Re: [tied] Re: alb. gji

On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 23:04:39 +0100, "alex_lycos" <altamix@...>
wrote:

>Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>>
>> We've been over this a hundred times before and you've still made no
>> prpogress at all. One last time..
>>
>>> linum > lin
>>
>> long i:
>
>It doesn't matter anymore your long or short /i/ here.

Sure it matters /i:/ gives /i/, short /i/ gives /e/.

>> Nonsense. The rules are that after labial, s-, Cr- an /e/ before /n/
>> (/nC/) becomes î. After labial and before -u, an /E/ before /nC/ also
>> becomes /î/ (but /i/ in non-Daco-Romanian)
>
>Now we are speaking about in > ân ( outgoing point stringere > strânge).
>An /in/ in PBR should be just an old Latin /i:/ which remained /i/ and
>nothing more. Since here is not the case, we have to see the short /i/
>which became /E/

/e/

[snip confusion]

>My dear, indirectly you agree that vitella and vitellus cannot give Rom.
>viTea and viTel .In both of them there is not a long /i/ so the PBR
>forms
>should be vEtellus, vEtella.

There is no /E/ in an unstressed syllable!

The West Romance form (Cat. vedella, Fre. veau) points to vitella,
with short /i/ giving /e/. In Italian and Romanian, unstressed /e/ in
pretonic position often gives /i/. As I've said before.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...