Re: [tied] Re: the bee

Miguel Carrasquer wrote regarding the volja versus volnic

>
> What's the problem?

the loaning of the words once with "l" and once without "l". There is
the problem. BTW. Tell me please, how many syllables do you have in
Sevilla?

>
>> I guess it is seen as slavic "volja " < voia - seen as with article
>> and from this "voia" was reconstructed an unarticulated form "voie".
>
> In Romanian, -ia > -ie

when /ie/ followed by /ã/ no other way.

>
>> 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?
>
> Latin of course!
>

Look Miguel. The rom regular verb "a vrea" = to want is given as coming
from Latin *volere.

You mean the verb " a voi" is from Latin too. DEX means that the verb "a
voi"= regresive derivate from "voie".
"Voie" is given as from Slavic "volja". In this case "a voi" cannot be
from Latin as you mean.

now, I guess you see why my question regarding this loan with "l" and
without "l".
And if there is "volnic" from Slavic "volnik" there is "celnic" as Piotr
said, this one should be too Slavic, that whould mean there are the
loans from Slavic with "l".
On another hand the "volja" should have been loaned as "voie" but
"boala"= sickness = from Slavic "bolI".
I don't get the period of time when it could have been made these loans,
once with "l" , once without "l". DO you have any idea?