>that doesn't work. The solution of Mr Iacomi looks moreBesides, in western regions of Transylvania, the
>plausible since loosing the "n" from "unã" there is an
>"uã" which is more like "o".
>2)Accepting the palatalisation of "ll" there mustThese transformations of the [l] are so that one
>be a kind of "i" there,instead of "ll", it cannot
>be lost in the air.
>And indeed there is one,we see it in the conjugationiau, iei, ia don't contain any [i], but the semivowel [j]
>of the verb to take (a lua< Letin levare):
>iua, iei, ia, luãm, luaTi, iau, conjunctiv. "sa ia",
>with dialectal form "sã ieie".
>What seems very curious is the "u" here for 1 & 2 pl:Why curious? These are very close to the infinitive
>noi luãm, voi luaTi.
>I wonder wherefrom come this "u" since in "levare" is noRemember: "levare" was actually [leware] (or, in your
>"u" accepting the "v" dropped down.