Re: [tied] family ( it was a question...)

Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

>
> However, the tendency to eliminate unstressed non-initial, non-final
> vowels in general had already started to work before the split between
> Western and Eastern Romance, and in a number of cases the patterns /--
> and -/-- had already been reduced to /- and -/-. This had happened
> when the unstressed vowel occurred before an /l/ (oc(u)lu, auric(u)la,
> tab(u)la), between /r/ or /l/ and a following /p/, /t/, /d/ or /m/
> (vir(i)de, col(a)pu), or between /s/ and /t/ (pos(i)tu). In short,
> when elimination of the vowel resulted in a consonant cluster which
> already existed in the language (cl, bl, rd, lp, st in the examples
> above)
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...

I am just very contraried by the fact that all these transformations
which "took place" worked in a way to put there a form of the words more
appropiate to older forms as to Latin word in many cases.
Even in the example you gace now, take please a look:
eye= latin oculus, diminutivalform from *ocus
After all these transformations you got in Romanian "oki"
take a look please at the forms:
*ocus
*oke-je for osse

How should one not be contrariate by such facts?