Re: [tied] -ella ( it was Balkan Serpents (was: alb. gji (breast)

m_iacomi@... wrote:

> In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex_lycos" <altamix@...> wrote:
>
>>> There is no reason to speculate about potential conservation
>>> of Latin -ll- in Romanian since the phonetical evolution is
>>> fully sustained by Aromanian and archaic Daco-Romanian form
>>> (-eawã) in enough many words
>>
>> There is a very big reason Mr. Iacomi
>
> No
>
>> Hint: remember Florin Piersic? Mãrgelatule........
>
> *margellatus > mãrgelat could be as regular as macella:rius >
> mãcelar since:
> 1. we don't deal with final -ella (the one affected by the above
> mentioned transformation) but with internal -ella-
> 2. the stress is on /a/ not on /e/ in this case, so the phonetic
> conditions are basically different
> Anyway, there is no need to infer a "*margellatus": the word
> "mãrgelat" (`with beads`) describes a person which possesses
> several "mãrgele" (`beads`), so the the correct derivation
> should be from the plural form, with conservation of /l/.
>
> Cheers,

hehe
ok

If the roots are margea and stea you will do not derive as follow:
margelat , stelat, instelat
The feminine name Stela should be maybe put as an argumentum here.

But let us take a look:
macellarius has nothing to do with margea since you have in romanian
"mãcelar"

but let us take another derivatives:
margeluSa= little bead
there is not a suffix "luSa" but the suffix "uSa"

stelutsa = there is no suffix "lutsa" but suffix "utsa"

People, it should be enough for a demonstration don't you find? Do I
have to come with more examples?