Re: [tied] Re: the bee

Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:42:14 +0200, alex_lycos <altamix@...>
> wrote:
>
>> Hmmm.. I have a question regarding Slavic "nevolja"
>> the word in Rom. is the same as in Albanian , meaning "nevoie"= need
>> There are tough the following words:
>> nevolnic, nevolnicie, but too nevoiash, nevoit
>> I ask myself if the words whithout "l" are from Slavic or not since
>> there it seems to be a construct like:
>> ne+voie
>> Voie= wish. DEX gives "voie"= frm slavic "volja"
>> In the same time, DEX gives "nevolnic" from slavic "nevolinU" or
>> "ne" +" volnic"
>> There is also the word "volnic" in Rom. which is from slavic "
>> volinU"
>
> volInikU -> vol'nik
>
>> So, there are two posiblities:
>
> There's only one. All these words are from Slavic. Palatalized /l^/
> was borrowed as plain /l/ before a consonant (volnic), as /l^/ > /y/
> between vowels
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...

And what do you do with "voinic", "voinicie", "voinicime" ?
In the same manner if the "voie" was loaned from Slavic "volja" then
what to do with:
voios, voioSie, anevoios, învoioSa?
I guess it is seen as slavic "volja " < voia - seen as with article and
from this "voia" was reconstructed an unarticulated form "voie". This
should be the one posibility. But there is the verb " a voi" = to want
which is used by making the future too. There is not the " a vrea" but "
a voi".voi, vei, va, vom, veti, vor.
Is this too see as being all of the same Slavic "volja"? do not forget
that is the grammar structure and it is said the only one influence from
Slavic in grammar should be maybe the vocative in /o/. The future with
" a voi" should be from what then?