Evolution, Answer

Miguel, it took me long time not due missing the examples but due
the lack in seeing which are the real factors which works for
palatalization in romanian language.I tried to find them out but
it seems I need more time for it.
It seems that a such challenge is not easy to break, I have no ideea how
long it will take to me for finding it out, if ever i will find them
out.

A second point is the big amount of romanian words which are supposed to
come from latin where the latin word is missing, in this case , the
latin word beeing reconstructed. In these cases there is almost
imposible to say if there has been a long or a short wovel: therefore
I was obligged to do not use these words in examples.

I will give some examples of words which I cannot use

---------------------------------
atsipi,atsâtsa, tsâtsã, zbura,dumica, defãima,aStepta, ascutsi,
amortsi,amutsi, arSita, putsi etc.
---------------------------------

It doesnt make any sense to put them here since they cannot be used.

Piotr meant I "clone" my data giving a lot of examples with the same
patern; I will try to reduce the number of examples and I will try to
avoid the similar paterns in examples.

Further, I dont discuse the semantic differences because here we speak
just about fonological changes and the semantism doesnt play a clue for
our problem.

I did not used words where for I could not find the latin cognates in my
latin dictionary for seeing where was a long or a short wovel in the
searched word.Unfortunately in DEX the latin worda are given without
short
or long sign, so I was unable to take them in examples.

I will give you examples now from words which dont fallow the rules.
Just to remember:
- inherited words
- long /i/
- /i/+vowel
- short /e/ if not fallowed by a nasal like "m" or "n"


So here we have some examples:

------------------------------------
dignus > demn, signus > semn, deradicare > deretica,
erdicare > ridica, ad-depositum > adãpost,pedester > pedestru,
dedere > deda, procedere > purcede, petiolus > picior,
catella > cãtzea ,ordire > urzi,tenere > tsine,rapide > repede,
nitidus>neted, puteus > puts, etc.
------------------------------------

Even the latin sufixes dont fallow the rules:
rom "tS"0 affricated "c" like in "cheese"

----------------------------
-tiosus>-tSios
-atio, itio -onis > tSiune
----------------------------

If you think the example are not enough, they are not elocvent enough,
please let me know, I will prepare a bigger/better list.
The examples here shows that the rules are not properly. Not because of
these rules is the soundshift in romanian. Let alone the fact we analyse
here just a few words which are supposed to come from latin but not the
majority of the words where we have the soundshift in words with
"unknown etymology".

I have the feeling that this is one of the big secrets of the rom.
lang. The palatation of the words.
We see there the "satemism" in rendering the derivates, even in the so
called latin words. Example:

to melk= a mulge, participium ="muls", adj. sing " muls", adj. pl "
mulSi", subst. "mulsoare"

Miguel, I want to say thank you to you. Due your assertion, due the
fact you made me search I could observe very interesting aspects of
rendering in some "classes" of the words, but they need to be proved in
almost every case for beeing sure there is indeed a 100% rule.I am sure
there is a lot to find out what about.

best regards,

Alex