[tied] Re: a, nu...

In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, hands of "alex" wrote without him:

>> Funny to see you writing down words you don't understand, as
>> "nonsense". The stem was stressed for both Albanian roots. In
>> order to explain Romanian "bãtrân" through "*vét-" (note the
>> position of the stress) you have to make a lot of unrealistic
>> assumptions, including stress dislocation. Nobody can take
>> seriously in consideration your hypothesis since other Romance
>> derivatives indicate crystal clear words' origin.
>
> Funny to see you doing so as you nothing now.
> In order to follow the stress change in Romanian you ought to
> remember that the suffix "takes" the stres on itself. So, you
> are right, indeed, there was an "vét-" which trough suffixation
> (as expected) lost the stress: vét +ui > vetúi > vãtúi

Please, do me a favor and read. Read what the text was about:
"In order to explain Romanian "bãtrân" through "*vét-" [...]".

Now read what's your supposed "answer" about: "[...] vét +ui >
vetúi > vãtúi".

Now compare both.
Then start thinking.
It really helps.

Cheers,
Marius Iacomi