, intervocalic -g- would
usually
> disappear, already in CIL we have <trienta> instead of
<triginta>,
> <vinti> instead of <viginti>, <Austa> instead of <Augusta>,
etc.;

[Moeller] I understand from your opinion that CIL is the
reflection of the language of the folks from Roman empire.
Have you ever comparade the latest inscription found from
severalparts of Roman Empire? just to compare with the
languages of the neo latin languages and to see with your eyes
the linguistics data of " separating " of the romance language
from latin? have you seen the differecnes there? There is
still "latin" in the inscriptions at the time when normaly
from lingusitic data, there are already neo romanic languages.
I should be very carefully when I will argue with this hot
stuff..

> Appendix Probi, 12: calcostegis non calcosteis.
Palatalized -g-
> was more resistent in peripheral Romance languages (as
Romanian)
> or in loanwords from Latin. Normally this would explain the
fact
> we have conserved (palatalized) -g- in Romanian <deget> (see
also
> Sardinian <dighitale> < digitale;

[Moeller]ah, again sardinian? well, if not spain nor portugal,
nor french nor italian,nor retoromanish, then at least
sardinian.....

> but <didu> < digitus); also
> <i^nger> (/1ndZer/) < angelus, <ager> (/adZer/) < *agilus
(=agilis),
> <lege> (/ledZe/) < legem, etc.. French "g" in spelling is
due only
> to Medieval Latin influence on "l'orthographe du Francais":
it's a
> matter of common knowledge in France that many spellings
with no
> phonetical relevance were introduced due to cultivated Latin
(see
> for instance <temps> with an useless final "s", never
pronounced).>
> > The alternative evolutionary path is to drop the /g/ and
merge
> > the vowels.
>
> Which is actually the case.
[Moeller]
but Angelo in italian, Giovani in italian to, originale in
italian, original in french, with a good preservation of "g"..
well.. that is life..

>