Re: [tied] Basilica

m_iacomi wrote:

> No. It isn't. The first /i/ is a late creation in Dacoromanian
> and in Aromanian "bisearicã". Also Aromanian is "bãsearicã", or
> even "bâsearicâ". In ancient Dacoromanian texts one has "besericã",
> "bãsearecã", "bisearecã". In Meglenoromanian: "bãsericã" and in
> Istroromanian: "bãserike". So the Common Romanian form hadn't any
> /i/ in the first syllable, but an /&/, regular result of Latin
> unstressed /a/ as the first one in "basilica". Later developements
> are not relevant for what happened before Common Romanian split.
>
> Cheers,
> Marius Iacomi
>

The first /i/ is a Late creation in DacoRomanian AND in Aromanian you
say.
The meglenoromanian and istroromanian /ã/ can be from a form with /e/ as
in the dialectal form beserica since usual /e/ > /ã/
It won't explain the /i/ and I don't belive in a separate invoation in
Dacoromanian and Aromanian , both of them making individualy in /i/
there. And you try to put the inverse way /a/ > /ã/ > /e/ > /i/ which
seems pure speculative.

Alex