Re: -kol- and -kWel-

>The problem which I have is that I stil am very convinced that
>kW & gW > c^i and g^i in Rom. when followed by front
>wovels and "kW" > "p" and "gW" > "b" when followed by
>other vowels. And here is my problem.

Maybe, the gentlemen you mentioned will explain, I can't.

>One has to recognise that that in Rom. speaking about
>demonstrative pronoun the end "-cela" for singular means
>"far". A person who is present is "this2 aka "ãsta", "acesta",
>"aista". A person who is not present, which is "far" temoraly
>or spatialy is denominated with "acela","ãla", thus the root
>kWel- will fit very well my ecuation for demonstrative pronouns.

I don't understand a iota. <ala, cela, acela> simply mean
"that" or better "that one" (that guy, that animal, that thing).
Whereas <asta, aista, ista, acesta> means "this" + "this one."
Or: "jener, jene, jenes + der, die, das" vs. "dieser, diese,
dieses."

>Instead of this one has "colo" < *kWol. Which should be
>the way? Why not *polo but colo ?

Honestly, I don't know. But I assume it's so for the same
reason why Italians also utter a [k], not a [p], in the wording
that correponds to the Romanian "vino'ncoa'." Therefore, I
assume the <aqua> v. <apa> model won't fit here.

>Alex

George

--
NEU FÜR ALLE - GMX MediaCenter - für Fotos, Musik, Dateien...
Fotoalbum, File Sharing, MMS, Multimedia-Gruß, GMX FotoService

Jetzt kostenlos anmelden unter http://www.gmx.net

+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More! +++