m_iacomi wrote:
>> there is one, absolutely no one example of Latin /e:/ becoming in
>> Rom. "ei".
>
> It is not the /e:/ which becomes /ei/ (actually [ey]), but the
> final -s who does that.
So italian tre < *trei < tre:s ; Italain re < *rei < re:s (rex); that
will mean the final "s" was not mute but it became "i" (phoneticaly very
easy to explain I guess, since one can explain even ll > u); more, after
e:s > ei, Italian and Vegliote acted independently, one ( Italian )
having ei > e and Vegliote having ei > a.
So appears from what you sustain here.
So far I know even for vegliote as for Italian the explanation is this
way:
Latin final "s" became mute, thus italian
re < *res (rex), tre < tres
The same for vegliote where one must add that Latin e: > a , thus
tres > *tre > tra;
rex > *res > ra.
Now I wonder which rule is the correct one here.
The one where you mean that /e:s/ > /ei/ or the one of /e:/, /e/ > PR
/e/
Alex