Re: [tied] Palatalization

From: m_iacomi
Message: 21812
Date: 2003-05-12

In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex_lycos" wrote:

>> Stop producing nonsensical links. Regional forms are by no
>> means older than regular ones and they are by no means signs
>> of mysterious conservation of PIE phonetism

You should save this phrase and keep it fresh in your memory
for any occasion in which you would be tempted to make amateurish
"judgements".

> labials becoming palatals?

So?! What's your problem? Things do happen.

> just an myserious accidentaly transformation which render the
> child word from PIE again to the same form of PIE root?

The hypothesis of PIE phonetism conservation by miracle only in
a very restricted area of DR-speaking area, whith regular forms
in all other regions, would be _by far_ more mysterious for any
person with decent scientifical background. When examples of
intermediate phonetism /pk'/ are atested in old Dacoromanian, your
allegations look even more ridiculous.

> take a look at "fio:" from PIE *bhu-iio: losing the "b" and the
> short "u" you get that curious "hiu"= fiu .
> I guess it is more here, not simple accidents...

Yes, it's not an accident. It's just deep ignorance combined
with wishful thinking. Do you have any idea about phonetical
meaning of [bh] and what are its' possible evolutions in IE?!
You just produce nonsenses already replied for which you forgot
the reply. The regional confusion between [f] and [h] has been
already exposed to you, and there is still no mistery (it's a
late Romanian confusion, since [h] was reinstated in local
Romance by first Slavic loanwords and it appears in Latin words
like "fir/hir", "fier/h(i)er", etc.).

Cheers,
Marius Iacomi